Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

julieq

If you rent you shown you can't afford a house either. Therefore following the same logic housing benefit shouldn't be paid. No benefits for people who have shown they can't afford a house. Seems fair enough, no?

I really do have a problem with the idea that an inexpensive benefit should be withdrawn so that anyone in a house should be forced into a sale on the basis of some crazy idea that unemployment is a punishable offence to anyone who has dared buy a house on a mortgage. If you're going to pay someone on the dole housing benefit indefinitely at greater cost - and indirectly put cash into the pocket of a landlord - then given that that SMI costs a tiny fraction of that why the hell shouldn't it be in perpetuity? People pay tax for a welfare state, and this is a reasonable safety net against the dangers of unemployment.

What's next on the bear hitlist? Anyone with a house to be denied NHS treatment on the basis they could sell the house to pay for it out of equity? Homeowners are already asked to sell their homes if they need long term residential care, which doesn't apply if you're renting.

The only reason for wanting SMI removed is a selfish and unpleasant desire to force people who are unemployed out of their homes to create fire sales with the chance of picking up a house on the cheap. It's pretty despicable.

Graham_Devon

Julie, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

However, you seem to be saying, and please, do correct me if I am wrong, anyone should be able to default on a mortgage, and keep the house.

Therefore, why am I paying my mortgage? Taxpayer should pay it for me, and I should keep the house.

I don't really see what you are saying otherwise.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Julie, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

However, you seem to be saying, and please, do correct me if I am wrong, anyone should be able to default on a mortgage, and keep the house.

Therefore, why am I paying my mortgage? Taxpayer should pay it for me, and I should keep the house.

I don't really see what you are saying otherwise.

No Graham, anyone should be able to claim a benefit to cover housing costs that their taxes have contributed to if they are made unemployed and they are in receipt of various income support benefits.

That is NOT the same as allowing any default. If you default because you are bankrupt or you just can't be bothered to pay, you don't get SMI.

If you want to scrap the entire welfare state then be my guest, stand for election. Until then we have a benefits system which includes SMI.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

No Graham, anyone should be able to claim a benefit to cover housing costs that their taxes have contributed to if they are made unemployed and they are in receipt of various income support benefits.

That is NOT the same as allowing any default. If you default because you are bankrupt or you just can't be bothered to pay, you don't get SMI.

If you want to scrap the entire welfare state then be my guest, stand for election. Until then we have a benefits system which includes SMI.

Well I'm out guys, I'm sure you'll be glad to hear.

Can't be bothered with the incescent emotional lines.

We've had "you want families chucked onto the streets so you can get a cheap house"

We've had "you are filled with jealousy because they have something you don't have".

We've had "you want to see people denied NHS care simply because they own a house".

Now we have "You want to scrap the ENTIRE benefit system because you don't agree with me".

All I, personally have said is that I would like to see continued SMI for those disabled, and an 18m cut off for anyone else (giving plenty of time to get another job, be it 3 part time jobs to pay the mortgage). For that, you get all that emotional claptrap thrown at you.

It's enough now. It will just go on and on and on like this. Unfortunately, we haven't got anywhere.

julieq

Graham, you just claimed you don't have to pay your mortgage because SMI exists. And you're wrong. So you're flouncing off complaining about being debated with on a debating forum.

Some people are just too delicate for this life

I fail to see why you want a cut off anyway unless you're also cutting off any other form of benefit. You haven't explained that one.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's enough now. It will just go on and on and on like this. Unfortunately, we haven't got anywhere.

Well thanks for making your points so clearly and getting to the real crux of the debate. I don't suppose you get to 35,000 posts without a few tangents.

Orpheo

StevieJ

Haven't you sorted this yet Dev you are a master.

StevieJ

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.

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.

Hey just had a thought maybe the unlucky 50% are paying the capital off for the lucky 50%

Broken_hearted

SMI is payed because it is the cheaper option, forcing someone to sell up leaves the4m needing to be rehoused. They may have some capital but in most cases not enough to pay housing costs for any reasonable amount of time. They then end up in the benefit trap where it pays not to work. Endgame the taxpayer loses more money.