Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

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...

Child benefit ? I might be with you on that one. Pensions ? I don't mind that, as hopefuly I'll be paid a public pension later in life. I think the point is that is it really fair for taxpayers to pay for the people who took on a mortgage and couldn't pay it ? It isn't a clear cut case, as obviously we don't want to see people being repo'd at the first sign of trouble. However, if someone loses their job, and receives a year's worth of assistance in paying their mortgage (or interest on that mortgage), then I think it is fair to expect that person to pay back the amount they received in aid at sometime in the future (if possible). Afterall, they could go on to sell that property and benefit from any profit they might make on it, which will have been partly funded by the rest of us.

chucky

RenovationMan wrote: »

Out of interest, where do you stand on tenants getting their rent paid indefinitely and council tenants having their rent subsidized or completely paid for by taxpayers?

if it doesn't mean throwing families out of their homes and property being repossessed with a chance of them getting a cheap house most of them wouldn't care...

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

Out of interest, where do you stand on tenants getting their rent paid indefinitely and council tenants having their rent subsidized or completely paid for by taxpayers?

I stand uneasy. If a tenant of a private landlord can't afford the rent for a short period of time, then I think it's fair to expect them to receive benefit so that they don't become homeless. I never agreed with the mass selling off of council housing. I would have prefered more housing to have been kept in the hands of local authorities. If a person went into a privately rented property, and lost their job, there would have been the "safety net" of council housing if they couldn't start paying their rent within a reasonable period of time.

No easy answer, I`m afraid.

ukcarper

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 can’t see why it’s anymore immoral than paying someone’s rent, after all you bears keep telling people who are buying especially those on interest only they are just renting from the banks.

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

I somehow doubt, even at the height of the recession, that an average 20 something single person could ever get a mortgage for a "3 bed townhouse in Islington".

abaxas

ukcarper wrote: »

I can’t see why it’s anymore immoral than paying someone’s rent, after all you bears keep telling people who are buying especially those on interest only they are just renting from the banks.

I also find that immoral too.

People need to be self sufficient, if not, why do they have even the right to exist?

Graham_Devon

The difference between paying peoples rent via benefits, or council houses, is that the person does not walk away with a very valuable asset at the end of it.

No need for people to dumb the argument down, yet again, to "you want people chucked out of their houses".

Generali

chucky wrote: »

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...

That's not the same thing. As much as anything else, paying someone's mortgage interest indefinitely (as used to happen) creates a terrible trap for people where they simply can't afford to start their career again if they lose their job and are unemployed for a while as they can't afford to lose the mortgage interest payments.

Sometimes bad things happening to people can be good in the end.

abaxas

Generali wrote: »

That's not the same thing. As much as anything else, paying someone's mortgage interest indefinitely (as used to happen) creates a terrible trap for people where they simply can't afford to start their career again if they lose their job and are unemployed for a while as they can't afford to lose the mortgage interest payments.

Sometimes bad things happening to people can be good in the end.

Consequence is a great driver for change and improvement.

chucky

errr, isn't just the mortgage interest paid for them and not the property paid for.

i don't actually think people 'walk away with a very valuable asset at the end of it' or has that been made up?