Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

wotsthat

ultrawomble wrote: »

It is (or should we now say was) indeed the case - see the first paragraph on page 6 of this document:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSP-05818.pdf

From a small sample from the CML in 2009 50% were getting capital paid off. This was when the SMI rate was 6.08% - it's one of the reasons that the rate was changed to the less generous 3.75%.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

From a small sample from the CML in 2009 50% were getting capital paid off. This was when the SMI rate was 6.08% - it's one of the reasons that the rate was changed to the less generous 3.75%.

It was 92% when the rate was 6.08%.

How many times does it have to be laid out?

It's 50% now.

And you accuse me of missing the point? Class.

The only point you have is to say it doesn't pay the capital off, because some don't get their capital paid off. That's as useful as saying we don't pay housing benefit, as some don't get housing benefit. Absolutely ridiculous argument, with forumonics taking over.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It was 92% when the rate was 6.08%.

How many times does it have to be laid out?

It's 50% now.

OK I submit.

Let's chuck anyone who can't pay their mortgage onto the street or a debtors prison. Trying to help people who might need a leg up is so last week. Sorry getting a bit on topic there - bit too late for this thread though.

Flounces off..

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

OK I submit.

Let's chuck anyone who can't pay their mortgage onto the street or a debtors prison. Trying to help people who might need a leg up is so last week. Sorry getting a bit on topic there - bit too late for this thread though.

Flounces off..

So instead of just a simple "ahhh, yes you are correct", it's back to "you want people chucked onto the streets" which has never been mentioned anywhere.

As I said, pure forumonics. It doesn't have to be. Just check out the figures before wallowing in and following other peoples leads...as the leads are often wrong.

julieq

Can we qualify this please by saying that on average half of the recipients are getting some capital repayed, of whom most are getting very little capital repayed. And on average half the recipients are having to fork out for interest, most of whom very little. You'd get the idea from what's been said that swathes of capital is being repaid by a lax system designed to boost house prices. When it's a drop in the ocean from a system that causes as much pain as it does delight.

If we're going to rumble on about the repayment of capital, can someone please lay out what alternative system they would like, bearing in mind that any specifically means tested system involves getting someone to check a couple of hundred thousand mortgages and will inevitably cost more than the current system because of increased admin.

And then explain why it matters at all, because it's cheaper than housing benefit per claimant and in total which is what people would move onto claiming if they did have their houses repossessed, and the recipients have paid for it in tax anyway, including in stamp duty on housing transactions which anyone without a house hasn't paid.

Of course if you're hoping for a flood of houses onto the market so you can get a cheap house then it'll be a disappointment to you that there's a benefit that allows people to stay in their homes when made unemployed. But apart from that vested interest it's a reasonable system.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So instead of just a simple "ahhh, yes you are correct", it's back to "you want people chucked onto the streets" which has never been mentioned anywhere.

As I said, pure forumonics. It doesn't have to be. Just check out the figures before wallowing in and following other peoples leads...as the leads are often wrong.

OK if chucked onto the streets is too emotive are you suggesting that SMI is withdrawn on the basis of anyone getting a single penny of capital paid off?

I find it amusing that you can accuse anyone of Forumonics - you are the undisputed King of Forumonics. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see it defined as Graham Devon. On second thoughts don't because we'd have to spend a day arguing about which dictionary was best.

ILW

julieq wrote: »

Can we qualify this please by saying that on average half of the recipients are getting some capital repayed, of whom most are getting very little capital repayed. And on average half the recipients are having to fork out for interest, most of whom very little. You'd get the idea from what's been said that swathes of capital is being repaid by a lax system designed to boost house prices. When it's a drop in the ocean from a system that causes as much pain as it does delight.

If we're going to rumble on about the repayment of capital, can someone please lay out what alternative system they would like, bearing in mind that any specifically means tested system involves getting someone to check a couple of hundred thousand mortgages and will inevitably cost more than the current system because of increased admin.

And then explain why it matters at all, because it's cheaper than housing benefit per claimant and in total which is what people would move onto claiming if they did have their houses repossessed, and the recipients have paid for it in tax anyway, including in stamp duty on housing transactions which anyone without a house hasn't paid.

Of course if you're hoping for a flood of houses onto the market so you can get a cheap house then it'll be a disappointment to you that there's a benefit that allows people to stay in their homes when made unemployed. But apart from that vested interest it's a reasonable system.

Please explain why there would be lots of repossions. As you yourself have said, the majority claiming are pensioners which would indicate high levels of equity. This would indicate that the vast majority would just have to sell up and move into a more affordable property and would not be claiming any housing benefit.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Can we qualify this please by saying that on average half of the recipients are getting some capital repayed, of whom most are getting very little capital repayed. And on average half the recipients are having to fork out for interest, most of whom very little. You'd get the idea from what's been said that swathes of capital is being repaid by a lax system designed to boost house prices. When it's a drop in the ocean from a system that causes as much pain as it does delight.

If we're going to rumble on about the repayment of capital, can someone please lay out what alternative system they would like, bearing in mind that any specifically means tested system involves getting someone to check a couple of hundred thousand mortgages and will inevitably cost more than the current system because of increased admin.

And then explain why it matters at all, because it's cheaper than housing benefit per claimant and in total which is what people would move onto claiming if they did have their houses repossessed, and the recipients have paid for it in tax anyway, including in stamp duty on housing transactions which anyone without a house hasn't paid.

Of course if you're hoping for a flood of houses onto the market so you can get a cheap house then it'll be a disappointment to you that there's a benefit that allows people to stay in their homes when made unemployed. But apart from that vested interest it's a reasonable system.

Simple really. As said pages ago. My issue with the system is the lack of a cut off point, and extending it further.

My only issue is that at some point, we have to realise, people cannot afford the house.

I get all the stuff about housing benefit. However, we all pay into a pot. That pot should be spready fairly. I don't think it's particularly fair to be paying some people to keep their home (and equity), and pay those who never had a home, to go into rented.

It really is that simple for me. 18 months would be my thoughts. After that, we have to move on, and stop treating those who have houses in a different way to those that don't.

After 18 months, people have had a fair chance, fair help, yet still cannot afford their houses. So I don't know what really is going to change. Its been extended to 3 years now. What then? People still can't afford them so we extend it again?

In my opinion, (and this is merely an example before I'm jumped on)....it's like paying some people the going rate of JSA, and some people the going rate of their previous wages until they get a higher paid job just because someone had a better job than another person previously. It's not really on.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

OK if chucked onto the streets is too emotive are you suggesting that SMI is withdrawn on the basis of anyone getting a single penny of capital paid off?

I find it amusing that you can accuse anyone of Forumonics - you are the undisputed King of Forumonics. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see it defined as Graham Devon. On second thoughts don't because we'd have to spend a day arguing about which dictionary was best.

I'm not the one stating such rubbish as "are you suggesting" and piling words into peoples mouths.

I read peoples posts, quote, and repsond to what they have said. I don't go round suggesting they said, or implied something completely odd ball and then lambast them for what I have just suggested they said.

It's all got a little personal now that I proved myself about the figures. Strange that. :sigh:

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not the one stating such rubbish as "are you suggesting" and piling words into peoples mouths.

I read peoples posts, quote, and repsond to what they have said. I don't go round suggesting they said, or implied something completely odd ball and then lambast them for what I have just suggested they said.

It's all got a little personal now that I proved myself about the figures. Strange that. :sigh:

Graham, all you proved is that you love arguing for the sake of it.