Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

StevieJ

silvercar wrote: »

Well the data is all here and available:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=5748&More=N

Social Trends from the year dot.

Obviously it is not talking about one individual, its talking about the nation as a whole. People in higher social classes and higher economic groups are more likely to be home owners.

When did 'more likely' become a given?

[Deleted User]

mitchaa wrote: »

Woodbine, this slimey government? I take it you mean the coalition of Tories/Lib dems?

Forgive me, but as from the 1st January 2011 under Labour, SMI was due to drop to 2.08% was it not? The tories/LD's stepped in brought it forward by 3mths and upped this rate to 3.68%. Surely you should be grateful that you do have a tory government in charge as you are receiving 1.6% more than what you would have done under a labour government.

Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

the labour govt had made NO decision on SMI from 1/1/11,that would have been announced in the pre-budget statement in november,what i do know from conversations with a number of mp`s inc.yvette cooper (via email)is that base rate + 1.58% wasnt the plan
and yes as usual not only have you got the wrong end of the stick but youve got the wrong stick

HOUSE_PRICE_CRASH_GHOULS

carolt wrote: »

Show me some.

I'm middle-middle - tiny touch of upper middle (Oxford, aristos in family).

My social class doesn't change every time I move housing tenure. Like if I pop back home to stay with my parents I'd suddenly be a different class?

What about people like fc or a close friend of mine who both rent whilst renting out their own places in a different part of the country?

What a load of utter bobbins.

Oh girl you are in for one major MAJOR wake-up call when you finally realise society (from financial institutions to potential employers and partners) has been judging and making concise decisions on your whole economic and social make-up based on your lowly renter class. Sorry but that's the way it is in the United Kingdom. Always has been and always will be. Why do you think homeownership is such an aspiration to millions?

Procrastinator333

HOUSE_PRICE_CRASH_GHOULS wrote: »

Oh girl you are in for one major MAJOR wake-up call when you finally realise society (from financial institutions to potential employers and partners) has been judging and making concise decisions on your whole economic and social make-up based on your lowly renter class. Sorry but that's the way it is in the United Kingdom. Always has been and always will be. Why do you think homeownership is such an aspiration to millions?

Oh Ghouly, what you fail to realise is that anyone who thinks of someone as "lowly" because they rent is both emotionaly and intelectually lacking and only those with similar shortfalls would actually care what they think.

Emy1501

I can't see the big issue here. 2 years is more than long enough for someone who is out of work to find a new job unless they are disabled etc plue the new rate seems more than reasonable enough for the many. The data posted suggested something 50% of people on SMI are on a pension is that correct? If it is what the hell is going on that so many people with a pension need help to pay a mortgage? if its the case maybe time for FSA to also ban mortgages to the over 60's.

The issue though is that if the majority of people on SMI are over 50 then chances of them getting another job may not be that great and then you start to wonder what exactly will be the benefit of SMI.

silvercar

HOUSE_PRICE_CRASH_GHOULS wrote: »

Oh girl you are in for one major MAJOR wake-up call when you finally realise society (from financial institutions to potential employers and partners) has been judging and making concise decisions on your whole economic and social make-up based on your lowly renter class. Sorry but that's the way it is in the United Kingdom. Always has been and always will be. Why do you think homeownership is such an aspiration to millions?

Financial institutions do make such decisions, which is why any store or credit card application asks if you are a home owner.

I doubt employers make such a distinction, though in certain areas large employers shy away from employing people from known "trouble" estates.

If a potential partner was rejecting you for not being a home owner, the term "gold digger" would come to mind, you'd be better off without them!

People aspire to home ownership because they want to live somewhere without being turfed out with 2 months notice, because they don't want to ask permission to hang a picture and because they want to live rent free in retirement, not because they want to be defined in a different social class.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

People aspire to home ownership because they want to live somewhere without being turfed out with 2 months notice, because they don't want to ask permission to hang a picture and because they want to live rent free in retirement, not because they want to be defined in a different social class.

Home owners can be "turfed out" if their house is mortgaged, as this thread shows.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

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

I nearly fell off my gym ball when I just read this. You are more than happy to continually tell people to rent their houses out without getting their mortgage lenders permission: even though you are well aware that the poor tenant and their family can be thrown out of their home with little notice (as the lender doesn't recognise the tenancy). Yet you think that you (I assume you have a mortgage) should get help to stay in your home!

Whatever happened to that good old "treating other people as you want to be treated yourself"?

silvercar

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I nearly fell off my gym ball when I just read this. You are more than happy to continually tell people to rent their houses out without getting their mortgage lenders permission: even though you are well aware that the poor tenant and their family can be thrown out of their home with little notice (as the lender doesn't recognise the tenancy). Yet you think that you (I assume you have a mortgage) should get help to stay in your home!

Whatever happened to that good old "treating other people as you want to be treated yourself"?

Making things personal again I see.:(

I do have a mortgage, but I don't want help to stay in my home. I've made provision to meet my mortgage payments should I lose income.

I don't want help with my mortgage interest, but I do want this government to show some compassion to those who suddenly hit bad times and provide some help with readjustment for a short time. If they are renting it is LHA if owning then SMI.

So I'm actually treating people better than I want to be treated myself.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

Making things personal again I see.:(

I do have a mortgage, but I don't want help to stay in my home. I've made provision to meet my mortgage payments should I lose income.

I don't want help with my mortgage interest, but I do want this government to show some compassion to those who suddenly hit bad times and provide some help with readjustment for a short time. If they are renting it is LHA if owning then SMI.

So I'm actually treating people better than I want to be treated myself.

How about those who can pay their rent but are thrown out at short notice because they had a landlord who didn't have consent to let. Can they have compassion too? Please, please stop telling people to rent their houses out without consent from their mortgage lender. You know how much misery that can cause families.