We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN
Comments
-
RenovationMan wrote: »Argh. Guys! This sort of nonsense totally undermines the debate and all of the decent and considered opinions and points you have expressed before.
Your both intelligent enough and your points are valid enough not to need this sort of rhetoric. Come on, this is exactly the reason why bleeding-heart liberals win the moral high ground and the discussion.
Fair point.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Right so lets take this a step further.
You are a landlord. Are you saying there should be no way landlords can evict tenants?
No, you are not. And no one is here pretending you want all families kicked out on the streets with kids living in cardboard boxes everytime you disagree with making the tenancy laws better for tenants in this country....which you have done in the past.
Though I tell you what, I'll just bombard you with these comments next time you suggest ANYTHING that may see a landlord evicting a tenant for any reason....even if that reason is they cannot afford rent.
i appreciate you are very good at confusing the discussion with your chewbacca technique but stick to the subject. thanks.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »Argh. Guys! This sort of nonsense totally undermines the debate and all of the decent and considered opinions and points you have expressed before.
Your both intelligent enough and your points are valid enough not to need this sort of rhetoric. Come on, this is exactly the reason why bleeding-heart liberals win the moral high ground and the discussion.
My point is that you cannot use cost effectiveness in issues of morality, as they always come unstuck.
People should not gain advantage via socialism.0 -
As I say I don't want families kicked out the second things go wrong, but if after 12 months they can't find anyway to support themselves they should be moved into whatever the goveremtn says since they are footing the bill.
By all means I would agree social housing needs a shake up.
I thought that is what they do anyway when someone is kicked out of their property, and it costs a fortune for B&B, don't worry if this govt can find a cheaper way, they will.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
i'd stick to the discussion in question - this the thread is about SMI not about landlords tenancy laws
i appreciate you are very good at confusing the discussion with your chewbacca technique but stick to the subject. thanks.
I do think its quite relevent.
You want to ramp house prices and SMI helps that and it causes less forced sellers. You claim you support this due to not wanting families kicked out on the street.
Yet I am more than sure if said families where in your property (the ones you keep trying to ramp the prices up on) and the yield wasn't there you would kick them out as soon as possible and get somebody else in who gives the yield you want.
By all means argue for SMI, buts lets be honest about your reasons for supporting it.Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
Started third business 25/06/2016
Son born 13/09/2015
Started a second business 03/08/2013
Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/20120 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »This is the crux of my point. It's preferrencial treatment. Help I'm all for. I've said it over and over. But if we are going to start preferencial treatment on the basis of cost effectiveness....then apply it countrywide. There would be anarchy.
If that's the crux then the point has been missed.
No-one is suggesting preferential treatment on the basis of cost effectiveness. Rather a BALANCE between cost and effectiveness.
An example - child benefit stopping if there's a higher rate taxpayer in the household. It doesn't appear to be entirely fair that a household earning £80,000 can still get CB but one earning £45,000 can't. It's just pragmatic and cheap to apply. No anarchy.0 -
I do think its quite relevent.You want to ramp house prices and SMI helps that and it causes less forced sellers. You claim you support this due to not wanting families kicked out on the street.
Yet I am more than sure if said families where in your property (the ones you keep trying to ramp the prices up on) and the yield wasn't there you would kick them out as soon as possible and get somebody else in who gives the yield you want.By all means argue for SMI, buts lets be honest about your reasons for supporting it.
it's not my fault you can't afford to buy a house - it's better if you look at yourself and not look for excuses like your date of birth.0 -
i'd stick to the discussion in question - this the thread is about SMI not about landlords tenancy laws
i appreciate you are very good at confusing the discussion with your chewbacca technique but stick to the subject. thanks.
Not relevant because you know what I said is completely and utterly true.
You would be totally against a system whereby the tenant in your home could rack up 12m of arrears before you could move on to new tenants.
It's totally relevant to the discussion because it's you saying people want families kicked out. But you'll simply pass this off as "sidestepping the debate" etc etc, and every other tired old excuse you come up with on every thread whenever challenged.
In a minute, you'll simply tell us were missing the point, yet won't, ever, tell us what the point actually is.0 -
it's not my fault you can't afford to buy a house - it's better if you look at yourself and not look for excuses like your date of birth.
Of course you can make excuses and blame others in any fixed or manipulated market.
If the market for building was fair, we would not be in this situation.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Not relevant because you know what I said is completely and utterly true.Graham_Devon wrote: »You would be totally against a system whereby the tenant in your home could rack up 12m of arrears before you could move on to new tenants.
It's totally relevant to the discussion because it's you saying people want families kicked out. But you'll simply pass this off as "sidestepping the debate" etc etc, and every other tired old excuse you come up with on every thread whenever challenged.
maybe if you give your address i can send you a mega pack of straws so that you don't run out in future.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards