Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

Orpheo

julieq wrote: »

The [STRIKE]clue[/STRIKE] lie here would be in the word "Insurance", which follows "National".

That's better.

Orpheo

StevieJ wrote: »

Would seem to justify the word many then, without quantifying it.

Many suggests a high quantity, which is unproven, but fair enough.

Disclaimer: I edited my post to ensure that I said exactly what I wanted to say. As a freelance writer, I read and edit my writing frequently.

julieq

Orpheo wrote: »

If you have read my posts, Julieq, you will have learned that I do not oppose SMI in principle, but that I am in favour of certain limitations to it.

Julieq, I don't drive.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You still use my roads. I want surcharges on your use of the things I've paid more for than you. It's really very reasonable.

On average SMI doesn't repay capital. That's fine by me because it costs on the skinny side of nowt. Imposing limitations or means testing would add to cost of it without benefit (except to the people who don't get all the interest paid). I think probably we'll just carry on with things as they are thanks.

Orpheo

julieq wrote: »

You still use my roads. I want surcharges on your use of the things I've paid more for than you. It's really very reasonable.

Actually I spend most of my time on my !!!!. Too much of it arguing with "internauts", whom, I think, for some reason have descended into speaking in metaphors, when I should be working.

julieq wrote: »

On average SMI doesn't repay capital. That's fine by me because it costs on the skinny side of nowt. Imposing limitations or means testing would add to cost of it without benefit (except to the people who don't get all the interest paid). I think probably we'll just carry on with things as they are thanks.

But sometimes it does, and that's not fine by me.

julieq

Orpheo wrote: »

Actually I spend most of my time on my !!!!. Too much of it arguing with "internauts", whom, I think, for some reason have descended into speaking in metaphors, when I should be working.



But sometimes it does, and that's not fine by me.

Oh, get some sort of a grip on financial reality. You gain from some people you underpay, you lose on others. The net effect to you is zero. SMI costs very little anyway. You might save a pound or two a year if there was means testing and the means testing had zero cost and cost nothing to set up. But more likely it would cost more to administer than it brought in, which is why it isn't being done.

And the killing joke is that many of the recipients if not all will have paid more in tax and NI than you anyway. It's not even that you have any specific claim for special consideration because you're a taxpayer and they aren't.

If you're going to get militant, get militant about something that actually makes a difference - the shortfall between housebuilding and household creation isn't a bad one. But not SMI, please. It's of no importance to anyone except a few individuals who receive it and who by virtue of that can stay in their homes at a time of crisis.

Orpheo

Nobody's getting militant.

abaxas

julieq wrote: »

The clue here would be in the word "Insurance", which follows "National".

If you don't want the benefits paid for by taxation, then by all means don't accept them. However taxpayers have every right to expect that some of their tax will be used for their benefit, including at times when they run into problems. That is part of the deal with the welfare state.

I love the bear idea that at the point someone applies for benefits all of their contributions via taxation to that point count for nothing and they're a chav paying for a plasma tv (by the way, plasma tvs aren't expensive) at their expense. It's because they are consumed with envy that anyone might be getting something they aren't.

LOL!

I see your NI and I raise you.

Road fund licence.

The name has nothing to do with what it does. It's all just general taxation.

blueboy43

Of all the benefits that taxpayers provide, why is it that this one proves so emotive ?

1) It doesn't seem to cost much.
2) Not that many people seem to get it.
3) The number who do receive it is vastly less than in the 1990's
4) The average payment in May 2007 was £47 a week
5) Many of the recipients are elderly (in 2008 more than 50% of people receiving this benefit were also receiving pension credit - ie they are income poor pensioners)

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsp-00737.pdf

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

Is it just the green eyed monster within us, and are there people who want elderly people thrown out on to the freezing streets - JUST SO THEY CAN GET A CHEAP HOUSE !!!

julieq

abaxas wrote: »

LOL!

I see your NI and I raise you.

Road fund licence.

The name has nothing to do with what it does. It's all just general taxation.

I'll accept that argument actually, as it's long been the case that NI is part of general taxation under a different name, and was abused by New Labour to raise income tax by proxy.

However the point remains valid. Whether NI is an insurance policy or not in the normally understood sense of the term, the contract between the state and the individual in this country includes a level of insurance against hardship paid for out of taxation. In the case of homeowners, just stamp duty alone would pay for SMI in no time at all, let alone income tax, NI and VAT.

It is perfectly reasonable that taxpayers receive what they've paid for. I seem to recall Abaxas saying he was a professional gambler in which case he's not paying tax or NI anyway (if I'm wrong then apologies), so it's a peculiar thing to worry about.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Cost from the link of extending SMI is £110M for the next year.

Outstanding morgage debt is around £1.2 trillion, i.e. £12,000 million

Lordy Julie.

The two figures are not linked.