SMI saves 250,000 familes from reposession in last 3 years

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is it fair? Well it's down to personal opinion, but in my opinion, I can't see anything even slightly fair about it.

I don't think it's fair that SMI appears to help people retain assets at the taxpayers expense. It doesn't seem a problem over the short term as no-one would want people evicted due to short term unemployment for example.

However, it seems clear, to me at least, that SMI is cheaper over the long term than paying for old people to rent instead.

Plus I'm told that it's one of the props holding up the value of my house so I'm all for it.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

However, it seems clear, to me at least, that SMI is cheaper over the long term than paying for old people to rent instead.

I've just covered that. There is no evidence, and all the weight to the contrary that LHA wouldn't have to be paid to these individuals.

You could have many a situation whereby the mortgage outstanding is 30k, but the value of the house 300k. Conversly, you could have situations where the outstandin mortgage is 50k, and the value 80k.

I'd suggest based on the average mortgage remaining figures for those on SMI, an the average house price, that many more will have thousands of pounds in equity, and therefore not qualify for LHA anyway.

I'm all for SMI. I've said before. For those disabled, fine. But for anyone else, 18m maximum. If you can't sort your finances by that point, just like anyone else who wouldn't qualify, you will simply have to reflect on your living standards and do something about it. The long forgotten warning on your mortgage statements may actually have to kick in. But that's life. It's what has happened for years, and happens to other without the SMI support.

At the moment, you don't have to readjust, or even consider it.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A few of us are often asked what props are out there in the housing market.

SMI has also been denied by some as having a real effect on reposession rates, rather trying to make out the market is healthy.

I, and this data, begs to differ. 250k households saved from reposession in the last 3 years is a MAJOR influence to the market. The CML are obviously asking for more, as many are now hitting the end of the support.

I've personally been arguing that SMI is a big influcence for a while, but with no data, have not been able to back it up. Got the data now. Theres nothing healthy about the market, and you simply cannot compare repo's in the 90's to repo's now based on this intervention, to make out the housing market is rather healthy.

I believe help with mortgage payments was available in the 1990s and I know for sure it was available in the 1980s.

olly300

ukcarper wrote: »

I believe help with mortgage payments was available in the 1990s and I know for sure it was available in the 1980s.

It was.

Plus people could hand their keys back and not be chased for the debt.

ruggedtoast

angrypirate wrote: »

Tell me thats sarcasm. Please.

On the contrary. I am deadly serious.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I believe help with mortgage payments was available in the 1990s and I know for sure it was available in the 1980s.

I have never once said it's a new thing?

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

so it becomes clear over this thread that the problem isn't in fact with 250,000 claimaints, but the proportion of those claimaints who aren't on jsa and are therefore claiming the benefit indefinitely, as opposed to the 2-year limit.

so if we said 100,000 of that 250,000 are claiming it indefinitely, which i don't think is unreasonable given the demographic data and some reasonable assumptions about equity, you are talking about the taxpayer funding interest on less than 1% of the mortgage market indefinitely so that those people can stay in their homes.

i think its also reasonable to expect that stopping smi for these people would result in some (but i agree not all, or even the majority) ultimately having to claim housing benefit. so that should be factored in as well.

hardly a 'prop', or something to put so much stock in, in my opinion.

why aren't we talking about housing benefit seeing as thats a far far bigger drain on the taxpayers finances??

Graham_Devon

RUN_RABBIT_RUN wrote: »

so it becomes clear over this thread that the problem isn't in fact with 250,000 claimaints, but the proportion of those claimaints who aren't on jsa and are therefore claiming the benefit indefinitely, as opposed to the 2-year limit.

so if we said 100,000 of that 250,000 are claiming it indefinitely,

In 2009, 87% were claiming it indefinately.

If that trend has continued, 217k people out of 250k will be claiing it indefinately. You don't need to guess, the figures are all availiable above.

You can talk about housing benefit all you like, but they are two seperate things. I don't see how or why it needs to be compared to SMI, as already stated, the vast majority will not be eligible for housing benefit anyway. So it's a none argument to try and detracts from the issues put forward.

RenovationMan

RUN_RABBIT_RUN wrote: »

why aren't we talking about housing benefit seeing as thats a far far bigger drain on the taxpayers finances??

Because they don't see that as an obstacle to them getting a cheap house?

chewmylegoff

well there is quite a lot of intermittent chatter about how the london housing market is going to crash when the HB / LHA caps come in - mind you it's usually from precious metals nuts who think that london property prices are only high because 1 million people moved to london and bought houses because of the 2012 olympics.