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
-
the_flying_pig wrote: »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.
See post #44“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: »Why?
By building equity in a house you are providing the means through which you'll live rent free in your old age.
.
Why does the equity in a house affect anything? If the house was worth zero, you would still live in it rent free.0 -
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.
I don't think any society has ever achieved 100% homeownership rates, and I don't think any society ever will.
But it's certainly better and cheaper for the state in the long run to encourage higher rather than lower levels of homeownership, and incentivise people towards that wherever possible.“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: »See post #44
eh? i wasn't [explicitly] advocating turfing people out, just that, before you get into that difficult debate, it's a no-brainer that those with a large amount of equity [which my earlier calculation shows that the average claimant has got] should be obliged to use that up first before claiming SMI.FACT.0 -
Why does the equity in a house affect anything? If the house was worth zero, you would still live in it rent free.
The previous poster referred to equity, so I responded in those terms.
Replace the word "equity" with "ownership percentage" and the same thing applies.“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: »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.
...and ignoring the 1st part of ILW's post I see.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I don't think any society has ever achieved 100% homeownership rates, and I don't think any society ever will.
But it's certainly better and cheaper for the state in the long run to encourage higher rather than lower levels of homeownership, and incentivise people towards that wherever possible.
What do you think of the idea of SMI being repaid if the property is sold or passed on? Seems very fair to me.0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »i wasn't [explicitly] advocating turfing people out,
Oh right....it's a no-brainer that those with a large amount of equity [which my earlier calculation shows that the average claimant has got] should be obliged to use that up first before claiming SMI.
So how do you propose they do that then?
If not through being "turfed out".
And if they are forced to sell/get repossessed then they don't exactly need SMI....“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 -
What do you think of the idea of SMI being repaid if the property is sold or passed on? Seems very fair to me.
I have no problem with that. I'd suggest in practical terms upon inheritance would be a better bet, but it's fair enough in theory.“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: »Indeed there are.
But why should we pay twice?
We already pay some of the highest tax rates in the world which cover the social contract, that benefits will cover rent or SMI for those who lose their jobs.
Are you suggesting renters should also buy insurance, and be ineligible for rent support?
If the jobs are there to be had, then whether or not we pay SMI will have little bearing on whether people get work or not.
At the moment there are 2.5 million unemployed and less than a half a million job vacancies, so I'd suggest SMI isn't the reason people aren't working.
Buying a house is an investment for many. I'm not sure why when that investment goes wrong the government should step in to help out.
Few private Landlords accept HB claimants these days so if a renter loses their job then its likely they will be turfed out and will struggle to find anywhere to live so there is an incentive for them to find work. Also if they have investments etc then they will not be able to claim HB if the investment are of a reasonable size.
Most people who can afford to buy a house would probably not have difficulty finding another job in the current climate. They may have to take a decent pay cut but thats about it. I don't know anyone who has lost their job who has not been able to find something else to do.
Also i find it strange that people really can't find or would be willing to lose their house over £100-£150 a month. Suspect there are a fair few who are taking advantage of the system.
The system at the moment encourages people to take out large mortgages without any real thought as to how they will pay the mortgage back if they get into trouble.
Therefore you either have to have system which makes sure people can really afford to buy the house they are buying over a long period ie strict mortgage lending or a system which makes the purchaser responsible for any problems in the future.
You can't have it both ways.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