GDP figures expected to show the UK economy has slowed

lisyloo

Why should homeowners pay for insurance twice?

Hello Hamish - They don't have to. It really depends on whether they are happy with the basic level of cover provided by the state.
For many people it's not enough to keep them in the style they are accustomed to so they need to purchase more.
It's not a moral judgement, simply that if you want a higher level of insurance you have to pay more for it.

Should renters also pay for insurance twice?

This is not an owners/renters debate.
Quite simply if the level of lifestyle you want is beyond what can be supported on benefits and you want to KEEP that lifestyle, then yes you need to buy additional insurance.
Doesn't matter whether you are a renter/owner/childless or whatever.

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

It's called a "safety net" and provides a basic subsitance level of cover.
I don't personally think it would be fair to set it at a really high level, but regardless of the morality, you'd also have issues with incentive (which to a degree we have already).
If people were marvellously well provided for on benefits then no-one would work and we have that already for low income earners.
If you are suggesting a sliding scale e.g. those who pay more in, get more out, then morally/logically I have no objection, however I'm not sure the finances would work as currently higher earners susidise lower ones at the moment, so I'm not sure there would be enough money.

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

I agree. Housing benefit should be the same for each and where they are expected to live should be the same.

No it isn't.

In the general sense it is fair that people shoudl accept some responsibility for their decisions and financial planning.
If you are saying some aspects of the benefits system are not fair, then I'm pretty sure I would agree with you.

lisyloo

its easy to point at other peoples bad financial management when you yourself only manage your own finances with only yourself to worry about

Having other people to worry about should not be used as an excuse NOT to do financial planning.
In fact if you have dependents then it becomes more even important to do so.
You have to cut your cloth to suit whether you have kids/wife or not.
I'm not judging anyone in particular but you (peakoil) seem to get very personal about people.

I don't have kids - that was a choice.
I don't have any issue with other people's choices about family or financial planning providing they aren't expecting a luxury level bailout.
The state bailout is a safety net, not necessarily to keep you in the style you want.
I don't have any issue with renters either and never made a distinction between owners and renters - as far as debt and moral hazard goes both should be treated the same in my view.

peakoil_2

peakoil wrote: »

I take it you dont have kids either. how old are you?

peakoil wrote: »

another childless moron turns up. :rotfl:

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't have kids.

I rest my case. only those with no children have the every man for himself standpoint. well, right up until something bad happens to them and there much lauded insurance policies find loop holes or run out because they dont pay indefinitely and they run out of savings. suddenly they all become socialists. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

julieq

Oh for heaven's sake, here we go again. The cost of mortgage interest support to homeowners is a TINY FRACTION of the cost of housing benefit. Therefore the numbers show that in comparison far more people renting can't afford the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

So follow the logic here and there is only one conclusion: the bigger problem by an order of magnitude is people renting beyond their means, so chuck them out and put them into tenements.

It's the usual special pleading from the side of the argument that wants forced sales so they can get cheaper houses. Like it or not there is a social contract between citizens and the government that in times of need a proportion of tax will be used to keep people in their homes. That works equally for renters and homeowners.

peakoil_2

you dont understand julieq. the amount of money saved by stopping the mortgage interest support scheme would be enough to pay down the whole national debt. this is why its abaxas top priority above the bankers and above the government spendthrifts.

start at the bottom with the least saving and work your way up to the larger savings. hangon that doesnt make sense if we are talking about getting the country out of debt. that only makes sense if we want to get abaxas a cheap home. ahhhh the penny drops. :rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

lisyloo wrote: »

a luxury level bailout.
.

Doesn't exist under the SMI scheme. It's capped at 200K of borrowings, and pays interest only at the rate of 3.5%.

Less than renters get in many cases.

So shouldn't be an issue.

shortchanged_2

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

Sorry lisyloo but I seem to remember you defending Grant Bovey and Anthea Turner some time ago about how it was fine for them to continue to live in some luxurious mansion after Bovey had been declared bankrupt. It didn't matter about all the other people that were shafted as a result of his actions.

Double standards here I think lisyloo.

peakoil_2

shortchanged wrote: »

Sorry lisyloo but I seem to remember you defending Grant Bovey and Anthea Turner some time ago about how it was fine for them to continue to live in some luxurious mansion after Bovey had been declared bankrupt. It didn't matter about all the other people that were shafted as a result of his actions.

Double standards here I think lisyloo.

its not difficult to find the hypocrisy in the statements made by benefit bashers.

lisyloo

only those with no children have the every man for himself standpoint

Absoltuely not.
I contribute a lot of 40% tax to the system a lot more than most women/carers who stay at home and I'm happy to contribute.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with advocating sensible financial planning for every one.

Sorry lisyloo but I seem to remember you defending Grant Bovey and Anthea Turner some time ago about how it was fine for them to continue to live in some luxurious mansion after Bovey had been declared bankrupt.

Yes, it's fine for Grant to live in his Wife's mansion.
She is not a chattel - she is an independent financial person.
If he wants to live with another individual then I don't have an issue with that.

It didn't matter about all the other people that were shafted as a result of his actions.

Oh, no I don't think I said that - that's your interpretation.
What I am saying is that it's nothing to do with Anthea. They are two seoerate individuals.
He went bankrupt and that's nothing to do with her.

Double standards here I think lisyloo.

Absolutely not and I don't see the connection at all.
Looks like Grant and Anthea actually did their financial planning quite well to me.

its not difficult to find the hypocrisy in the statements made by benefit bashers.

I have not bashed benefits in any way shape or form.
Jsut said that if you want more you need to buy it - simples.

well, right up until something bad happens to them

If something bad happens to me I'll taek responsbility for my financial situation.

gagahouse

Bringing this thread back on topic, if this author is correct, and he makes a very cogent argument, we should expect many more years of anaemic growth for the UK.

It is a long read with some eye opening numbers and good economic analysis, more interesting than the usual housing borefest / ego battles we get on this thread.

http://www.tullettprebon.com/Documents/strategyinsights/Tim_Morgan_Report_007.pdf