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

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

this dwp document seems to point to the figure being more like 85,500 of the 250,000 - pages 8,9 and 10

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2012/SMI_profile_household_and_PTE_published.pdf

either way, its still a tiny proportion of the mortgage market and it isn't a prop.

i'm simply saying that housing benefit, which is comparable because it pays for peoples housing costs, for me is the bigger issue because it involves far far more taxpayer money. it's not a none argument as you put it, it's a fact. you say that the vast majority wouldn't be eligible for housing benefit but who really knows? who's to say that's not where the majority would end up if the benefit was removed?

edit: to clarify - 85,500 are on jsa/is, so the indefinite figure would be more like around the 165,000 mark, therefore trending downwards from the 2009 figures

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

“ 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. ”

The reason I mentioned it is because of the above.

　

　

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

“ 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. ”

The reason I mentioned it is because of the above.

OK. While SMI has een going a long time....you realise it was changed quite dramtically in 2008 (approx)?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK. While SMI has een going a long time....you realise it was changed quite dramtically in 2008 (approx)?

I believe there were changes in 2009 which increases the amount of mortgage from £100k to £200k while at the same reducing time you had to wait to 13 weeks and limiting the time you can claim if you are on income based job seekers allowance. More people may have lost their property if these changes had not been made but they would have been a small minority.

　

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK. While SMI has een going a long time....you realise it was changed quite dramtically in 2008 (approx)?

Oooh, good recovery GD. You meant all along that SMI had changed quite dramatically in 2008 (approx)! :cool: :rotfl:

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Just because you don't want to compare the costs of SMI against housing benefit doesn't make it a none issue. They are both benefits which support people with their housing costs - at the very least it's fairly obvious that if we wanted to save taxpayer money SMI should be fairly well down the priority list because there's a very real chance that costs would, in part at least, just be transferred to another part of the benefits system.

The data, as usual, doesn't fully support the headlines and even it it did who's to say that saving 250,000 families from reposession isn't a good outcome?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Just because you don't want to compare the costs of SMI against housing benefit doesn't make it a none issue. They are both benefits which support people with their housing costs - at the very least it's fairly obvious that if we wanted to save taxpayer money SMI should be fairly well down the priority list because there's a very real chance that costs would, in part at least, just be transferred to another part of the benefits system.

The data, as usual, doesn't fully support the headlines and even it it did who's to say that saving 250,000 families from reposession isn't a good outcome?

I reckon if taxpayer money was funding say cars for DLA recipients, that they then got to KEEP (rather than just make use of) and do as they wish with at the end of the 3 years, you would (quite rightly) find that unfair.

I am assuming, the issue with SMI is that it goes into housing, something you are invested in, and therefore don't believe it's unfair, and like to compare it against housing benefit to make this point.

That's fair enough. I'm never going to win the argument. It's bizzare that I can gain support from the same users apposing my thoughts on this thread if I simply talk about benefits themselves. However, if I talk about cutting housing benfit, or SMI, I can't gather the same support.

At the end of the day, if you are invested, or want prices to rise, why on earth would you want anything done to taxpayer money being channeled into the market? You wouldn't. But I can guarantee that if a public sector worker got to keep their pension and still be able to use it (pay into it), even though they no longer were able to work for the public sector, you would be up in arms.

At the end of the day, I see the need for SMI and support for 18m. I don't see how it is just, or fair to simply be paying peoples mortgages off.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I reckon if taxpayer money was funding say cars for DLA recipients, that they then got to KEEP (rather than just make use of) and do as they wish with at the end of the 3 years, you would (quite rightly) find that unfair.

I am assuming, the issue with SMI is that it goes into housing, something you are invested in, and therefore don't believe it's unfair, and like to compare it against housing benefit to make this point.

That's fair enough. I'm never going to win the argument. It's bizzare that I can gain support from the same users apposing my thoughts on this thread if I simply talk about benefits themselves. However, if I talk about cutting housing benfit, or SMI, I can't gather the same support.

At the end of the day, if you are invested, or want prices to rise, why on earth would you want anything done to taxpayer money being channeled into the market? You wouldn't. But I can guarantee that if a public sector worker got to keep their pension and still be able to use it (pay into it), even though they no longer were able to work for the public sector, you would be up in arms.

At the end of the day, I see the need for SMI and support for 18m. I don't see how it is just, or fair to simply be paying peoples mortgages off.

It's nothing to do with with whether I'm invested in houses, cars or think there is too much waste in the public sector.

It just seems, on balance, that SMI is a benefit that might just prevent a larger benefits bill later. The sums of money just seem trivial compared to other areas of spending. Anyway it looks as if the time for qualification will go back up to 39 weeks which will limit future payouts although this will depend on whether the government make another U turn.

They are not paying people's mortgages off either.

Where I agree is that mortgage interest shouldn't be paid in perpetuity because there's a disincentive for people to do something to help their own situation. It's something that can wait for the economy to pick up - the last thing the government needs is to be seen cutting a lifeline to cuddly older people in the depths of a recession.

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I reckon if taxpayer money was funding say cars for DLA recipients, that they then got to KEEP (rather than just make use of) and do as they wish with at the end of the 3 years, you would (quite rightly) find that unfair.


A little off topic I know but you posted it.Can you clarify what happens when the 3 yrs is up?.

Am I right in thinking the car is returned and the recipient can then get a new car?. If they can then in a way they are "keeping" of the use a car, it just gets replaced every 3 yrs.

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

A little off topic I know but you posted it.Can you clarify what happens when the 3 yrs is up?.

Am I right in thinking the car is returned and the recipient can then get a new car?. If they can then in a way they are "keeping" of the use a car, it just gets replaced every 3 yrs.

The car is returned and they choose another.

Bear in mind they forego £45 a week in benefits in return for the car. So it's just paying for a lease really, but at a reduced level compared to most other leases.

What I really meant was, getting the use of the car for the three years and then being given the car to do what they wish with as a personal asset. Not a great example, but it's just one I know people generally have problems with (mobility scheme that is) as an unfair scheme, yet don't seem to have a problem with the taxpayer paying off mortgages.