Tenant Arrears... Plummeting, Tanking, Crashing even....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Owners and renters get the same benefit though. They can both get their rent paid by the state.

What the Government is saying through her policies is that the state will act to keep you in a home that you have bought in order to give you a chance to get back on your feet. If that doesn't work then the long term solution is for you to sell your asset and once you have run down some of the capital realised she will then pay your rent.

That seems pretty reasonable to me. The Government doesn't pay for you to retain any other asset.

The administrator of the National Insurance scheme should not be discriminating against homeowners versus renters.

As a contributor to the scheme, a tax enforced against my income pays for the cover I receive.

Provided that cover is limited to the same overall cost, on average, that renters receive, it should make no difference to the government whether they are paying rent or mortgages.

In reality, in the majority of cases it's going to be cheaper for them to pay mortgage interest than rent.

Why should I as a taxpayer be encouraging a more expensive solution to providing a safety net?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mandi wrote: »

Lets face it Hamish . As a tennant I class my " rented home" as my own.

I have made loads of improvements to my house all of which will benefit my LL .

You can class it any way you like, but that doesn't change the facts.

It's not your house.

End of story.

Your post is both selfish and simplistic factual .

Fixed that for you. :cool:

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Why? If they can't afford to rent the place they're renting, why should they have any support at all? That was your argument against the far cheaper benefit covering mortgage interest.

You're incredibly inconsistent Graham.

For the second time, I have said I support SMI support for 18 months.

I'm not being inconsistent, you are just ignoring what I'm actually saying and making stuff up to gain forum points. If you wish to discuss, discuss on whats said, instead of simply making stuff up.

You've also ignored every single argument for support I have actually put on this thread, and concentrated solely on your make believe nonsense. Of course, your supporters love it. It's basically called slander and it "gets one over graham".

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The administrator of the National Insurance scheme should not be discriminating against homeowners versus renters.

As a contributor to the scheme, a tax enforced against my income pays for the cover I receive.

Provided that cover is limited to the same overall cost, on average, that renters receive, it should make no difference to the government whether they are paying rent or mortgages.

In reality, in the majority of cases it's going to be cheaper for them to pay mortgage interest than rent.

Why should I as a taxpayer be encouraging a more expensive solution to providing a safety net?

The cost isn't the same though. If you are forced to sell your asset (house) then the state stops supporting you until you have run down that capital.

Why should you be able to hold on to a valuable asset at the taxpayers expense because the asset happens to be a house? If you held cash or shares and used the income to pay rent then you wouldn't be able to claim benefits indefinitely.

The National Insurance scheme discriminates in favour of home owners already as they get to keep assets that if they were held in any other form except in a pension fund they would be forced to sell. It seems reasonable for the state to pay mortgage interest for a while to help people get back on their feet but ultimately it's unreasonable to expect other people to pay for you (or anyone else) to hold on to a valuable asset while paying you an income indefinitely.

National Insurance is a bit of a fig leaf these days anyway. It doesn't come close to covering the welfare bill and hasn't for decades AFAIK.

peakoil_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

it "gets one over graham".

not a difficult task from what I have seen. :rotfl::rotfl:

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
National Insurance is a bit of a fig leaf these days anyway. It doesn't come close to covering the welfare bill and hasn't for decades AFAIK.

Successive governments have undermined the purpose of NI, by increasing it whenever they felt like they needed some extra revenue.

It's about time we merged it and income tax.

kabayiri

Would it help if we enforced all BTL property to be run through companies ?

It might bring a number of benefits, and potentially a lucrative income stream for the government.

Percy1983

Or maybe they should have to pay for a BTL license every year, to which if strict terms are not kept to they can have there license revoked.

IronWolf

Guys regardless or how much house prices rise, or fall, you'll still have small knobs, so stop with the over-compensating

peakoil_2

IronWolf wrote: »

Guys regardless or how much house prices rise, or fall, you'll still have small knobs, so stop with the over-compensating

At last! someone talking sense.

I cant believe that these guys have been on here for anything upto 7 years talking the same crap over and over. Graham devon has been on here since 1995 and has made something like 30,000 posts about house prices. if he put as much effort into doing his job he would be CEO of his company and would be able to afford a decent house for him and his family without having to pray for someone to get reposessed.