Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

abaxas

julieq wrote: »

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.

I pay zero tax. But when I worked I paid a huge amount.

The thing you appear to misunderstand is how out government works. There is no concept of contract between state and individual in terms of taxation.

You pay, you get what you are given. If you dont like it, vote someone else in.

Graham_Devon

Orpheo wrote: »

So you agree with me that some people will be having their capital repaid by SMI?

I'd give up mate.

Threads been taken over by the people thaningk each other for stating it's incorrect, capital isn't paid off.

Then thank each other for the clarification is paid off.

Then thank each other for stating "but it's still not correct, capital isn't paid off and the bears are wrong".

Then thank each other for discussing how much capital is paid off.

Then they thank each other for making up and merely guessing that not much capital is paid off anyway, and that something else costs us more, therefore it doesnt matter.

Threads over, as far as discussion goes. It's just all out forumonics now.

ILW

Can anyone 100% confirm that the 3.5% is only paid on the original mortgage amount for when the house was purchased. Seems a little vague to me.
I for one do not think I should being contributing to the exotic holiday a mortgage defaulter had 5 years ago.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lordy Julie.

The two figures are not linked.

Really?

Which of the two unlinked numbers do you think has more effect on house prices then?

110M of mortgage interest relief, or 1.2trillion of mortgages?

In a BAD month you get billions added to the stock of outstanding mortgages, so honestly, 110M into the system is going to have zero effect. I know you staked your reputation for basic sense yesterday on the idea that it does, but the numbers don't really point that way.

ILW

julieq wrote: »

Really?

Which of the two unlinked numbers do you think has more effect on house prices then?

110M of mortgage interest relief, or 1.2trillion of mortgages?

In a BAD month you get billions added to the stock of outstanding mortgages, so honestly, 110M into the system is going to have zero effect. I know you staked your reputation for basic sense yesterday on the idea that it does, but the numbers don't really point that way.

If you think £110,000,000 is peanuts, I would be grateful if you could send me a cheque for that amount.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Really?

Which of the two unlinked numbers do you think has more effect on house prices then?

110M of mortgage interest relief, or 1.2trillion of mortgages?

In a BAD month you get billions added to the stock of outstanding mortgages, so honestly, 110M into the system is going to have zero effect. I know you staked your reputation for basic sense yesterday on the idea that it does, but the numbers don't really point that way.

Bolded bit. Makes no difference, this is not what this thread is about.

You have taken the figure for outstanding mortgage payments, which will include investment type mortgages.

You've then applied how much SMI costs, and made a comparison.

The two are not linked. For a start people have to wait 13 weeks from crisis point, to receive SMI, so all those in 2 months of arreas, which make up the majority of your total figure, will never count for SMI.

You try and claim that everyone on here is thick, and they should get some concept of financial reality. But it's not really others. You spin everything to the absolute extreme. You ask others for precise figures, yet STILL insist on talking down to them, sttaing they are wrong, while, in your own words, claim "we can assume" and make up a load of figures and put them together to back up your argument. Your argument having already failied as you've moved from capital isn't paid, to capital is paid, to guessing how much capital is paid, and suggesting its merely less than another benefit you can think of, therefore it's all ok.

Head out of your rear. You are intelligent, that's not the point. But your insistance to twist, spin and simply claim everything doesn't matter on every subject because it's "less" than something else is tiresome. Wouldn't be so bad if you werent going round pretending to be some kind of financial mesire.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd give up mate.

Threads been taken over by the people thaningk each other for stating it's incorrect, capital isn't paid off.

Then thank each other for the clarification is paid off.

Then thank each other for stating "but it's still not correct, capital isn't paid off and the bears are wrong".

Then thank each other for discussing how much capital is paid off.

Then they thank each other for making up and merely guessing that not much capital is paid off anyway, and that something else costs us more, therefore it doesnt matter.

Threads over, as far as discussion goes. It's just all out forumonics now.

You really are making obtuseness into an art form.

Net capital isn't paid off. Some may win, some may lose. The taxpayer (including the people who are receiving the benefit) ends up in the same position as if exact amounts were paid off (assuming recipients pay average mortgage rates on average), with the benefit that the system is cheap to administer. You could target it more carefully at precise amounts, but you would add costs. If you add costs the burden on the taxpayer increases without reducing the amount paid under the scheme.

There is no viable argument anywhere in trying to prove that some people receive capital repayments. Even if they do it makes no difference at all to the taxpayer, and it is a benefit THEY HAVE PAID FOR.

I know why bears don't like SMI. They have led themselves to believe that government support has sustained prices and they get very angry when more support is announced, even if the amount is negligible. SMI has zero effect on house prices, get over it.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

You really are making obtuseness into an art form.
Net capital isn't paid off. Some may win, some may lose. The taxpayer (including the people who are receiving the benefit) ends up in the same position as if exact amounts were paid off (assuming recipients pay average mortgage rates on average), with the benefit that the system is cheap to administer. You could make target it carefully, but you would add costs. If you add costs the burden on the taxpayer increases without reducing the amount paid under the scheme.

There is no viable argument anywhere in trying to prove that some people receive capital repayments. Even if they do it makes no difference at all to the taxpayer, and it is a benefit THEY HAVE PAID FOR.

I know why bears don't like SMI. They have led themselves to believe that government support has sustained prices and they get very angry when more support is announced, even if the amount is negligible. SMI has zero effect on house prices, get over it.

Oh yet more capital isn't paid off, but is paid off, but in net terms its not paid off, but even if capital is paid off it doesn't matter.

julieq

ILW wrote: »

If you think £110,000,000 is peanuts, I would be grateful if you could send me a cheque for that amount.

Cheap point scoring. It's peanuts in terms of the total government spend. Certainly a fraction of the £21B spent on housing benefit.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh yet more capital isn't paid off, but is paid off, but in net terms its not paid off, but even if capital is paid off it doesn't matter.

Aaargggghhhh... can you not see that it is preferable to the taxpayer to pay a flat rate because then there are low admin costs?

What's your point exactly, anyway? Would you rather pay more for a system that doesn't pay some people as much and pays others more?