Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

[Deleted User]

mitchaa wrote: »

The average SVR as it is just now is well below the 6.08%. FACT

I have already been through this, a parent with a child under 7, can quit his/her job today and claim income support tomorrow. This isn't really that difficult to understand

You also state JSA claimants ''can be sanctioned'' Yes they can be but if they have half a brain cell there are ways around giving up work and not being sanctioned. As to remortgaging, why would they have needed to when the SVR has been so low?

As to rights and wrongs, it's probably wrong that some wont have their interest part met but yet then again it is equally as wrong that some have been reducing their capital at the taxpayers expense over the last 20mths or so.

As I stated before, be grateful for the benefits you receive. If the state were supporting me, I'd at least show a little appreciation and stop the whinging.

you have NO idea what benefits i do or dont receive or if im appreciative of them or not:mad:,as for whinging you won that award weeks ago !
as for smi you make far too many assumptions whilst i stick to dealing in facts,you dont even address the subject of capital repayments and you sweep aside the FACT that the average svr is now almost 5%,and for many on longer term benefits this may well be higher.
this crazy decision by this stupid govt will lead to real people losing real homes,it will also add to the downward pressure on house prices as an estimated 45,000 homes go on the market,a market thats already flooded with homes for sale
you also seem to fail to acknowledge the FACT that for some people from January 2011 SMI ill stop dead.

[Deleted User]

silvercar wrote: »

If we are talking about unfairness. The Time article says the government will bring in legislation if necessary so that the mortgage interest rate drops to 3.63% of someone is claiming SMI. All to avoid repossession. So if you are out of work on benefits, your mortgage deal doesn't count and you can have a lower rate instead. Whereas if you pay the mortgage yourself, you get the deal you have signed up to.

"It’s not right that mortgage lenders are charging high street prices when they are guaranteed bulk payments from the Government,” Lord Freud said. “They borrow money at a reduced rate all the time, so I know there is scope to average winners and losers in a way which is viable to them and would protect claimants against repossession.”
The minister said that he might bring forward legislation should the voluntary approach fail. “I would much prefer to do it through voluntary agreement than through legislation,” he said."

that aint gonna happen!
what would make sense would be to revert to the late 90s position where the dwp paid the interest rate charged to individual borrowers and not a general one rate covers all position

ILW

woodbine wrote: »

this crazy decision by this stupid govt will lead to real people losing real homes,it will also add to the downward pressure on house prices as an estimated 45,000 homes go on the market,a market thats already flooded with homes for sale
you also seem to fail to acknowledge the FACT that for some people from January 2011 SMI ill stop dead.

So to sum up,
People who cannot afford to pay for the property they live in may have to move out.

House prices may stop increasing at the ridiculous rate that they have over the last decade or so.

Sounds about how things should be to me.

silvercar

woodbine wrote: »

that aint gonna happen!
what would make sense would be to revert to the late 90s position where the dwp paid the interest rate charged to individual borrowers and not a general one rate covers all position

That's what they said they want to happen. My guess would be that to avoid any legislation forcing lenders to reduce interest rates to the SMI rate for claimants, the lenders agree not to repossess anyone claiming SMI.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

That's what they said they want to happen. My guess would be that to avoid any legislation forcing lenders to reduce interest rates to the SMI rate for claimants, the lenders agree not to repossess anyone claiming SMI.

The banks will just add the lost interest to the mortgage, in fees.

What about those who aren't getting the full interest paid by SMI because they MEWed?

Wasn't/isn't there a loophole where some of those who want the SMI benefit, still have to wait 39 weeks?

mitchaa

woodbine wrote: »

you have NO idea what benefits i do or dont receive or if im appreciative of them or not:mad:,as for whinging you won that award weeks ago !
as for smi you make far too many assumptions whilst i stick to dealing in facts,you dont even address the subject of capital repayments and you sweep aside the FACT that the average svr is now almost 5%,and for many on longer term benefits this may well be higher.
this crazy decision by this stupid govt will lead to real people losing real homes,it will also add to the downward pressure on house prices as an estimated 45,000 homes go on the market,a market thats already flooded with homes for sale
you also seem to fail to acknowledge the FACT that for some people from January 2011 SMI ill stop dead.

Let the government apply a levy on house sale then? Can you not see why people are aggrieved? The taxpayer has a responsibility to house those that cannot afford to house themselves, fine, but do they really have a responsibility to contribute to someones wealth?

This stupid government:rotfl:Stop and think !!!!!!, do you really think it has been cost effective for them to overpay mortgages? As to 45k homes going onto the market, talk about assumptions What a lot of nonsense, 53% of claimants are over 60 for 1. You can only assume 99% of these will have considerable amount of equity in their homes. As to the others, where are your 45k homes coming from? Link to this please.

Your views are very biased because you are an SMI recipient, you simply cannot see the opinions of others due to your own blinkered views. Give yourself a shake.

The average SVR is currently around 4.75% from this link valid 2mths ago (http://www.mortgagerates.org.uk/news/svr-2/) ISMI should be placed around here in my opinion, but they should have been set at 3-4% instead of 6.1% as they have been over the last 20mths or so aswell so it's swings and roundabouts.

Some will stop receiving SMI in 2011 and good bloody job as they have clearly been taking the pis*. There is absolutely no excuse for unemployment lasting 2yrs or more. None whatsoever. If the 2yr limit was not in place, you would have career claimants trapped on benefits. Due to your blinkered vision and constant whinging you clearly cannot see this is indeed a very good well thought out limitation. Trap someone on benefits for life or do something about it and impose limitations, hmm, remind me why this is a bad move?

If I were lazy, bone idle and unemployed for more than 2yrs, there is not a hope in hell I would expect to keep the roof and the wealth over my head so why should other JSA claimants? When are people going to start taking responsibility for themselves and not rely on others to do it for them? When you start contributing to the pot, I will hold your opinion with more validity, until you do, you're just another ungrateful spiteful benefit claimant.

mitchaa

silvercar wrote: »

That's what they said they want to happen. My guess would be that to avoid any legislation forcing lenders to reduce interest rates to the SMI rate for claimants, the lenders agree not to repossess anyone claiming SMI.

The government have very little control over the banks, just look at the banking bonus culture for example, they have pleaded numerous times with the banks but still there are bankers receiving 7 figure bonuses.

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

If we are talking about unfairness. The Time article says the government will bring in legislation if necessary so that the mortgage interest rate drops to 3.63% of someone is claiming SMI. All to avoid repossession. So if you are out of work on benefits, your mortgage deal doesn't count and you can have a lower rate instead. Whereas if you pay the mortgage yourself, you get the deal you have signed up to.

"It’s not right that mortgage lenders are charging high street prices when they are guaranteed bulk payments from the Government,” Lord Freud said. “They borrow money at a reduced rate all the time, so I know there is scope to average winners and losers in a way which is viable to them and would protect claimants against repossession.”
The minister said that he might bring forward legislation should the voluntary approach fail. “I would much prefer to do it through voluntary agreement than through legislation,” he said."

Like all reduced tarrifs, the cost will just fall onto others who do pay it.

Doubt it will happen though in all honesty.

[Deleted User]

mitchaa wrote: »

Let the government apply a levy on house sale then? Can you not see why people are aggrieved? The taxpayer has a responsibility to house those that cannot afford to house themselves, fine, but do they really have a responsibility to contribute to someones wealth?

This stupid government:rotfl:Stop and think !!!!!!, do you really think it has been cost effective for them to overpay mortgages? As to 45k homes going onto the market, talk about assumptions What a lot of nonsense, 53% of claimants are over 60 for 1. You can only assume 99% of these will have considerable amount of equity in their homes. As to the others, where are your 45k homes coming from? Link to this please.

Your views are very biased because you are an SMI recipient, you simply cannot see the opinions of others due to your own blinkered views. Give yourself a shake.

The average SVR is currently around 4.75% from this link valid 2mths ago (http://www.mortgagerates.org.uk/news/svr-2/) ISMI should be placed around here in my opinion, but they should have been set at 3-4% instead of 6.1% as they have been over the last 20mths or so aswell so it's swings and roundabouts.

Some will stop receiving SMI in 2011 and good bloody job as they have clearly been taking the pis*. There is absolutely no excuse for unemployment lasting 2yrs or more. None whatsoever. If the 2yr limit was not in place, you would have career claimants trapped on benefits. Due to your blinkered vision and constant whinging you clearly cannot see this is indeed a very good well thought out limitation. Trap someone on benefits for life or do something about it and impose limitations, hmm, remind me why this is a bad move?

If I were lazy, bone idle and unemployed for more than 2yrs, there is not a hope in hell I would expect to keep the roof and the wealth over my head so why should other JSA claimants? When are people going to start taking responsibility for themselves and not rely on others to do it for them? When you start contributing to the pot, I will hold your opinion with more validity, until you do, you're just another ungrateful spiteful benefit claimant.

the link you supply is rubbish as it includes low fixed rate and trackers,its not a representation of svr`s in general,the 45,000 figure assumes that 20% of those on SMI will have to sell a figure that is borne out by posts all over the internet,and perhaps you have a link to show that those over 60 have a large amount of equity?they are just as likely to have large mortgages.
the last tory govt "gaveaway"large chunks of social housing btw

ILW

woodbine wrote: »

the link you supply is rubbish as it includes low fixed rate and trackers,its not a representation of svr`s in general,the 45,000 figure assumes that 20% of those on SMI will have to sell a figure that is borne out by posts all over the internet,and perhaps you have a link to show that those over 60 have a large amount of equity?they are just as likely to have large mortgages.
the last tory govt "gaveaway"large chunks of social housing btw

How can anyone over sixty still have a large mortgage unless they have taken out further borrowing against the property?