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

peakoil_2

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

what about the LEL and HEL?

Graham_Devon

peakoil wrote: »

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

If it wasn't that difficult, people wouldn't need to rely on spreading simple lies, hoping it sticks to "get one over" me. Using what was actually stated by myself, wouldn't be an issue.

Moreover, you chucky, wouldn't be making new names.

For the record, Julie, and those thanking julie for her misinformation, here is what I actually said in terms of support for homeowners in March 2011...

It really is that simple for me. 18 months would be my thoughts. After that, we have to move on, and stop treating those who have houses in a different way to those that don't.

After 18 months, people have had a fair chance, fair help, yet still cannot afford their houses. So I don't know what really is going to change. Its been extended to 3 years now. What then? People still can't afford them so we extend it again?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42291620&postcount=209

Julies interpretation of this is to suggest that because I would like to see more help for those who rent, I am somehow inconsistent as 'apparently' I'm not in favour of any support for homeowners....

But Graham, you appear to favour government intervention when it works against landlords, and be against it when it works in favour of homeowners. I wonder why that is?

Yet I'm in favour of government assistance to homeowners for up to 18 months.

Julie is merely spreading non truths, and as far as I'm concerned, when thats the game, the argument is lost.

peakoil_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If it wasn't that difficult, people wouldn't need to rely on spreading simple lies, hoping it sticks to "get one over" me. Using what was actually stated by myself, wouldn't be an issue.

Moreover, you chucky, wouldn't be making new names.

For the record, Julie, and those thanking julie for her misinformation, here is what I actually said in terms of support for homeowners in March 2011...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42291620&postcount=209

Julies interpretation of this is to suggest that because I would like to see more help for those who rent, I am somehow inconsistent as 'apparently' I'm not in favour of any support for homeowners....

Yet I'm in favour of government assistance to homeowners for up to 18 months.

Julie is merely spreading non truths, and as far as I'm concerned, when thats the game, the argument is lost.

such a long post and yet you somehow failed to discuss the salient point about tenants. your views about mortgage holders are well known and TBH I dont have a problem with them, 18 months is sufficient. However, I think your statement:

"It really is that simple for me. 18 months would be my thoughts. After that, we have to move on, and stop treating those who have houses in a different way to those that don't."

must mean that you think tenants should only receive 18 months assistance too? after all, they should STOP TREATING those with house different from those who dont (ie those who rent). you are promoting equality with this statement, and I salute you, we should have equality in all things.

what do we do with tenants who are out of work for more than 18 months, graham?

Percy1983

Actually I would say there is a difference is helping someone pay rent and helping them pay down an asset.

For home owners I do believe there should be a cut off, as for tenants maybe not so much but I do believe they should only have enough for shelter and food until they start working again.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Actually I would say there is a difference is helping someone pay rent and helping them pay down an asset.
.

SMI doesn't help them "pay down an asset".

It's support for mortgage interest. IN the vast majority of cases it does not cover any capital repayment, and in some cases it doesn't even cover the interest component.

peakoil_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

For home owners I do believe there should be a cut off, as for tenants maybe not so much.

why should there be this inequality?

why should one set of citizens receive more than another?

the bears on this site seem to dance around this and tie themselves in knots trying to avoid it. poor graham devon was flopping like a fish.

Generali

peakoil wrote: »

why should there be this inequality?

why should one set of citizens receive more than another?

the bears on this site seem to dance around this and tie themselves in knots trying to avoid it. poor graham devon was flopping like a fish.

It isn't an inequality. Home owners continue to have their housing costs paid only via rent not mortgage.

There has to be a point where the state doesn't support people with large assets. Those assets should be sold to support their former owners.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

It isn't an inequality. Home owners continue to have their housing costs paid only via rent not mortgage.

There has to be a point where the state doesn't support people with large assets. Those assets should be sold to support their former owners.

On every level, I know you're wrong about this.

But for the life of me I can't articulate why.:(

Damn it.

I'm actually going to have to put some thought into this one.;)

Percy1983

Yes I agree that SMI may not actually pay downt he asset as its meant to cover interest only.

But it is helping them keep the asset if I have signed up to pay £800 a month for an asset and the government gives me £200 regardless of the split of capital/interest they are helping me pay for that asset.

The inequality is based on the inequality to start with, a home owner has a chunk of equity in a home (usually) so at some point they should be forced to use said asset, a tenant doesn't have the asset to cash in so I don't see how we can force them too.

At the end of the end being a tenant is the bottom rung so we can't push them any further down without making them homeless, where as if a home owner can't afford there purchase then after a fair time of support they should then be pushed down a rung to a tenant as they can't afford to be a home owner (like many other tenants).

Either way you will get more renters to push up your rents which you should be happy about, shame the repo's with have an effect on the value of your assets.

kabayiri

Gen is right, but on a macro level, it can be expressed as :-

- government needs cash in future coz they know they can't balance the bills (DEMAND)
- apparently wealthy home owners with multiple BTLs will appear to be a juicy source of cash (SUPPLY)

Classic case of supply n demand !

(to make it fair they will end up taxing everyone on their property gains, in some form or other)