Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

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

So is running the local centre for restbite care. But that's being closed due to cost saving.

This is insane. You can't just keep saying it's peanuts, and therefore it's ok. LOADS of things are peanuts compared to total government spend. Peanuts add up.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

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?

No need to go arrgh.

It's you chasing your tail on the "it does pay capital" ...."it doesnt pay capital"....."only a bit of the capital though so it don't matter"...."but it doesn't pay capital" thing.

Can you not see you have stated every single which way now in regards to paying capital? Yet you insist you are correct every time?

It can only be one of the other. They do or don't. You can't be correct every way, which is what you are desperatly trying to achieve.

abaxas

Just a thought.

A very high end exec may pay for direct and indirect tax in a year than most do in a lifetime.

Does this now mean he/she has contributed to society, therefore he no longer has to pay any more tax and should just take from this system?

You already know the answer.

Orpheo

But if you disgree Graham, that's because you're jealous and you probably drown kittens too.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Graham, my argument has nothing to do with capital repayment. That's Orpheo's point, and I'm just pointing out that it's a complete red herring. SMI is a smallscale scheme designed to be simple and cheap to apply and they use averages. That's the deal. Some people may win from that, others will lose. On average the cost is lower than a targetted scheme. End of.

MY point is that the cost of SMI - which is not a made up number, it's the number I asked you for yesterday and which was in today's posting - is a miniscule amount next to outstanding mortgage debt, and has no effect whatsoever on prices.

And that SMI is a benefit paid for out of taxation by people who have paid taxes (including stamp duty) so it's really not something to get agitated about on the basis of sample size one anecdotes.

Incidentally I don't claim everyone on here is thick. I don't think you're all that bright (sorry, but it's a fact) but there's a range of people here of all shades of intellect and opinion. There are people I argue with I actually like a lot (Dervprof is one, Mbga is another, Ad was yet another), and there are people I find unspeakably ignorant and vile. There are people like Generali and Thrugelmir I look up to, and there are people I fundamentally agree with but find distasteful. If you took the time to listen to and understand what people you don't necessarily like but who have a better grasp of critical thinking tell you then you'd learn to make better decisions in life.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No need to go arrgh.

It's you chasing your tail on the "it does pay capital" ...."it doesnt pay capital"....."only a bit of the capital though so it don't matter"...."but it doesn't pay capital" thing.

Can you not see you have stated every single which way now in regards to paying capital? Yet you insist you are correct every time?

It can only be one of the other. They do or don't. You can't be correct every way, which is what you are desperatly trying to achieve.

Graham, you are deliberately trying to avoid the fact that, on average, people are not getting their mortgage capital paid off.

If it's an average then some will be getting some capital paid off whilst others will not be getting their interest paid. If the average payment is really £47 then I'd suggest that those lucky people getting capital paid are up by pennies. There's no need to worry about it.

The SMI budget is £110m and, to me, that seems like pennies as well.

The question for me is 'is that £110m well spent'. If the economy has a short term problem then yes it is - why go to the hassle and expense of rehousing former owners if the problem is temporary.

If the economy has a long term problem then maybe they should start using that money now to build more social housing that we can all move into.

julieq

abaxas wrote: »

Just a thought.

A very high end exec may pay for direct and indirect tax in a year than most do in a lifetime.

Does this now mean he/she has contributed to society, therefore he no longer has to pay any more tax and should just take from this system?

You already know the answer.

No, of course I don't think that. But that's the logical conclusion of removing benefits from people who are believed to have contributed less, or indeed suggesting some benefits are excessive because you can't personally access them or they appear to you to benefit people you don't like. Which is your thrust and the thrust of the bear argument.

On balance taxation is fair and there's a reasonable package of benefits in return. Not perfect, but could be worse.

abaxas

julieq wrote: »

No, of course I don't. But that's the logical conclusion of removing benefits from people who are believed to have contributed less, or indeed suggesting some benefits are excessive because you can't personally access them or they appear to you to benefit people you don't like. Which is your thrust and the thrust of the bear argument.

On balance taxation is fair and there's a reasonable package of benefits in return. Not perfect, but could be worse.

The point is that you dont get anything in return.

There is no correlation between taxation and the benefit from it. You do not buy services from the state.

They take the tax and they PROVIDE services.

IE no implied benifit at all.

Orpheo

julieq wrote: »

If you took the time to listen to and understand what people you don't necessarily like but who have a better grasp of critical thinking tell you then you'd learn to make better decisions in life.

This is simply rude.

You're opinion of yourself is certainly healthy. Got something to hide?

You clearly have outdated views about intelligence.

julieq

abaxas wrote: »

The point is that you dont get anything in return.

There is no correlation between taxation and the benefit from it. You do not buy services from the state.

They take the tax and they PROVIDE services.

IE no implied benifit at all.

That's not true. In a democracy you vote essentially for a social contract which is defined by policy (combination of manifesto and existing statue). Most state spending is on services and infrastructure in effect, but an element of it is social insurance via the welfare state.

Until the welfare state is abolished, it is a tax funded benefit.

There are other ways of doing it, and the US is one of the more extreme, but even there there is some level of social provision at the safety net level.