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

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

Just a thought Do you think that if you force someone out of their house and eventually onto LHA they will try harder to find a job and support themselves than if they have a mortgage and the chance of owning their own house.

wotsthat

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.

This reminds me of the argument about whether a person's property should be sold to fund care in old age.

I don't see why the state should fund such care when there's a perfectly good asset that can be sold to pay for care. Once the money from the asset has been spent then the state should step in.

That's what assets are for.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

Just a thought Do you think that if you force someone out of their house and eventually onto LHA they will try harder to find a job and support themselves than if they have a mortgage and the chance of owning their own house.

Well personally once I have a house if I did see problems and couldn't sort myself in 18 months I would accept having to sell my house and rent, with that I would do everything possible to get back into the life I had.

With that I do seem to be one of the workers rather than scroungers in life to which I do feel I am in a minority these days so maybe you are right.

geneer

wotsthat wrote: »

This reminds me of the argument about whether a person's property should be sold to fund care in old age.

I don't see why the state should fund such care when there's a perfectly good asset that can be sold to pay for care. Once the money from the asset has been spent then the state should step in.

That's what assets are for.

Good lord. I can't quite beleive it.

Agreed.

peakoil_2

geneer wrote: »

Good lord. I can't quite beleive it.

Agreed.

you agree with this because you dont actually have any assets geneer and so you know you'll get a free ride from the tax payer.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

"The green telephone onyx severs the strange helmet" - (c) geneers random sentence generator 2011.