Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

It must be fact, unless you are saying that the claiments have thousands in savings and are still getting their mortgage paid.

So you are saying that unless you can save hundreds of pound a year you shouldn’t buy a house, if that's the case I would add that you shouldn’t rent a house if you can't pay the rent and save the same.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

It must be fact, unless you are saying that the claiments have thousands in savings and are still getting their mortgage paid.

it must be fact - i read it on this forum

more tittle tattle

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well this is just going to go round and round as no ones actually willing to discuss the actual fairness issue. Just willing to pull people up for wanting people chucked out of their homes, and just willing to state what it's for. Anything touching on disucssing the problems and fairness issues simply will not be discussed.

This has been discussed before.

Someone pointed out the issue was that the mortgage company should calculate the exact interest payment as they are the ones who give the figures to the government any way.

The government should pay the interest only up £200k and no more. At the moment it's due to the incompetence of the DWP that they are and have been paying more.

The government i.e. tax payer then wouldn't be paying the capital on someone's mortgage.

That way those who are in a situation where they look like they may be on SMI for a long time can actually try and get a buyer for their property.

Speaking to some EAs a couple of weeks ago the issue at the moment is that houses aren't selling, or in the case of a house I've watched over the past 2.5 years taking a long time. (It actually took a year to sell. )

ILW

ukcarper wrote: »

So you are saying that unless you can save hundreds of pound a year you shouldn’t buy a house, if that's the case I would add that you shouldn’t rent a house if you can't pay the rent and save the same.

I would say that if you take out out mortgage that leaves you unable to save anything, you should have bought a cheaper property. That is unless you work on the basis that if anyting goes a bit wrong then others will beail you out.

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

I would say that if you take out out mortgage that leaves you unable to save anything, you should have bought a cheaper property. That is unless you work on the basis that if anyting goes a bit wrong then others will beail you out.

What if you have bought the cheaper property

ILW

ukcarper wrote: »

What if you have bought the cheaper property

Obviously not cheap enough.
Just being able to get the mortgage and scrape the payment every month, does not necessarily mean you can afford to buy that particular place.
I believe it is a relatively recent thing where buying is based on how big a mortgage someone is prepared to give.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

StevieJ wrote: »

That's why Ashley has a blue shirt on now.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Obviously not cheap enough.
Just being able to get the mortgage and scrape the payment every month, does not necessarily mean you can afford to buy that particular place.
I believe it is a relatively recent thing where buying is based on how big a mortgage someone is prepared to give.

the average multiple is somewhere near 3.5 times income, pretty much the same as always - so no.

ukcarper

Every time I have bought I would have struggled to save anything I suppose I could have just rented all my life and now I'm retired claimed LHA instead of just living in the house I now owned.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

the average multiple is somewhere near 3.5 times income, pretty much the same as always - so no.

So why is it impossible to put by an emergency fund?