Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

errr, isn't just the mortgage interest paid for them and not the property paid for.

i don't actually think people 'walk away with a very valuable asset at the end of it' or has that been made up?

Semantics.

They can't afford the full repayments.

No point in discussing anything, with your around, is there. Everything gets dumbed down to the point of stupidness.

Orpheo

chucky wrote: »

exactly right - how do you feel about parents buying their children property or giving them a nice deposit to buy a property because they can't afford to buy themselves.

it's just not fair is it

Of course, the difference being that money from parents is private money given by choice and SMI is taking money from taxpayers, many of whom can't afford high house prices, to give to unemployed debtors.

Child benefit and pensions are a whole different debate and are redolent of deeper problems within the tax and benefits system.

I hope you were through with the bidet after posting on this thread.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

if it doesn't mean throwing families out of their homes and property being repossessed with a chance of them getting a cheap house most of them wouldn't care...

I'm not one of them. I don't want to take advantage of people being thrown out of their homes. If homebuying is a "free market" as people seem to suggest it is, then I don't want to see public funds being used to "assist" that free market (not in a big way anyway). If you are going to put a huge taxpayer funded safety net underneath homebuyers, then you may as well have invested more in social housing.

Orpheo

chucky wrote: »

errr, isn't just the mortgage interest paid for them and not the property paid for.

i don't actually think people 'walk away with a very valuable asset at the end of it' or has that been made up?

No. They get a flat amount based on the size of their mortgage according to BOE's average mortgage rate which, I believe, is around 3.7%, it used to be 6% under labour; this means that if people are paying a lower interest rate than 3.7% on their mortgage then they also get their capital reduced. The taxpayer is buying their house for them.

You might do some research before dropping opinions out of your a$$, schmucky.

The_White_Horse

this scheme is a JOKE. you should get it for a max of 6 months. if you have no job by then, sell your house and start renting.

i can barely afford my own life. why am i paying 6% interest for a load of people whose mortgages are probably 1.5%?????

its sickening.

this coalition is possibly the most unfair party i have ever seen. its like they go out of their way to screw married people with kids.

i am a big tory, but i will never vote for them again because of the child benefit farce. my friends on a combined 80k get it, and i lose it despite earning less. a disgusting state of affairs. and i am not saying i deserve it, just that if i don't, the two on 80k CERTAINLT don't!!!!!

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Semantics.

They can't afford the full repayments.

No point in discussing anything, with your around, is there. Everything gets dumbed down to the point of stupidness.

I had to smile at that one.

the_flying_pig

chucky wrote: »

exactly right - how do you feel about parents buying their children property or giving them a nice deposit to buy a property because they can't afford to buy themselves.

it's just not fair is it

that is reasonably fair because the parent has [presumably] earned that money & can do what they like with it.

StevieJ

Orpheo wrote: »

No. They get a flat amount based on the size of their mortgage according to BOE's average mortgage rate which, I believe, is around 3.7%, it used to be 6% under labour; this means that if people are paying a lower interest rate than 3.7% on their mortgage then they also get their capital reduced. The taxpayer is buying their house for them.

You might do some research before dropping opinions out of your a$$, schmucky.

So the ones in real need don't even get their interest paid for them :eek: No wonder there are no FTB, if they risk buying a house and lose their job they will not receive proper support from the govt.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

So the ones in real need don't even get their interest paid for them :eek: No wonder there are no FTB, if they risk buying a house and lose their job they will not receive proper support from the govt.

Are the house price optimists not the ones who say people should take risks, instead of sitting on the sidelines while laughing at them for how much they spent in rent?

Yet now, when people can't pay for their homes, who did jump in to home ownership, shouldn't have any risk, and the government should prop them up?

Hypocritical to say the least.

Orpheo

StevieJ wrote: »

So the ones in real need don't even get their interest paid for them :eek: No wonder there are no FTB, if they risk buying a house and lose their job they will not receive proper support from the govt.

Define real need. How about facts, figures and reality instead of BS emotive phrases?

I'll assume, as you haven't been at all specific, that you mean unemployed debtors with mortgage interest rates above 3.7%. They're not getting the "support" they need because unemployed debtors with mortgage rates of 1% are having their mortgages paid off with excess benefits while those in "real need" suffer.

I would support a variable system where just the interest on people's mortgages was paid off and it was limited to a period of 9 months to allow them to try to find a job. The SMI stops after 9 months and if they haven't found a job then they may lose their house if they cannot keep up repayments on the mortgage secured against it. Presumably they read their mortgage agreement before signing it?

Until we have a housing market that works this way then we don't have a housing market at all, just some rigged system for perpetuating the status quo. Interesting that all the rigging done so far is failing to open the sails of HPI.