mortgage benefit cut

numpty888

I was reading about the mortgage benefit cut announced today...

I'm so annoyed that I can't help myself anymore.

I've been totally priced out of the housing market by absolutely silly prices. Why is it okay to have my tax to go to support someone who might have a million pounds in equity in their house but still has 1p left to pay on their mortgage.

Can anybody explain to me why this is fair at all?

Emmzi

I don't understand the question. Can you explain what you think is unfair in a different way so the slow people can follow :-)

colin13

the morgae benfit cut off 40%,has been in operaation for over a year now,,it was one of the things the condems did right away,,:(as far as i know they have not made any further cuts,,although it wouldnt surprise me if they did,,and disabled people like my self will be looking for a council house which government will have to pay,,and the rrent will be a lot dearer than smi

tomjonesrules

numpty888 wrote: »

I was reading about the mortgage benefit cut announced today...

I'm so annoyed that I can't help myself anymore.

I've been totally priced out of the housing market by absolutely silly prices. Why is it okay to have my tax to go to support someone who might have a million pounds in equity in their house but still has 1p left to pay on their mortgage.

Can anybody explain to me why this is fair at all?

Hello numpty,

I am also confused by your concern. If someone has 1p to pay on their mortgage their SMI entitlement would be so low that it would have to be rounded up, and hence would pay off the balance in the first payment.

Surely you don't begrudge someone a penny, do you numpty?

bigbill

Could they be on about the Tory plans to put a charge of peoples homes who get mortgage help while on benefits, similar to people in care who have a property?

tomjonesrules

bigbill wrote: »

Could they be on about the Tory plans to put a charge of peoples homes who get mortgage help while on benefits, similar to people in care who have a property?

I read about that, but the OP seems against offering any help at all, whether it is recouped or not. Unless he has just phrased his question really badly?

seeya23

see link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16069054 it.s being paid at the same rate till 2013 i may as well live in a Council house after then i get £39.58 a week smi if i live in a Council house it would cost them over £70 a week im disabled as well i lost my job in 2008 after being in hospital for 6 months this bit "These changes could see a charge put on the property of anyone who receives the assistance, which is recovered when the house is sold" are they going to make pepole who get hb pay it all back when they get a job i think not

BigAunty

This thread should be moved to Discussion Time.

I'm not surprised the government is tempted to try and reduce the £400 million per annum it spends preventing hard up property owners from having their properties repossessed.

Owning properties involves risk and rewards - the risk of changes to income and the reward of having your own place that may go up in value.

Perhaps a better way would be to put the responsibility back on the homeowner, not through placing a charge on the property which seems a huge scheme to manage and can only really be realised when the property is sold, but to make it compulsory for a person with a mortgage to have sickness/unemployment insurance?

seeya23

£400 million this note when look at cost of housing benefit of £20.8bn cost for that they want to look at ways to recover that when pepole go back in to work

BigAunty

The Guardian has an article about this, plus comments from readers.

Some of the readers do not support this kind of bail-out for struggling property owners, thinking it is better to let them go under rather than artificially prop up property prices, that the SMI is pretty much a gift to them.

Others say that to be a home owner, these people will have paid significant taxes and be less likely to draw on benefits in general and should get support in their time of need. Also, that as it's time limited, rather than open ended like housing benefit for tenants, it's not such an expense.

The national bill for housing benefit is approaching £20 billion. The support for property owners is £400 million - just a fraction, really.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/06/coalition-charge-support-mortgage-interest-scheme

numpty888

My understanding is that this benefit allows anyone with a mortgage to get their interest paid by the government.

Seems fine for people who are in negative equity but this is not a restriction. Property owners who have millions in equity in the properties can also claim as long as they have anything outstanding on their mortgage.

On the other side - I'm priced out of the property market and have my tax paying for this. Also anyone in rent with more than £16,000 in saving won't get any benefit support at all. And these days £16k is way less than most deposits! Seems deeply unfair to me?

Why doesn't the government account for property equity for benefit payments! Otherwise it really is taxing the poor to give to the rich...