We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Support for Mortgage Interest
Comments
-
We seem happy to discriminate against those that have tried to cover themselves through savings or insurance.
No we don't.
Those with significant savings are ineligible for most benefits, be that SMI or Rent support.
Homeowners with savings and Renters with savings are treated in exactly the same way.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
"Homeowners" with equity should be treated the same way.1. The house price crash will begin.
2. There will be a dead cat bounce.
3. The second leg down will commence.
4. I will buy your house for a song.0 -
SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »"Homeowners" with equity should be treated the same way.
Why?
By building equity in a house you are providing the means through which you'll live rent free in your old age.
If homeowners were forced to sell, they could put that money into a pension instead and immediately be eligible for rent benefits.
Yet because that money, allocated for old age care, is in a house instead of a pension you want them to be forced to spend it?
Seems immensely counterproductive if your goal is to lower the amount of money the state pays towards an individual over their lifetime.
So it's clear your goal lies elsewhere.... Like wanting to force up distressed sellers in a vain attempt to force down house prices perhaps....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Why cant they downsize? We are living in tough times where cuts are being made evrywhere. As said why cant these people take out part time jobs or pay off these costs through their pensions etc.
People need to be accountable for their own problems rather than simply relying on the state. People who took out Endowments took on a gamble and they should not be relying on everyone to pay for their failed gamble.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who are receiving smi are in large houses.0 -
I can see a strong argument for SMI going to an account which is either repaid when back to earning or alternatively reclaimed when the property is sold or inherited. Seems wrong to me that state money is being used to help purchase an asset.0
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »We all pay for a safety net through high taxation. It's pretty much the only reason most people are willing to put up with some of the highest tax rates in the world.
There is no reason why we should discriminate against homeowners.... After all the state is more than happy to take their money when the going is good.
The moral hazard here is astounding.
On FTB affordability threads, who is it that pipes up and states home ownership is not a right?
On FTB affordability threads, who is it that pipes up and suggests people should work harder if they can't afford it?
Yet here you are talking of safety nets...the "unfairness" of someone who may see themselves loosing their home facing the possibility of not affording to buy again.
You talk of safety nets which we all pay into, but ignore the fact that not all have access to SMI. It's exactly the people who can't afford the luxury in the first place who can't access SMI. Yet you try to make out it's unfair to homeowners who have paid into the system. Those homeowners would get HB too if they needed it.
Clearly you have just found yourself in a "houses are unaffordable" situation and are now creating massive moral hazards for yourself as you try, somewhat desperately to claim that homeowners should somehow get extra protection while anyone else who can't afford the mortgage payments just have to accept a house is luxury, not a right.
Simply astounding.0 -
Friend of mine did just that she sold her 3 bedroom house (with only her living in it) and still had £5,000 outstanding on the mortgage so paid of off with the proceeds. She then used the money she had to buy a half share in a lovely brand new 1 bedroom flat shared ownership property with central heating to the entire complex in supported housing which was worth more than her aged 3 bed terraced house with poor heating. She spent thousands furnishing it and now the government pay the other half of the rent for her. Perfect...costs the housing association and council about £60 a week or they could have paid just £3.50 per week to pay the interest on her mortgage.
maybe there is something wrong with the shared ownership scheme if you can buy half a house with cash and no job?
Why are the government paying the rental costs? Shared ownership does not work like that does it?0 -
Seems wrong to me that state money is being used to help purchase an asset.
When it's cheaper to buy a man a fishing rod than give him a fish to eat every day for life, I don't much care that the state "bought him an asset".
And the same theory applies with housing.
When it's cheaper for the state to support mortgage interest than to pay for the alternatives, which is demonstrably the case, then it's obviously the right way to go.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I suppose that really depends on whether you believe in the concept of a social safety net or not, and more importantly, whether you think that safety net should discriminate against those who own houses rather than rent them.
Rightly or wrongly, most people think taxation in this country is too high, but grudgingly accept it because they also believe the safety net will exist for them in the event of tough times.
We all pay tax and national insurance and in return are supposed to have a safety net available to us in the event of illness, redundancy, etc. I see no reason why homeowners should be discriminated against in that regard by comparison to renters.
not sure i understand. it isn't possible to claim HB if you've got anythign like £60k in savings.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018926
the 'unfairness' would be treating unearned [if it's due to HPI] pwoperdee wealth as sacrosanct, whilst very likely earned [from employmenet] cash savings are fair game & must be used up to claim benefits.FACT.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »When it's cheaper to buy a man a fishing rod than give him a fish to eat every day for life, I don't much care that the state "bought him an asset".
And the same theory applies with housing.
When it's cheaper for the state to support mortgage interest than to pay for the alternatives, which is demonstrably the case, then it's obviously the right way to go.
By that logic it would be cheaper for the state to buy everyone on benefits a house rather than paying the rent for them, as rents tend to be higher than mortage repayments.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards