Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

StevieJ

RenovationMan wrote: »

If you're saying you just want SMI reformed so that it ONLY covers the mortgage interest and that it's capped at the same level as housing benefit then we are both in agreement and I don't know what we are arguing about. Is that what you're saying?

I don't think the govt would be happy with that as it would probably cost more, currently the 53% who don't receive full interest are effectively more than subsidising the capital repayments of the 47%. We don't want to be paying out more for ideological reasons, remember we have a large deficit to deal with

RenovationMan

wotsthat wrote: »

Buyers or renters what's the difference?

Self reliance should be encouraged whether people rent or buy.

To be fair to ILW, he did post further on that everyone should be more self-reliant, something I wholeheartedly agree with. I think the gravy train of benefits needs to stop for those who are more than capable of working. We just need to make sure that we don't impact those who are genuinely in need of help.

The kickback should be that if we are no longer entitled to state assistance and we have to buy insurance products to cover ourselves, then our taxes should reflect this retrenchment and be reduced accordingly so that people aren't paying twice for the same thing (i.e. like what currently happens to those who pay for the NHS and have private medical insurance).

RenovationMan

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't think the govt would be happy with that as it would probably cost more, currently the 53% who don't receive full interest are effectively more than subsidising the capital repayments of the 47%. We don't want to be paying out more for ideological reasons, remember we have a large deficit to deal with

This is what I don't understand with Graham's position. He seems to want to increase the burden on the state by paying Housing Benefit instead of SMI just so that a few people can't benefit from HPI while in receipt of SMI.

I have a much better grasp on ILW's stance, he seems to want people to take more responsibility for their own circumstances. Something that we all probably agree with.

StevieJ

RenovationMan wrote: »

This is what I don't understand with Graham's position. He seems to want to increase the burden on the state by paying Housing Benefit instead of SMI just so that a few people can't benefit from HPI while in receipt of SMI.

I have a much better grasp on ILW's stance, he seems to want people to take more responsibility for their own circumstances. Something that we all probably agree with.

I think he is a she

StevieJ

RenovationMan wrote: »

This is what I don't understand with Graham's position. He seems to want to increase the burden on the state by paying Housing Benefit instead of SMI just so that a few people can't benefit from HPI while in receipt of SMI.
.

He seems to pick on pensioners as well sugesting that 53% of SMI claimers are pensioners, but surely pensioners will be very close to paying off their mortgage and thus close to no longer being a housing burden on the state.

wotsthat

RenovationMan wrote: »

To be fair to ILW, he did post further on that everyone should be more self-reliant, something I wholeheartedly agree with. I think the gravy train of benefits needs to stop for those who are more than capable of working. We just need to make sure that we don't impact those who are genuinely in need of help.

I read ILW's earlier postings as saying that mortgage holders should make provision for a period of unemployment by having insurance to cover mortgage payments.

Having been asked whether renters should have such provision he/ she said no as they hadn't purchased an asset.

Agree fully with encourage self reliance but this should be irrespective of how they decide to make housing provision.

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

RenovationMan wrote: »

If you're saying you just want SMI reformed so that it ONLY covers the mortgage interest and that it's capped at the same level as housing benefit then we are both in agreement and I don't know what we are arguing about. Is that what you're saying?

almost. he's saying that he wants smi to pay out for 18 months only across the board, and only cover the mortgage interest in each individual case.

personally i don't think that's too unreasonable in theory, and i'd imagine that most people here would hold a similar kind of view.

i think the arguments here are centering around the specifics of the implementation and the interpretation of data (as usual!)

there's also the disagreement over whether you can regard smi as a prop to the housing market. personally i think not, but there we are.

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

I read ILW's earlier postings as saying that mortgage holders should make provision for a period of unemployment by having insurance to cover mortgage payments.

Having been asked whether renters should have such provision he/ she said no as they hadn't purchased an asset.

Agree fully with encourage self reliance but this should be irrespective of how they decide to make housing provision.

I would suggest that the majority of renters do so because they are unable to buy. The difference is that in the vast majority of cases a buyer has made the decision to do so, and with that choice comes a higher level of responsibility.

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

I think he is a she

How can you tell big boy?

chewmylegoff

RUN_RABBIT_RUN wrote: »

almost. he's saying that he wants smi to pay out for 18 months only across the board, and only cover the mortgage interest in each individual case.

personally i don't think that's too unreasonable in theory, and i'd imagine that most people here would hold a similar kind of view.

i think the arguments here are centering around the specifics of the implementation and the interpretation of data (as usual!)

there's also the disagreement over whether you can regard smi as a prop to the housing market. personally i think not, but there we are.

if they just start putting charges on peoples' houses and then recovering the SMI paid (adjusted for inflation, or with interest on top) when the house is sold then that should clear up most issues with it i reckon.

i think the issue of what to do with pensioners is a bit of a problem though. half the people on SMI are pensioners in receipt of pension credit (i.e. very low paid and potentially vulnerable).

if you take them off SMI and tell them to sell their house and rent someone, living off the capital until they run out, then i think we'd end up seeing a lot of those pensioners in "voluntary" hardship - i.e. they will try to preserve as much of the money as possible by falling below a basic standard of living (e.g. by not putting the fire on).

if you claim back the SMI on sale (which will often by at death) through use of a charge on the property, then that will be called a death / granny tax.

that means that any govt dismantling SMI for those on pension credit is going to be scared of the media fall out from doing so, and will have to think of some way to manage this and to put appropriate safeguards in place.