Repossessions drop to 18-month low

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Should the taxpayer have intervened directly into woolworths, and mayb chosen to pay staff their wages, instead of seeing them lose their jobs....enabling woolworths to continue (allbeit, not paying for staff)?

Or should the government only have provided JSA for those who unfortunately lost their jobs?

Which would cost more? Proving support for those who needed it, and leaving those who found other jobs to start employment in other jobs....or paying the staff bill of woolworths, to stop staff becoming unemployed?

I think it's been well proven that state subsidised industries do badly and cost more in the long run than just closing them down and having people find alternative employment. One only has to look at the waste of money at British Leyland.

The indisputable fact remains that it's cheaper for the state to keep families in their home than it is to rehouse them. The bottom line for the state is not to punish the few people who might make a HPI gain while on SMI but to house people at the lowest cost to the tax payer. FACT.

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

I think it's been well proven that state subsidised industries do badly and cost more in the long run than just closing them down and having people find alternative employment. One only has to look at the waste of money at British Leyland.

The indisputable fact remains that it's cheaper for the state to keep families in their home than it is to rehouse them. The bottom line for the state is not to punish the few people who might make a HPI gain while on SMI but to house people at the lowest cost to the tax payer. FACT.

What is one of the one main points that is stressed on a mortgage contract.

YOU MAY LOSE YOUR HOUSE IF YOU FAIL TO KEEP UP REPAYMENTS.

The warnings are there, so why don't people take them more seriously.

No one forces anyone to take out a mortgage. People need to be responsible for their actions. There are ways to reduce the risks of house buying such as having a smaller mortgage or by protecting yourself with the various options out there. And that is the point, there are options out there such as PPI etc. People take more risks if they don't cover themselves.

Graham_Devon

Theres nothing more to this.

We've had nearly everyones input on this, and it appears to me that those either invested, or just interested in prices rising will do anything to suggest SMI should be left alone.

Those who don't have investments, or don't see their home as a one way ticket to riches, or don't really care can see the issues surrounding this.

There is nothing more to it. Unfortunately the whole thing has got a little personal and a little out of hand now.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres nothing more to this.

We've had nearly everyones input on this, and it appears to me that those either invested, or just interested in prices rising will do anything to suggest SMI should be left alone.

Those who don't have investments, or don't see their home as a one way ticket to riches, or don't really care can see the issues surrounding this.

There is nothing more to it.

You're confusing opinion (yours) with fact.

The flip side of your summary could be that renters are desperate to see SMI go because they hope that a 'prop' will be kicked to one side and people will get repossessed, allowing them to get a cheap home. However, they don't want Housing Benefit to be touched because if they lose their jobs then they won't have anywhere to live.

There is nothing more to it.