mortgage benefit cut

seeya23

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Or for those that didn't bother to take insurance, a maximum limit of 1 year of welfare help in a lifetime? The propety owner will then have up to 12 months to find another job or to sell their house and live off the equity at a sensible rate of spending, so that they don't deprive themselves of capital for any future welfare claims.

what if you got no equity in your home and you cant not sell your home and your disabled and you can not work

BigAunty

seeya23 wrote: »

what if you got no equity in your home and you cant not sell your home and your disabled and you can not work

There is a statutory obligation for councils to provide housing to the homeless in priority need, and those with disabilities can be treated as if they are vulnerable and get classed as a priority.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/help_from_the_council/what_the_council_will_check/priority_need

The other alternative is this scheme, whereby a social housing landlord buys the property and lets the former owner live in it as a tenant. Again, it is targetted at those who are considered vulnerable, including those with disabilities.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/debt_and_arrears/mortgage_arrears/government_mortgage_rescue_scheme

Horseunderwater

And what if you cannot get life or health insurace/critical PPI? I cannot not get it at all. OH would be paying £300 a month for something they'd always find an excuse not to pay up on. Been there and done it years back. Back in the 90's when we did have it, they refused to pay up for redunancy when I was made redundent. The letter my employer gave me, stating that it was happening in the next 2 months was not good enough proof, so I cancelled it there and then. The only thing I still have cover of any kind on is my clothing catalogue and that is under £2 most months. And in case you're wondering, my health is extremely bad with a long term incurable and diabetes and many many other illnesses, so no I cannot get it. But then I cannot it seems get DLA or ESA either, let alone any other living benefit. I have what I call fallen down a big wide hole that has been well oiled, so that I cannot get anything anywhere. I wish I could. I have paid my fair share of tax etc over the years, so should be able to get some help, but I cannot. How is that Fair?

MissMoneypenny

BigAunty wrote: »

The purpose of the scheme is to prevent repossession. I wonder what the cost will be to the state if they didn't have this scheme and therefore local councils would have to house tens of thousands of households in social housing or private housing, at a cost of millions in terms of housing benefit.

Those in negative equity and can't pay their mortgage payments, would be those who couldnt afford a mortgage anyway now. If they can't overpay at these low rates, then they have no chance as libor rises. Their only hope is to keep on welfare, so that their mortgage interest is paid; this clinging to welfare must stop.

Those that have had their mortgages paid for many years while they were claiming sick, will have lots of equity to live off. Spending this equity at DWP rates will mean it will be many years before they claim housing payments.

As these houses are sold off, house prices will drop and that will enable others to buy and come out of private housing and keep demand for private renting, low. House owning is a privilege and should not be propped up by the welfare state.

Bring in housing laws to equal other western EU countres that have high numbers of renters i.e. capped rents, 3 year tenancies (which only the tenant can end sooner, with good cause); strict laws to prevent slum landlords. In many of the countries with good housing laws, tenants prefer the freedom that renting gives them. Present UK renting laws are a magnate for bad landlords, hence why people don't prefer to rent in the UK

Raise the rents on social housing so that the tenant pays rent according to their income (and that includes welfare payments they receive).

BigAunty

Horseunderwater wrote: »

And what if you cannot get life or health insurace/critical PPI?

Yes, good point.

Perhaps a possible exclusion is a state operated scheme like NI where people pay a flat % related to income and there is no exclusions to people joining on health grounds.

However, the problem with state operated schemes is that they are usually administered very poorly indeed and people who contribute without drawing on it can get extremely hostile to those with greater needs.

The other crueller more market driven option is that those who are considered risky simply suffer the impact of the higher risk of loss of income directly, without other people's money artificially propping them up, put the onus back on them to put aside rainy day money.

BigAunty

I think the SMI scheme is now time limited and in the past had caps on the sums but presumably prior to this, there may have been claimants on it for some years.

Does anybody personally know someone who has been on SMI for years and if so, what is sum that they've had from the taxpayers? has anyone found any stats on long term SMI claimants?

The DWP produce very detailed stats for housing benefit claimants so I wonder if there is this kind of information on SMI claimants.

tomjonesrules

numpty888 wrote: »

Okay - I feel like I should prolly give others a chance maybe now....

But I think people who have "negative equity" and would suffer repossession should receive benefit.
It is truly terrible to have negative equity and no job.

My annoyance is with those with "positive equity" (possibly very large equity) who also receive mortgage benefit.
This is getting tax payers to give them ability of timing when they sell.
It's just supporting the greed of people who are already rich.
Just get them to settle for a bit less (lower price but still +ve equity) than they would otherwise have got.

And back in the real world ...

Who is going to decide who qualifies for SMI? Your suggestion will involve professional valuations and a DM to look at each case. Plus of course, an annual revaluation as the market changes. Any estimates on how much this would cost?

You refer to rich people - do you honestly think that everyone who has equity in their property is 'rich'?

Consider an individual that has worked for the past 40 years, but has now been made redundant. He did not have insurance, he worked in the public sector and thought he had a job for life (it always used to be that way). He only has a small mortgage, say £20,000, and he has £80,000 equity. He cannot get a job, after all who wants to employ someone a few years off retirement? Are you suggesting that he sell the house he has been in all his life, just because you see him as 'rich'?

tomjonesrules

BigAunty wrote: »

Perhaps a possible exclusion is a state operated scheme like NI where people pay a flat % related to income and there is no exclusions to people joining on health grounds.

Surely that scheme is NI?

numpty888

Getting an estimate on property prices is easy.
You would only need it for people claiming negative equity in any case.

As for being rich.
Why should you receive any benefit when you have £100K of assets?
Benefit is meant to be for people in need.

If you were exactly the same person with the same net worth but have no property/mortgage you would get nothing.
In fact currently the person without the house would be subsidising the person with the house.
How crazy is that?

tomjonesrules

numpty888 wrote: »

Getting an estimate on property prices is easy.
You would only need it for people claiming negative equity in any case.

As for being rich.
Why should you receive any benefit when you have £100K of assets?
Benefit is meant to be for people in need.

If you were exactly the same person with the same net worth but have no property/mortgage you would get nothing.
In fact currently the person without the house would be subsidising the person with the house.
How crazy is that?

Getting a professional estimate on a property is certainly easy, but it is not cheap. Plus you cannot cherry pick who gets a valuation, the rule would have to apply to everyone.

You have missed the point that BigAunty made earlier - capital in your home is not liquid. Again, are you seriously suggesting that someone in the situation I described should have to sell their home?