We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN
Comments
-
AGHHHHH
People should have the right to exist, not the right to quality of life as the expense of others.
Fortunately we live in a modern democracy where kicking people out into the street and leaving them there isn't a realistic option.
If SMI is in place to stop this and is more cost efficient than the alternative I have no problem with it. Especially as I've now seen the cost of this (thanks julieq).0 -
not another one that is hard of reading... that wasn't what you and that Devon bloke were trying to claim that SMI made capital repayments for mortgage holders... it isn't true.
please try again !!!!!!
To be fair it does say this:
SMI – excess payments
Some homeowners may have actual interest rates that are lower than the standard rate used to calculate SMI payments. This means they receive more SMI than required to meet the payments due to their lender. These payments can only be credited to their mortgage account.
Although there is no statistics as to how much this actually is. In any case I don't think this is worth frothing about.0 -
not another one that is hard of reading... you're telling me what SMI is.
that wasn't what you and that Devon bloke was trying to claim that SMI was higher than the average mortgage rate so people could make capital repayments from SMI...
please try again !!!!!!
My reading is fine, considerably better in fact. As evidenced by the above quoted post it is your communication skills that are poor, chuckles. And you are failing to read my posts correctly, chortles.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
i agree that some people have got lucky with low mortgage rates and SMI but it can't be the norm for people to try to claim that SMI pays off people's assets for them. sorry, it's not correct.To be fair it does say this:
SMI – excess payments
Some homeowners may have actual interest rates that are lower than the standard rate used to calculate SMI payments. This means they receive more SMI than required to meet the payments due to their lender. These payments can only be credited to their mortgage account.
Although there is no statistics as to how much this actually is. In any case I don't think this is worth frothing about.
you're right i'll let them froth away.0 -
Fortunately we live in a modern democracy where kicking people out into the street and leaving them there isn't a realistic option.
If SMI is in place to stop this and is more cost efficient than the alternative I have no problem with it. Especially as I've now seen the cost of this (thanks julieq).
Why not?
Since when has a 'modern democracy' required that people don't fend for themselves?
If anything that is a backward system rather than forward looking. Ie one that promotes servitude rather than personal responsibility.
How exactly is the removal of this responsibility moving us forward?0 -
Fortunately we live in a modern democracy where kicking people out into the street and leaving them there isn't a realistic option.
If SMI is in place to stop this and is more cost efficient than the alternative I have no problem with it. Especially as I've now seen the cost of this (thanks julieq).
By way of comparison, housing benefit costs £21Billion pa. In fact the difference is so great that I'm trying to get a definitive cost for SMI in total (as opposed to the extension that's been made) because I don't believe £110M is enough. Fortunately the STR bears won't qualify for either on the basis they'll be sitting on a great big pile of cash if they lose their jobs, so thank heavens for prudence eh?
But the key point is that people with mortgages pay NI and they are entitled to a benefit when they hit trouble because they HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. This is not "our" money going to the f eckless, it's for people who have worked and paid tax and who have every right to expect some support from the welfare state.
It's also not just supporting those who bought with big mortgages and who in the bears' eyes should take the consequences. In fact unemployment disproportionately affects the young (who probably haven't bought yet) and the middle aged who won't have enormous mortgages, not the dual income young who will mostly still be paying their mortgages from their employment.
But what do the bears talk about? A few sample size one anecdotes who mewed and spent the cash and are now having interest payments covered by benefits. So big deal. It's not the general case.0 -
Why not?
Since when has a 'modern democracy' required that people don't fend for themselves?
If anything that is a backward system rather than forward looking. Ie one that promotes servitude rather than personal responsibility.
How exactly is the removal of this responsibility moving us forward?
The welfare state is (in an ideal world) designed to act as a safety net and was quite an advanced idea when it was introduced, in that society was there to protect those most in need.
Pretty much every advanced country in the world, even the more market orientated like the USA, has some form of protection like this. I doesn't appear to have "promoted servitude" (what on earth does that mean?) but rather given a foundation to a society where it isn't dog eat dog and everyone is connected in some way. I'd much rather have this than the alternative.0 -
Is that so? Evidence?
You yourself provided evidence that 3.63% was the average, I will assume you know what average means.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
The welfare state is (in an ideal world) designed to act as a safety net and was quite an advanced idea when it was introduced, in that society was there to protect those most in need.
Pretty much every advanced country in the world, even the more market orientated like the USA, has some form of protection like this. I doesn't appear to have "promoted servitude" (what on earth does that mean?) but rather given a foundation to a society where it isn't dog eat dog and everyone is connected in some way. I'd much rather have this than the alternative.
I fully agree, but disagree with the level of help offered.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards