Mortgage interest support

PasturesNew

ukcarper wrote: »

You could get your mortgage interest paid in the 80s.

Only once you'd been unemployed for 9 months. It's been changed, with a couple of schemes, to be paying out much sooner for the past couple of years, as a special 'helper' to those affected.

So, it's a new/short-term benefit that kicks in quicker.

ILW

What is the max time you can claim it for?

THE_GHOULS_PARADISE

Nothing wrong with helping hard pressed homeowners if they've fallen on bad times.

ILW

THE_GHOULS_PARADISE wrote: »

Nothing wrong with helping hard pressed homeowners if they've fallen on bad times.

If they owned the place they wouldn't need help.

michaels

Max 2 years now isn't it?

As a taxpayer I would rather pay less to keep someone in their mortgaged home than more to pay for them to be in rental but I can see that the payments should be capped at the same weekly maxes as HB. I also thinkthe banks should be forced to accept this amount as a full interest payment for mortgages whether the actual rate is higher or lower (possibly with the exception of fixed rates)

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Max 2 years now isn't it?

As a taxpayer I would rather pay less to keep someone in their mortgaged home than more to pay for them to be in rental but I can see that the payments should be capped at the same weekly maxes as HB. I also thinkthe banks should be forced to accept this amount as a full interest payment for mortgages whether the actual rate is higher or lower (possibly with the exception of fixed rates)

You'd be forcing the banks to break their own contracts!

It should be pretty simple. You pay your own mortgage and you get to remain as a home owner. If you can't pay the mortgage you should have some insurance in place to pay the mortgage interest. If the bank wants to compel you to insure yourself then so be it although they shouldn't be allowed to lock you to their products.

If you don't bother to insure yourself then you risk losing your house if you lose your job.

I know more than one person that can't afford to get a job because they'd lose their mortgage interest subsidy and the skills they have do not pay sufficiently to make it worth coming off the dole. One of them is a former bank employee that could pretty easily earn £25-30,000 a year but is hanging out for £40,000. That is ridiculous. If they had been repossessed or sold up when they lost their jobs then they'd have been able to get on with their lives instead of facing years on the dole being subsidised by tax payers.

des_cartes

ukcarper wrote: »

You could get your mortgage interest paid in the 80s.

I think that was the actual interest not a standard rate likr the 6.08% that has up to recently been paid regardless of whether the actual interest was as high as that. It's obscene that taxpayers have been paying off the capital sum owed in many cases where the interest rate was below 6.08%, an obscenity that the government have now dealt with.

PasturesNew

I always took paying my mortgage seriously. I couldn't get income protection insurance because of the clauses in it, but I was aware of the insurance and what it'd pay and when/why. I therefore chose to fly by the seat of my pants and not have it. I also knew that if I were to sign on that I'd not get any mortgage help for 9 months, this was the system... in 2008 they moved the goalposts so that people would get extra benefits to pay their mortgage, it's NEW ... how can they [a] not have read the small print not have understood that this was new/extra/time-limited?

How could they not understand they were lucky it was there for them?

One of the reasons I sold my house was because I knew I couldn't afford it if I were to have to sign on. I worried about where those 9 months of payments would come from. I therefore decided to sell, so I didn't have the worry and potential for repossession.

This is called: taking responsibility. Simple awareness of the facts of life, that debts need to be paid and the consequences of not doing so.

satchmeister

Generali wrote: »

You'd be forcing the banks to break their own contracts!

It should be pretty simple. You pay your own mortgage and you get to remain as a home owner. If you can't pay the mortgage you should have some insurance in place to pay the mortgage interest. If the bank wants to compel you to insure yourself then so be it although they shouldn't be allowed to lock you to their products.

If you don't bother to insure yourself then you risk losing your house if you lose your job.

I know more than one person that can't afford to get a job because they'd lose their mortgage interest subsidy and the skills they have do not pay sufficiently to make it worth coming off the dole. One of them is a former bank employee that could pretty easily earn £25-30,000 a year but is hanging out for £40,000. That is ridiculous. If they had been repossessed or sold up when they lost their jobs then they'd have been able to get on with their lives instead of facing years on the dole being subsidised by tax payers.

You miss the point, it is up to the taxpayer to bail out the poor hard-working families. Brown did it and Cameron continues to do so but at a slightly lower rate.

ILW

satchmeister wrote: »

You miss the point, it is up to the taxpayer to bail out the poor hard-working families. Brown did it and Cameron continues to do so but at a slightly lower rate.

I havn't seen the hard working clause in the app form.