Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

A free market requires those that do not pay to be evicted, otherwise is ceases to function properly. Harsh but true.

So why then pay their rent? maybe because we don't live in a purely free market economy.

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

So why then pay their rent? maybe because we don't live in a purely free market economy.

I agree with you, paying rents to the private sector should be phased out and benefits should pay for the bare minimum living standard. (With the exception of long term disability, illness etc).

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes there does seem to be an element of jealousy here, though how you can be jealous of someone who has lost their job is beyond me.

How utterly pathetic.

ILW

SMI should also only be paid on the original purchase price of the house.

Orpheo

StevieJ wrote: »

A person who doesn't like to to see families evicted from their houses, especially if it doesn't help to cut that deficit. What are you?

There aren't many people who would like to see people evicted from their home. As it is with so many things, like shouldn't really come into it. It may be their home, but unless it is paid for then it isn't their house. If they can't pay for it then they can't have it. Nobody likes putting people out of a job, but sometimes it is necessary and sometimes even deserved.

Like, again, is an emotive word. Stop accusing people of jealousy or malice, it's tacky.

Graham_Devon

Next moves to consider then.

Let those in receipt of benefits take ownership of private & council rented homes after a fixed period of taxpayer funded rental payments.

Let people keep their cars which are on HPI, if they lose their job, or their income reduces and they can't pay for what they bought. Taxpayer to stump up the amount outstanding on the loan.

Let bankrupts keep every item with any value.

Remove the word "risk" from the financial dictionary. Though keep it on urban dictionary for any time you may need to accuse someone of not taking enough risk and loading themselves up to the eyeballs in debt.

Start taxpayer support for anyone who bought shares, and after selling has made a loss. Taxpayer should stump up the loss.

Taxpayer support for credit card bills should start with immediate effect.

But most importantly: Accuse anyone who does not agree with the above that they want people on the streets starving, with malnourished children in tow.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

SMI should also only be paid on the original purchase price of the house.

I think it is...

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

I agree with you, paying rents to the private sector should be phased out and benefits should pay for the bare minimum living standard. (With the exception of long term disability, illness etc).

So what would that be a tent in a field, or maybe the workhouse, maybe a holding centre. I am interested where should people who lose their job live?

Orpheo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Next moves to consider then.

Let those in receipt of benefits take ownership of private rented homes after a fixed period of taxpayer funded rental payments.

Let people keep their cars which are on HPI, if they lose their job, or their income reduces and they can't pay for what they bought.

Let bankrupts keep every item with any value.

Remove the word "risk" from the financial dictionary.

Start taxpayer support for anyone who bought shares, and after selling has made a loss. Taxpayer should stump up the loss.

Taxpayer support for credit card bills should start with immediate effect.

But most importantly: Accuse anyone who does not agree with the above that they want people on the streets starving, with malnourished children in tow.

I can honestly say that I wouldn't be surprised if any of these were announced.

abaxas

Weird idea.

How about we pay the interest bit for 3 months then claim it back via decreased tax code?

I dont think anyone would have complaints about that.