Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Financially, is there any real difference between these two groups?

Possibly the latter have proved that they cannot afford the house they are living in.

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

Financially, is there any real difference between these two groups?

One is gaining advantage via subsidy of quality of life.

Other is not.

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

If all other things are equal, then the latter would be having their rent paid, except this could go on indefinitely.

Teh net effect is that if a family is struggling financially, the state will carry them whether they own or they let. The alternative is to throw them onto the street and put their kids into care. Does anyone what that?

I have always maintained that SMI is a great idea, but badly executed.

People should be given the opportunity of help, but are not advantaged from it.

If anyone struggles for more than 3 months finding a job, why should we help them? All we are doing it subsiding them to find the job they want. Work is always available, the problem is that lots of people dont want it.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

If all other things are equal, then the latter would be having their rent paid, except this could go on indefinitely.

Teh net effect is that if a family is struggling financially, the state will carry them whether they own or they let. The alternative is to throw them onto the street and put their kids into care. Does anyone what that?

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

WHY is this seen as the alternative.

NO family in this country is thrown onto the streets with the kids put into care. They are homed.

This is simply a case of treating everyone the same. Instead of one family having a taxpayer subsidy on something they own, and can take full advantage of any increases in asset prices.....and another family, same position, yet does not get treated to the advantages of asset prices...infact, it constantly works against them, as they are likely to be confined to rent forever.

But this fricking one liner argument every blimmin time. NO ONE HAS SAID THEY WANT FAMILIES CHUCKED OUT TO THE STREETS. IT IS MERELY AN EMOTIONAL SIDEKICK TO DROWN OUT ANY FORM OF ARGUMENT.

What is wrong with 18m worth of help? It's plenty of time. No one is discussing this. Absolutely no one will touch on this part of the issue. After this time, state either buys the house, therefore, we gain an asset we are ultimately paying to provide to a family, and the family rent the house, or the family sell up and use equity they have to rent or buy. Or we home themm under LHA.

No one should be financially gaining from the taxpayer, due to their priviliged position in the first place. Not when so many are excluded from ownership due to high asset prices in the first place, and we end up in a situation where the taxpayer is not only paying people to keep their asset, but lending to the young on dodgy schemes to help them buy an asset as they are too expensive,

Sorry renno mate. Not all aimed at you. It's just so annoying that this card is played whatever the discussion to simply drown out any form of debate, reasoning, or difficulty in engaging.

Percy1983

RenovationMan wrote: »

Financially, is there any real difference between these two groups?

If all of the group who can't afford their homes where kicked out it would be another one of the market props gone to which prices could reduce further to which it would help those who can afford a property to get one.

As many people keep pointing out to me life has winners and losers to which I can accept my disadvantage due to being born later. But when I am winning and the losers are proped up to stay ahead of me that does annoy me slightly.

If I have to pay more for a house because I was born later, why should those who bought before me and much lower prices get helped by me?

By all means I am up fine with the idea of helping them, but there has to be a cap, after 12 months if somebody still can't afford to pay the mortgage they signed upto they should be kicked out, harsh buy more than fair.

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

Would you extend this to paying rent for tenants and to other forms of unemployment related benefits?

Yes, but not at the bottom end.

I beleive everyone has the right to exist and that we should pay for that. But not supply any quality of life with it.

If people do not contribute to society, we should only supply them with the basics to exist.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

:But this fricking one liner argument every blimmin time. NO ONE HAS SAID THEY WANT FAMILIES CHUCKED OUT TO THE STREETS. IT IS MERELY AN EMOTIONAL SIDEKICK TO DROWN OUT ANY FORM OF ARGUMENT.

Percy did...

By all means I am up fine with the idea of helping them, but there has to be a cap, after 12 months if somebody still can't afford to pay the mortgage they signed upto they should be kicked out, harsh buy more than fair.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

As many people keep pointing out to me life has winners and losers to which I can accept my disadvantage due to being born later. But when I am winning and the losers are proped up to stay ahead of me that does annoy me slightly.

Sounds a bit self-pitying. Where's the disadvantage of having a whole life ahead of you?

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

I could not agree more with your earlier point, or this one, except I would probably increase the support to 6 months ratehr than 3. Benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

My stance on this issue is simply that if we are to help people, then we should help them whether they are in rental or OO's.

I for one are happy to help people when they need my help. But I cannot believe that people need more than 3 months to return to work.We should not subsidise people to find the job they want, I do not wish to pay for people's ego.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But this fricking one liner argument every blimmin time. NO ONE HAS SAID THEY WANT FAMILIES CHUCKED OUT TO THE STREETS. IT IS MERELY AN EMOTIONAL SIDEKICK TO DROWN OUT ANY FORM OF ARGUMENT.

No one???

hold on - Orpheo wants families kicked out of their homes

Orpheo wrote: »

As it is with so many things, like shouldn't really come into it. It may be their home, but unless it is paid for then it isn't their house. If they can't pay for it then they can't have it. Nobody likes putting people out of a job, but sometimes it is necessary and sometimes even deserved.