Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

wotsthat

Joeskeppi wrote: »

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

Yes - and not only that they work for the council as well earning £96,000 for changing two lightbulbs a week.

We're getting quite upset about it.

FTBFun

Joeskeppi wrote: »

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

It was for an extra large house on the Planet Endor. Or something.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

chucky

FTBFun wrote: »

I can't believe this thread is still going.

it's ok - we're educating that Devon bloke, because he's worth it

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

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.

I will state this clearly and Mr Bravo has picked me up on this to which I will admit I haven't been 100% clear on this in the past.

1, Deposit wise I can't afford a house
2, Income wise I can afford a house
3, Point 2 is quickly taking care of point 1

So thankyou for your concern, I have looked at myself and upped my income rather well and am doing much better than many of the boomers before me, just a bit of waiting right now.

If I ask you a direct question can you give a direct answer:

How long should SMI be paid for in your opinion, you keep saying my 12 months idea is wrong, but what is right?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

I think the state should provide state welfare benefits. I don't see why landlords should be singled out to make additional contributions.

I'm not a landlord and haven't spotted the irony yet.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will state this clearly and Mr Bravo has picked me up on this to which I will admit I haven't been 100% clear on this in the past.

1, Deposit wise I can't afford a house
2, Income wise I can afford a house
3, Point 2 is quickly taking care of point 1

So thankyou for your concern, I have looked at myself and upped my income rather well and am doing much better than many of the boomers before me, just a bit of waiting right now.

If I ask you a direct question can you give a direct answer:

How long should SMI be paid for in your opinion, you keep saying my 12 months idea is wrong, but what is right?

max 12 months but with older people it's harder to find a job so not sure of the answer for over 50's.

btw i also believe unemployment benefit should only be for 12 months and cannot be claimed again until you have worked 12 months.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

max 12 months but with older people it's harder to find a job so not sure of the answer for over 50's.

btw i also believe unemployment benefit should only be for 12 months and cannot be claimed again until you have worked 12 months.

I will say what you say about the over 50's does hold some weight, to which maybe a much tighter net can close after 12 months to which those still in need and truely trying can continue to claim.

Anyway, I want people kicked out on the streets for saying 12 months, but you are caring for saying 12 months?

I have probably missed something here?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I think the state should provide state welfare benefits. I don't see why landlords should be singled out to make additional contributions.

Ok, good. We agree, so far.

Now, taking it a step further. And please, don't just ignore it.

How about state handed half the rent to the landlord, but the tenant got to stay in the house.

Would you think that was fair?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

max 12 months but with older people it's harder to find a job so not sure of the answer for over 50's.

btw i also believe unemployment benefit should only be for 12 months and cannot be claimed again until you have worked 12 months.

So after all that having a go, you come along and agree there should be a 12m time cap.

What the !!!! gives.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would you think that was fair?

No I wouldn't. Is this going somewhere or is this the forumonics you keep telling us about?