Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

ILW

chucky wrote: »

how many people have received it for more than 1 year?

just because the scheme will be in place for 4 years it doesn't mean that everyone will be claiming SMI for 4 years

If ahrdly anyone is getting it after 1 year, what is the point in extending? Sends out the wrong message.

ukcarper

chucky wrote: »

you're forgetting that it is more cost effective for the lender to keep someone in the property if the borrower is able to repay the mortgage in the future. that's why people are not getting repossessed.

i want a cap on the tax payer expense, i want the lender to take some responsibility too.

btw - how many people are on SMI for more than 1 year?

It would be interesting to know how many people are on SMI for over a year. I would have thought that most of the people who are claiming would be trying hard to get a job and are not people who choose to live their life on benefits.

ultrawomble

ukcarper wrote: »

It would be interesting to know how many people are on SMI for over a year. I would have thought that most of the people who are claiming would be trying hard to get a job and are not people who choose to live their life on benefits.

Given that 117,000 persons receiving Pension Credit were also in receipt of SMI last year (see the link below) it might be assumed that people might be on it for several years if not decades?

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSP-05818.pdf

ILW

ultrawomble wrote: »

Given that 117,000 persons receiving Pension Credit were also in receipt of SMI last year (see the link below) it might be assumed that people might be on it for several years if not decades?

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSP-05818.pdf

An earlier quote said that over 50% of those receiving SMI were pensioners. I believe that it will pay indefinately for thos eon a pension. Suppose it's good for those that will inherit but not so great for everyone else.

Does make you wonder how all these people got to the point of drawing a pension without paying off their mortgage though.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

If ahrdly anyone is getting it after 1 year, what is the point in extending? Sends out the wrong message.

it's the scheme that's being extended.

not everyone will be on it for 4 years!!! people are made unemployed and find jobs a different points in time...

chucky wrote: »

unfortunately this seems a very difficult and complicated concept for many people on here to grasp.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

how many people have received it for more than 1 year?

just because the scheme will be in place for 4 years it doesn't mean that everyone will be claiming SMI for 4 years

Difficult to know, it was difficult enough to find out just how much it cost, and none of us could find that.

However, all I can say is that 52% of claimants are on state pension.

Therefore, I'd guess, 52% at least are on it for well over a year.

SMI itself does not have a cap. It just goes on and on, basically until the mortgage is paid off or the benefits the claimant recieves change, i.e. they stop receving income support...then they would lose SMI.

The 3 year extension thing is more to do with the more favourable rules. SMI was always paying 1.5% above base. It's recently changed to 3.17% above base, plus you can claim within 13 weeks, instead of having to wait 39 weeks. It's that thats been extended, amongst other little changes to make things easier.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

it's the scheme that's being extended.

not everyone will be on it for 4 years!!! people are made unemployed and find jobs a different points in time...

If you havn't found anything in 3 years it is very unlikely that you ever will.

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Do pensioners in receipt of pensions credit and living in rented accomodation get their rent paid for life too?

Yes, but they don't get to keep any increased value in the property.

abaxas

I'm smelling discrimination here.

Obviously the value of society of a 70 year old is greater than a 60 year old and definitely more than an 18 year old.

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

Or get hit with any losses in value.

My point was just that if we stop paying for pensioners houses (and I'm not opposed to that in principle) and they sell up and rent, wont we just end up paying for them in rented accomodation, but probably a much greater amount than a small mortgage?

If a pensioner does not have a substantial amount of equity, they must have been romortgaging for whatever purpose. If they do have a large amount of equity they should be able to sell up and dowsize or move to a cheaper area, so no renting involved.