Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

Turnbull2000

Via fool.co.uk property forum.

http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2011/03/2011-Budget-policy-decisions-part-one-HMT.bmp

Graham_Devon

Wonder what the reaction would be, if in say 3 years time, people are reporting they have now finished their mortgages while in receipt of SMI, and the taxpayer has paid a good 20-25% of their interest for them.

Sibley

At the end of the day anything that keeps families in their homes is a good idea.

The bears want everyone broken on the scrapheap but it's not going to happen.

Generali

Sibley wrote: »

At the end of the day anything that keeps families in their homes is a good idea.

The bears want everyone broken on the scrapheap but it's not going to happen.

There has to come a point when people have to pay their own mortgage. The taxpayer can't afford to pay people's mortgage interest indefinitely.

abaxas

Sibley wrote: »

At the end of the day anything that keeps families in their homes is a good idea.

The bears want everyone broken on the scrapheap but it's not going to happen.

Why should have someone have the right to something they cant pay for?

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

Why should have someone have the right to something they cant pay for?

exactly right - how do you feel about parents buying their children property or giving them a nice deposit to buy a property because they can't afford to buy themselves.

it's just not fair is it

ruggedtoast

I do however think this scheme should be assessed in the same way as housing benefit is now meant to be. E.g as a tax payer I dont really want to be funding the MI for an over leveraged 20 something singleton to continue living in a 3 bed townhouse in Islington.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

exactly right - how do you feel about parents buying their children property or giving them a nice deposit to buy a property because they can't afford to buy themselves.

it's just not fair is it

If a parent wants to help with a deposit, or pay for a property outright (or anything else for that matter), then that's fine. Nothing unfair about that.

If a parent borrows the money to do so, and doesn't pay it back, then that's a different matter.

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

exactly right - how do you feel about parents buying their children property or giving them a nice deposit to buy a property because they can't afford to buy themselves.

it's just not fair is it

I have no issue with that.

But why do I have to pay for people to own something they cant afford?

It's sick and immoral.

DervProf

Sibley wrote: »

At the end of the day anything that keeps families in their homes is a good idea.

The bears want everyone broken on the scrapheap but it's not going to happen.

Really ?

So if a scheme was launched where someone who is in arrears, or is about to get repo'd, get's all of their mortgage debt paid off by the taxpayer, that would be a good idea ? (I suppose it would be as far as the recipient of the benefit were concerned, but I'm not sure that taxpayers would be quite so keen on the idea.

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

I have no issue with that.

But why do I have to pay for people to own something they cant afford?

It's sick and immoral.

i don't like paying for child benefit and peoples pensions. i do it because it's something that's needed and is a good thing but still don't like it.

moral hazard isn't a nice character trait which is very common on this forum...