GDP figures expected to show the UK economy has slowed

peakoil_2

abaxas wrote: »

All I am saying is that if you cant afford something you shouldn't have it. If you cant pay your mortgage, you should lose your home. If you can pay your debts the bailiffs should come round and take your belongings.

There needs to be morality in this world. There can be none if there is no disadvatange to failure.

survival of the fittest. good job you are the fittest as far as financial metters are concerned so its easy for you to judge others. its intersting that everyone I know who holds your viewpoint is childless and therefore has a decent disposible income to keep the wolves from the door. :rotfl:

interesting that you cant afford to buy a house outright and yet you are still getting one. so much for not having something if you cant afford it. if you werent a hypocrite you would stand by what you believe and save up 100% for that family home.

abaxas

peakoil wrote: »

survival of the fittest. good job you are the fittest as far as financial metters are concerned so its easy for you to judge others. its intersting that everyone I know who holds your viewpoint is childless and therefore has a decent disposible income to keep the wolves from the door. :rotfl:

It's called life.

lisyloo

that they have gotten into arreas with because Dad lost his job in a recession that was no fault of his own. these people shouldn't lose their homes?

If someone wants to kep their home during death/sickness/accident and redundancy then they should do financial plannign when they take on the debt.
I sympathise with anyone that suffers what life throws at us, but if keeping your home is important then you need to make plans including purchasing insurance OR lose you home a live somewhere cheaper.
It's unfortuante but why should everyone else subsidise you to keep up your previous lifestyle because you didn't plan for perfectly forseeeable events.

I agree with abaxus - we need moral hazard.
That's not because we're nasty people but because it's morally fair.

peakoil_2

abaxas wrote: »

It's called life.

no its your view on life. a view that will change once you have kids and have to buy a bigger place on a smaller disposible income.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

abaxas wrote: »

If you cant pay your mortgage, you should lose your home. .

We are all forced to pay national insurance, to cover ourselves through the benefits system from things like loss of income due to redundancy.

If you don't like homeowners benefiting from the same cover renters get, then they should be able to opt out of a portion of national insurance payments, and use the money to buy private insurance to cover mortgage payments in the event of job loss.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We are all forced to pay national insurance, to cover ourselves through the benefits system from things like loss of income due to redundancy.

It's not to cover mortgage payments, which I believe you know.

The contributory benefits


National Insurance contributions count towards the following state benefits:

• the basic State Pension
• the additional State Pension, sometimes called the State Second Pension
• Jobseeker's Allowance - the 'contribution-based' element
• Employment and Support Allowance - the 'contribution-based' element
• Maternity Allowance
• bereavement benefits - Bereavement Allowance, Bereavement Payment and Widowed Parent's Allowance
• Incapacity Benefit

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

lisyloo wrote: »

if keeping your home is important then you need to make plans including purchasing insurance OR lose you home a live somewhere cheaper.

Why should homeowners pay for insurance twice?

Should renters also pay for insurance twice?

What's the point of mandatory national insurance for all if it only covers 30% of the population?

I agree with abaxus - we need moral hazard.

Then we need to abolish a benefits system that is supposed to provide universal coverage, and not discriminate (too much) between owners and renters.

That's not because we're nasty people but because it's morally fair.

No it isn't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not to cover mortgage payments, which I believe you know.

National insurance was put in place to fund the benefits system. Eligibility for some benefits depends upon payment of NI, these are known as "contributory" benefits. Other benefits are universal and apply even to children, but are still paid for out of NI revenue on the whole, as indeed is a portion of the NHS.

Printing a list of the "contributory benefits" proves nothing.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Other benefits are universal and apply even to children, but are still paid for out of NI revenue on the whole, as indeed is a portion of the NHS.

That's not correct. NI goes into the same pot as the rest of the tax gathered on behalf of the Treasury. The Treasury has always fought against hypothecation (that is raising tax to be spent entirely on a specific thing).

NI revenue is used to pay for bombs, welfare and Christopher Chope's admin assistant.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

That's not correct. NI goes into the same pot as the rest of the tax gathered on behalf of the Treasury. .

I hope you have an editing account with wikipedia then......

I've included their source.

The National Insurance Fund is still nominally hypothecated, and national insurance payments cannot be used to fund general government spending, although as much of the fund is invested in government securities it is available for borrowing by the government for spending on capital projects, such as schools and hospitals.

National Insurance contributions are paid into the various classes of National Insurance after deduction of monies specifically allocated to the National Health Service (NHS).

However a small percentage is transferred from the fund to the NHS from certain of the smaller sub-classes. Thus the NHS is partially funded from NI contributions but not from the NI Fund.[4]

[4]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920005_en_17#pt12-l1g161