Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

carolt

LHA, dear.

You're a landlord - haven't you heard of it?

MissMoneypenny

chucky wrote: »

if they have no money because they couldn't afford mortgage payments, where are they going to get money for rent?

As Carol said, from LHA.

Every mortgage I have taken out, stated clearly that my home was at risk if I didn't keep up the mortgage payments. It isn't something new that has just come along. It isn't a basic human right to own your own property.

chucky

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

As Carol said, from LHA.

Every mortgage I have taken out, stated clearly that my home was at risk if I didn't keep up the mortgage payments. It isn't something new that has just come along. It isn't a basic human right to own your own property.

so you'd rather that they were a burden on the state that is already stretched far enough?

i'm all for people only spending as much as they earn or able to - but this is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

ukcarper

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

As Carol said, from LHA.

Every mortgage I have taken out, stated clearly that my home was at risk if I didn't keep up the mortgage payments. It isn't something new that has just come along. It isn't a basic human right to own your own property.

Makes sense doesn’t it.

Where I am LHA 2 bed £747 per month, 2 bed house £150,000 interest at 3.63%, £454 per month what would rather your tax paid for?

Still might as well pay BTL landlords mortgage

MissMoneypenny

chucky wrote: »

so you'd rather that they were a burden on the state that is already stretched far enough?

i'm all for people only spending as much as they earn or able to - but this is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

If they are claiming SMI, then they are already a "burden on the state".

If someone has the income to borrow money to buy a house, then they also have the income to get an insurance policy to protect that borrowing.

The same could be said of some of those on LHA, but many of these claiments might never had any money: hence why they are on LHA.

chucky

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If they are claiming SMI, then they are already a "burden on the state".

If someone has the income to borrow money to buy a house, then they also have the income to get an insurance policy to protect that borrowing.

The same could be said of some of those on LHA, but many of these claiments might never had any money: hence why they are on LHA.

so paying more LHA than SMI is a better financial solution?

Where I am LHA 2 bed £747 per month, 2 bed house £150,000 interest at 3.63%, £454 per month what would rather your tax paid for?

Still might as well pay BTL landlords mortgage

that's nearly £300 paid more a month on LHA than SMI - are you still saying this is a better solution?

olly300

chucky wrote: »

so paying more LHA than SMI is a better financial solution?

that's nearly £300 paid more a month on LHA than SMI - are you still saying this is a better solution?

Off course they are. It's the politics of envy.

They have failed to realise as pointed out before that there are people who simply cannot get unemployment insurance though most people but again not everyone can get insurance for long term illness.

Though lots of people who get LHA are working. So I don't understand why their employers aren't considered a burden for not paying them enough.

ukcarper

I believe you get no support to pay your mortgage if you have to take a low paid job but you do towards your rent.

Procrastinator333

ILW wrote: »

What I do not understand is why it is considered a disaster for an owner to be evicted, but just the norm for a tenant. Wish someone could explain.

Not really that complicated is it.

The only reason you get evicted when you have a mortgage is because you can no longer pay it.

You can get your 2 months notice in rental properties for other reasons, they want to sell, they want to move back in, they want a mate / family member to move in, etc.

silvercar

What I do not understand is why it is considered a disaster for an owner to be evicted, but just the norm for a tenant. Wish someone could explain.

It should be fairly obvious whether you are signing a fixed term rental agreement or title deeds.