Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

Even if it costs us taxpayers more in rent than mortgage? BTW it is Sterling in the UK.

Moral hazard, fairness?

Why should a low paid worker who cannot afford to buy, be forced to contribute towards someone elses mortgage?

Shakethedisease

Ill ? Disabled ? Made redundant ? Caring for a sick spouse ? mew'ed ?

Who knows.. but 53% of claimants are over 60. So little chance of 'returning to work' realistically.

nembot

The average age of the first time buyer according to research is 38, which is a very sobering thought for many as they'll have to work into their pensionable years just to pay off the mortgage. There is a lot of truth in the saying "it's different this time", very different in fact.

StevieJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/support-for-mortgage-interest.pdf


Over 50 % are pensioners, only 10% of SMI claimants are under 40.

Chew on that for a bit...

Does it say that? it does say that 53% are over 60, oh and the older the claimants the lower the claim (obviously much smaller mortgages).

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They pay a fixed amount. This fixed amount may pay only a percentage of the interest, or may pay all of the interest and some of the capital.

This has been said over and over, so not sure why people keep saying they pay the interest only.

If you are glad I'm not in charge of cutting the defecit, can I take it you are therefore in agreement with paying peoples mortgages off via the taxpayer?

I guess I will have to leave you with the ukcarper example for the 3rd time on this thread.

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?

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

Moral hazard, fairness?

Why should a low paid worker who cannot afford to buy, be forced to contribute towards someone elses mortgage?

Because it is more than likely cheaper than paying the rent, we can't afford your Telegraph/Mail sensibilities we have a very large deficit to be eroded.

Shakethedisease

Yes it does say quite clearly that more than 50% of those receiving SMI are in receipt of State Pension Credit.

And there is a breakdown in ages who are getting it. It's pdf, I can't copy and paste it.

oh and the older the claimants the lower the claim (obviously much smaller mortgages).

But a much smaller income as well, being pensioners ? Which isn't covered much.

Anyway, I posted more to debunk the misconception that everyone on SMI bought a house they couldn't afford at peak and 'why should the taxpayer pay' blah, blah.. it's pensioners that are the main claimants.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I guess I will have to leave you with the ukcarper example for the 3rd time on this thread.

Not everyone who is in receipt of SMI, will need to have rent paid via LHA.

This has also been said over and over also.

Many people will be able to sell and downsize. Many people will be able to sell and release lots of equity and pay their own rent. Many people cannot afford their large mortgage payments, but will be able to afford to rent a home.

You seem to have told us it only pays the interest part...therefore these people on SMI still have to pay the capital. But on the other hand, to back up the argument for SMI continuing and it's all so nasty cutting it, you assume the same people making capital payments, or at least, some form of payment towards their mortgages suddenly won't have any money if SMI stops and they will all have to go cap in hand and get LHA money to rent a place. So where is their mortgage money to pay the capital part coming from currently!!?

I mean, seriously, can you not see how you are using two extremes here?

Some will need LHA help, but not all. Many will have so much equity built up they won't qualify for LHA payments anyway.

StevieJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes it does say quite clearly that more than 50% of those receiving SMI are in receipt of State Pension Credit.

And there is a breakdown in ages who are getting it. It's pdf, I can't copy and paste it.

.

Yes I see it now, truly amazing how the banks have allowed this to happen.

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

Pastures, this confused me. I know my claim is for CTC as well as WTC, so that's different from you, but it's one claim for both bits, and they've never asked me anything about my capital. The form asks me to state how much income I got last year it three sections - from employment, from self-employment, and "other" - which includes interest. They don't do any estimating of how much interest I should get on my capital.

Other benefits do take capital into account and have silly ideas of how much you can get. I can't remember offhand which benefits - just that they are ones I'm not claiming. I think it might be housing benefit (or LHA or whatever it's called) and council tax benefit. I know I don't get those, and I think it's because of my capital.

Could you try again at claiming WTC?

I never tried before. And I don't now live alone, so wouldn't qualify for WTC as you have to live alone in self-contained accommodation.

And - I don't know my figures for how much I earnt last year until I've done my tax return.

And I always expect things to improve/change.

It's all too long-winded for me, with forms I can't fill in.

I filled in the entitledto form and it said my income was £800/week the way they calculate it. Obviously it's nowhere near that

All those years I lived in my house, with the lights turned out as I couldn't afford things ... I think most of the time I'd have qualified for WTC, except I never knew until I came to MSE that there was such a thing for single people.