Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

nearlynew

woodbine wrote: »

why should it apply if someone suddenly finds they are too sick to work,or lose their jobs in an area of high unemployment?
this is the uk still one of the worlds richest nations,we have a welfare state to which we all pay into when able to,not some 3rd world african dump

what?

contractual obligations shouldn't apply in rich nations?

is that what you're saying?

ILW

So the taxpayers that are renting are being forced to help buy others houses for them. Seems wrong to me. Would be fairer if the SMI had to be repaid, possibly with a charge on the property.

Graham_Devon

woodbine wrote: »

why should it apply if someone suddenly finds they are too sick to work,or lose their jobs in an area of high unemployment?
this is the uk still one of the worlds richest nations,we have a welfare state to which we all pay into when able to,not some 3rd world african dump

This is getting a little silly. You can't just forever give out SMI payments, and then just hand the house over to the recipient of SMI when the taxpayer has paid for it.

As I said earlier, should all credit card debts be paid for someone? Should all car loans be paid for someone?

If so, why is anyone bankrupt? The state should be bailing out everyone and we should all be racking up credit like crazy with no comeback on the problems faced down the line.

I'm off to get the car I always wanted. Least I won't lose it if I can't work or lose any income. You lot can pay for it....I'll keep the one I got now so that I don't put too many miles on the new car on the loan, and when you have paid the loan off for me, will still be worth a pretty penny.....cheers fellas!

nearlynew

My debt-junkiemeter has just gone into the red.

silvercar

nearlynew wrote: »

People relying on SMI have something in common with priced out FTBs - neither can afford to buy a house.


why should one group be favoured over another?

Its about keeping people in their homes not favouring one group.

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

Its about keeping people in their homes not favouring one group.

So what about the people who don't have homes, because they can't afford them?

They are very much like the people who are kept in their homes through taxpayer support who also can't afford them.

ILW

silvercar wrote: »

Its about keeping people in their homes not favouring one group.

Try telling that to a family on an AST with a whole 6 months of security.

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

Its about keeping people in their homes not favouring one group.

You're too intelligent to believe that, silvercar.

[Deleted User]

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is getting a little silly. You can't just forever give out SMI payments, and then just hand the house over to the recipient of SMI when the taxpayer has paid for it.

As I said earlier, should all credit card debts be paid for someone? Should all car loans be paid for someone?

If so, why is anyone bankrupt? The state should be bailing out everyone and we should all be racking up credit like crazy with no comeback on the problems faced down the line.

I'm off to get the car I always wanted. Least I won't lose it if I can't work or lose any income. You lot can pay for it....I'll keep the one I got now so that I don't put too many miles on the new car on the loan, and when you have paid the loan off for me, will still be worth a pretty penny.....cheers fellas!

its obviously escaped you that we are talking about peoples homes here,not cars or anything else for that matter but HOMES probably in alot of cases where children live.Do some research in many cases SMI isnt paid for long periods and in fact those claiming thru JSA are limited to a max of 2 years,and we are also talking about interest not capital repayments.
of course if you become incapacitated or unemployed you dont have to avail yourself of SMI,its not compulsary.

Graham_Devon

Oh hold on, I got it.

The people who are priced out and can't afford homes....they will collectively push prices up, so its ok, "some people can't afford to buy, thats life".

But the people currently in homes, who can't afford homes, they, well....they would collectively push prices down if they get repo'd or had to sell the asset they cannot afford to buy.

I think I'm on to something here. <rolls eyes>