Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

wotsthat

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.

Again the nth degree of inconsequence.

Who wouldn't be against a system like the one you suggest?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Again the nth degree of inconsequence.

Who wouldn't be against a system like the one you suggest?

The very people who are on here accusing everyone else wants people chucked out of their homes after 12m help, so they can get a cheap house.

Oh how unsurprising it is to find you would back a system that chucks people out of homes after not paying RENT. But mortgage, oh no no nooooo, you nasty nasty people want to see the kids thrown to the streets....you want to see people denied the NHS cus they own a home...

This thread is frankly pathetic.

Rennovation, I do hope you see my point about the chucking families on the streets slur and how its used conviniently every time....It's annoying, and turns any reasonable debate into a formumonics battle and fight.

abaxas

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The very people who are on here accusing everyone else wants people chucked out of their homes after 12m help, so they can get a cheap house.

Oh how unsurprising it is to find you would back a system that chucks people out of homes after not paying RENT. But mortgage, oh no no nooooo, you nasty nasty people want to see the kids thrown to the streets....you want to see people denied the NHS cus they own a home...

This thread is frankly pathetic.

Rennovation, I do hope you see my point about the chucking families on the streets slur and how its used conviniently every time....It's annoying, and turns any reasonable debate into a formumonics battle and fight.

Welcome to socialism, labour style.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The very people who are on here accusing everyone else wants people chucked out of their homes after 12m help, so they can get a cheap house.

Oh how unsurprising it is to find you would back a system that chucks people out of homes after not paying RENT. But mortgage, oh no no nooooo, you nasty nasty people want to see the kids thrown to the streets....you want to see people denied the NHS cus they own a home...

i'm not sure where i've said where i said i want "back a system that chucks people out of homes after not paying RENT" - maybe you could find a post where it was said? if you can't link to it - we can agree you've been making it up.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This thread is frankly pathetic.

well i guess you're right if you come up with the nonsense in your post - how about sticking to the topic and not flying off on a tangent when you get found out when you're wrong...

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The very people who are on here accusing everyone else wants people chucked out of their homes after 12m help, so they can get a cheap house.

Oh how unsurprising it is to find you would back a system that chucks people out of homes after not paying RENT. But mortgage, oh no no nooooo, you nasty nasty people want to see the kids thrown to the streets....you want to see people denied the NHS cus they own a home...

Graham you are starting to rant now.

The reason that many rational people wouldn't support your scheme is nothing to do with chucking people onto the street or the NHS but because we have a welfare state that should care for people down on their luck. Private individuals shouldn't be forced to care for these people unless they want to. Charity is voluntary.

The benefit should be effective and not too expensive to administer. If a single member of the undeserving poor benefiting trumps all other considerations then it's a sorry state of affairs.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Graham you are starting to rant now.

The reason that many rational people wouldn't support your scheme is nothing to do with chucking people onto the street or the NHS but because we have a welfare state that should care for people down on their luck. Private individuals shouldn't be forced to care for these people unless they want to. Charity is voluntary.

The benefit should be effective and not too expensive to administer. If a single member of the undeserving poor benefiting trumps all other considerations then it's a sorry state of affairs.

What scheme do you talk of?

18m of help before the house is bought by the government, or you are asked to sell and use your equity to rent, or be put into rented funded by LHA? People wouldn't support this?

Let's put it to the test shall we?

Discussion time....poll? Or the house buying board, poll on there.

I personally think 18m of help is perfectly fair for those able to work. I already excluded the disabled people.

So, do you want to put the theory to the test? Ask some people who are void of any forumonic bo**cks for their comment?

I think you may find yourself surprised, and flapping to tell me I'm now avoiding the issues.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What scheme do you talk of?

This one just a few short post back.

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.

System

Have I missed something? Has someone received SMI amounting to 12 million?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

This one just a few short post back.

Oh right.

Yes, of course most people would be against it. Because people cant afford to pay for what they are using.

Yet the people who would be venementally (sp) against it, are landlords....because they would, ultimately, lose out, while the person in the house wins.

It's mostly landlords, who are telling everyone else, that they want people chucked out of their homes (which they cannot afford the mortgage on) because they are jealous or want a cheap house. Yet the people they accuse of wanting people chucked out, are all stating "give them 12-18 months and then its time to realise they simply cannot afford it".

Can you not see the total irony here?

Seriously?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What scheme do you talk of?

the one that you wanted a few posts back before you went off on another tangent and moved the goal posts because you missed the real point....

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.