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!
Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”
Comments
-
RenovationMan wrote: »Isn't this the whole point of having social security? You can't cherry pick which parts of society you will and won't help when they get into difficulties.
Do your views about people expecting the state to pick up the tab when things go a bit awry cover everyone? This is more like the US model I guess rather than the socialist model that most European countries use. I'm not against people lookign after themselves because then I'd have to pay less tax and would have more of my income to support me and mine.
Is that what you're saying though? I don't want to put words into your mouth.
I believe it is what I am saying.
Savings and isurance (self reliance) should be encouraged. At the moment I believe if you have savings then you are not elegible for most of these benefits. What sort of message is that to give out?
A buyer should factor some sort of back up into their affordablity calculations as a matter of course.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Good grief.
Because housing benefits do not BUY the renter an asset. It' provides a service, as covered just a couple of posts previously.
How many times?!?!
Neither does SMI if it ONLY covers the mortgage interest!!
How many times?
How many times have 'bears' argued that IO mortgages are 'renting from the bank' how many times have 'bears' argued that there will be a timebomb of IO mortgage holders coming to the end of their terms and being thrown out of their houses because they can't pay theire mortgages off.
Don't you see that you can't use both sides of the same argument?0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »Neither does SMI if it ONLY covers the mortgage interest!!
You appear to just be repeating issues that have already been responded to several times over.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »Neither does SMI if it ONLY covers the mortgage interest!!
How many times?
How many times have 'bears' argued that IO mortgages are 'renting from the bank' how many times have 'bears' argued that there will be a timebomb of IO mortgage holders coming to the end of their terms and being thrown out of their houses because they can't pay theire mortgages off.
Don't you see that you can't use both sides of the same argument?
But it does buy any appreciation (rise in value) in the asset0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »You appear to just be repeating issues that have already been responded to several times over.
I haven't seen you respond to these issues, people even remarked on it.0 -
-
Not here....RenovationMan wrote: »I thought house prices were falling?0 -
I believe it is what I am saying.
Savings and isurance (self reliance) should be encouraged. At the moment I believe if you have savings then you are not elegible for most of these benefits. What sort of message is that to give out?
A buyer should factor some sort of back up into their affordablity calculations as a matter of course.
I totally agree with you. I think the welfare state has gone way beyond what it was originally set up to cover and it is just unsustainable. People should cover themselves and families should take care of each other like they used to do in this country and like they do in other parts of the world. Perhaps we'd see tighter family units and closer communities if we went back to people helping themselves and each other.
The trouble lies with those people who don't have families to help them and can't help themselves (i.e. if they were in a hit and run and can no longer work), what do we do with these people, just say 'tough luck'?0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »I haven't seen you respond to these issues, people even remarked on it.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55115615&postcount=118
In direct response to you asking the very same question just 2 pages ago.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »The trouble lies with those people who don't have families to help them and can't help themselves (i.e. if they were in a hit and run and can no longer work), what do we do with these people, just say 'tough luck'?
As I said in an earlier post, benefits of any kind should be there to support those who are either unable to support themselves (as in your example) and those who have temporarily fallen on hard times.
Much greater support should be given to those who are genuinely UNABLE (rather than merely disinclined) to support themselves."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0
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