Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

What about the 50% whose smi doesn’t cover interest outstanding mortgage gets bigger each year.

It doesn't get bigger, the lender asks the borrower to make up the difference.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not going to argue this one. Theres no need, it's already been accepted that 50% get capital paid down each month due to their mortgage rates.

The payment only reduces once a review has taken place. I'm sure I read a review takes place every 2 years for those on pension credit. Theres scope there for extra capital each month, for 23 months, to be paid off.

Either way, whichever way you look at it, the mortgage is paid off quicker than it would have been.

Can argue the toss about the small print and micro argue this one, but I think the point was made above, so I won't be arguing the macro elements.

Not by me it hasn’t this is the paragraph from report

The Equality Impact Assessment suggested that just over half of all SMI claimants (around 115,000 people) would continue to receive the full amount of eligible mortgage interest following the introduction of a standard rate set at 3.67%. 75% (170,000 claimants) would have more than 70% of their mortgage interest covered, while 93% would receive more than 60% of their mortgage interest outgoings

That says just over half get full amount not all of that 50% get more than their interest payments.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It doesn't get bigger, the lender asks the borrower to make up the difference.

Is that true or do they add it to the loan after all if someone is on pension credit they won't have much spare money.

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

If this comes in (I mentioned it earlier but no one seems to have noticed it),than all this angst and discussion is moot:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8084737/140-a-week-for-all-pensioners.html

"A fixed state pension of £140 is to be proposed by ministers, raising the possibility of an end to means testing. "

Great plan as long as a single person's benfits are the same.

ukcarper

RenovationMan wrote: »

If this comes in (I mentioned it earlier but no one seems to have noticed it),than all this angst and discussion is moot:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8084737/140-a-week-for-all-pensioners.html

"A fixed state pension of £140 is to be proposed by ministers, raising the possibility of an end to means testing. "

"Under the plans, anyone entitled to a state pension would be paid the same basic amount, providing a boost to women and married couples who lose out under the current system.


The existing system pays a basic rate of £97.65 per week for a single person or £156.15 for a couple, with means-tested benefits for poorer pensioners.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Pensions Minister Steve Webb will lay out the plans in a Green Paper before the end of the year.

They will propose the biggest overhaul of state pensions since they were introduced half a century ago.


It is understood that the expected increase in the minimum rate will be offset by removing the bureaucracy surrounding means-testing. "

No more means-testing, no more SMI for pensioners, no more rent subsidies, no more free council tax.

I thought when they announced it they said it would only apply to new pensioners

ILW

Benifits (of any sort) are supposed to protect people at times of unexpected problems and allow them to muddle by and get back on their feet. How can pensionable retirement be unexpected? At which point i fail to see why the state should be picking up the bill.

ukcarper

RenovationMan wrote: »

I'm not sure, but this part of the article would suggest it will be applied across the board from day one:-

"Under the plans, anyone entitled to a state pension would be paid the same basic amount, providing a boost to women and married couples who lose out under the current system. "

It might be that everyone under £140 will start to receive £140 (and thus will no longer receive pensions credit) and those with better state pensions (i.e. due to SERPS/SP2) will continue to receive their enhanced pensions until they die off. Everyone else will just receive £140 regardless.

This link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12835656 seems to confirm it is new pensioners but I suppose we will have to wait until green paper to be sure.

wotsthat

RenovationMan wrote: »

It might be that everyone under £140 will start to receive £140 (and thus will no longer receive pensions credit) and those with better state pensions (i.e. due to SERPS/SP2) will continue to receive their enhanced pensions until they die off. Everyone else will just receive £140 regardless.

Everyone with an income of less than £140 already gets a pension credit top up to around £155 (I think) so it's not going to make that much difference financially.

It would reduce the cost of means testing and give people who didn't/ couldn't save for retirement the bare minimum to stay out of poverty. It will be quite interesting to see it introduced and wonder how the media will deal with it. There's not much sympathy for the layabout chav but when that chav gets to retirement I wonder if they'll start to be portrayed like the man for the Wurthers Original adverts.

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

Everyone with an income of less than £140 already gets a pension credit top up to around £155 (I think) so it's not going to make that much difference financially.

It would reduce the cost of means testing and give people who didn't/ couldn't save for retirement the bare minimum to stay out of poverty. It will be quite interesting to see it introduced and wonder how the media will deal with it. There's not much sympathy for the layabout chav but when that chav gets to retirement I wonder if they'll start to be portrayed like the man for the Wurthers Original adverts.

But wearing a tracksuit and offering swigs of their Stella to the kids.

StevieJ

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?

Wait a minute, what do you mean you can't afford the deposit, you live in Oldham not Chelsea