mortgage benefit cut

numpty888

Not sure I understand why everyone needs a professional valuation.

You simply don't get the benefit unless you can prove negative equity.
If it's obvious that you have negative equity - then no valuation would be required at all.

Surely the question should be.
Why should tax payers bail out people with high net worth?

If someone bought a ton of gold on debt which then doubles why should tax payers bail him out if he can't pay the interest on that debt.
Surely he should sell the gold first and then get benefit if he has no money.

tomjonesrules

numpty888 wrote: »

Not sure I understand why everyone needs a professional valuation.

You simply don't get the benefit unless you can prove negative equity.
If it's obvious that you have negative equity - then no valuation would be required at all.

Surely the question should be.
Why should tax payers bail out people with high net worth?

If someone bought a ton of gold on debt which then doubles why should tax payers bail him out if he can't pay the interest on that debt.
Surely he should sell the gold first and then get benefit if he has no money.

How do you establish negative equity without a professional valuation - guess work?

What if someone has £5,000 equity, much of which would be used up by selling and moving costs, would they qualify for help?

If you had paid taxes for 40 years and fallen on hard times, how would you feel about having to sell your house? Happy to spend your retirement in rented property with a non secure tenancy?

Hammyman

numpty888 wrote: »

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

Your assumption is wrong.

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?

There are houses for £27k in Hull. My friend bought a 6 bedroom house for £100k in Bridlington and there are 2 bed flats for sale there for £40k. I bought my current house for £125k last year.

What you mean is you're priced out of the property market if you live in the home counties or are too fussy about where you live.

Hammyman

numpty888 wrote: »

It is truly terrible to have negative equity and no job.

Why? Unless you're planning on selling your house, negative equity is just meaningless.

Hammyman

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.

Can I pay for my shopping at Tesco with the equity in my house? As far as I know its cash or credit card, not a charge on your property.

tomjonesrules

Hammyman wrote: »

Why? Unless you're planning on selling your house, negative equity is just meaningless.

That is a really good point. I had a panic about being in negative equity a few years back. Then someone reminded me that the chances of me ever selling my home were minimal, if I move I would let it out. It seems to be a concept that has been blown up by the media, whereas it is only really an issue for those that need to sell quite urgently.

The OP seems to take a very short term (and selfish) view of the situation. In reality, a few months (or even a few years) of SMI payments is far more cost effective than expecting someone to sell their home at a cut price or face repossession.

numpty888

It's easy to get an approximate valuation for a house based on the average for an area/postcode.
Unless you insist that your house is much less than the average then no valuation would be required.
Clearly this wouldn't be required if your mortgage is significantly higher than the average anyway.
Virtually no-one would really fall into this category.

If you had paid taxes for 40 years and had never bought a house how would you feel?
Just because someone doesn't own a property doesn't mean that they haven't paid tax also.
Why should the person with the house receive benefit when the other person doesn't get any at all?

Why should the rules be so skewed in the favor of the home owner?
Why not say that if you have more than £16K of asset (equity in property or savings/investments) then you don't get benefit?
Surely everyone can agree that would be fairer?

seeya23

numpty888 wrote: »

Not sure I understand why everyone needs a professional valuation.

You simply don't get the benefit unless you can prove negative equity.
If it's obvious that you have negative equity - then no valuation would be required at all.

Surely the question should be.
Why should tax payers bail out people with high net worth?

If someone bought a ton of gold on debt which then doubles why should tax payers bail him out if he can't pay the interest on that debt.
Surely he should sell the gold first and then get benefit if he has no money.

high net worth well that not me then my house valuation was £48000 i owe £58000 by helping me by giveing me £38 a week is a lot less than if i was in Council house and getting over £70 a week in housing benefit so that would cost taxpayers a lot more so all who poster on here who think that there jobs are safe you do not no what around the next corner in 2008 on i was £34000 a year + overtime then i ended up in hospital for 6 months and lost my job so all you people on here who think there are better than everyone on benefits one day you may be in the same boat

numpty888

Hammyman wrote: »

Your assumption is wrong.


There are houses for £27k in Hull. My friend bought a 6 bedroom house for £100k in Bridlington and there are 2 bed flats for sale there for £40k. I bought my current house for £125k last year.

What you mean is you're priced out of the property market if you live in the home counties or are too fussy about where you live.

Nope - I just mean I've been priced out of the places that have jobs. If I thought that I could get a job in the North then I would go - no problem.

The average property in the UK right now is about £160k I believe. 20% deposits are not untypical. And this ignores affordability. Even if you have got the deposit - you might not earn enough to get a big enough mortgage.

You're right though that the south-east is way, way worse. But the SE is where the few jobs are right now.

tomjonesrules

numpty888 wrote: »

It's easy to get an approximate valuation for a house based on the average for an area/postcode.
Unless you insist that your house is much less than the average then no valuation would be required.
Clearly this wouldn't be required if your mortgage is significantly higher than the average anyway.
Virtually no-one would really fall into this category.

If you had paid taxes for 40 years and had never bought a house how would you feel?
Just because someone doesn't own a property doesn't mean that they haven't paid tax also.
Why should the person with the house receive benefit when the other person doesn't get any at all?

Why should the rules be so skewed in the favor of the home owner?
Why not say that if you have more than £16K of asset (equity in property or savings/investments) then you don't get benefit?
Surely everyone can agree that would be fairer?

You cannot base benefit entitlement on an approximate valuation. You cannot cherry pick who is offered a valuation. Consistency is key to the benefits system.

You still miss the fact that capital in your home is not liquid. How do you suggest that an individual realises this capital?