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
-
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.
They've already taken on a higher level of responsibility. They've committed to a long mortgage contract and are making efforts to dramatically reduce their lifetime housing costs which will be to the benefit of the taxpayer.
....and we encourage this by telling them that renters will have preferential access to the benefits system if things go wrong?0 -
They've already taken on a higher level of responsibility. They've committed to a long mortgage contract and are making efforts to dramatically reduce their lifetime housing costs which will be to the benefit of the taxpayer.
....and we encourage this by telling them that renters will have preferential access to the benefits system if things go wrong?
I believe the government sort of have a responsibility to ensure people have shelter, I do not think that either renters or buyers should be deciding what or where that shelter is if they are not paying for it.
EG - non paying renter should be offerd in the cheapest areas.
Non paying buyer should sell up and move to cheaper area.0 -
They've already taken on a higher level of responsibility. They've committed to a long mortgage contract and are making efforts to dramatically reduce their lifetime housing costs which will be to the benefit of the taxpayer.
....and we encourage this by telling them that renters will have preferential access to the benefits system if things go wrong?
Again I say
Most renters have no choice but to rent, most buyers do have a choice.0 -
They've already taken on a higher level of responsibility. They've committed to a long mortgage contract and are making efforts to dramatically reduce their lifetime housing costs which will be to the benefit of the taxpayer.
....and we encourage this by telling them that renters will have preferential access to the benefits system if things go wrong?
You're forgetting the buyer will end up with an asset partly paid by the tax payer, whereas the renter won't, thats the problem. I'm not keen as a tax payer to buy, or help buy someone elses house... especially as i could potentially not be able to afford my own and have to rent!0 -
Again I say
Most renters have no choice but to rent, most buyers do have a choice.
I know you've said this more than once. I just don't see why that means either group should have preferential access to the benefits system.
One of the benefits of taking personal responsibility is that people end up with more choices and options in life - it's a virtuous circle.0 -
You're forgetting the buyer will end up with an asset partly paid by the tax payer, whereas the renter won't, thats the problem. I'm not keen as a tax payer to buy, or help buy someone elses house... especially as i could potentially not be able to afford my own and have to rent!
If it is only the interest how are you helping to buy the house.
I personally would prefer to see my tax used to help keep someone in a house thet have worked to buy, for a couple of years, rather than pay the rent of someone who has no intention of working.0 -
You're forgetting the buyer will end up with an asset partly paid by the tax payer, whereas the renter won't, thats the problem. I'm not keen as a tax payer to buy, or help buy someone elses house... especially as i could potentially not be able to afford my own and have to rent!
As a taxpayer where do you think the money goes that's spent in housing benefit? It helps to buy someone else's house - the only difference is that it's paying for a BTL's house rather than the recipient of benefits.
I'm not forgetting that the buyer will end up with a partly taxpayer funded asset. I'd just rather pay someone's interest for a reasonable period of time so they can tread water and get sorted out rather than pay larger amounts to BTL owners.0 -
If it is only the interest how are you helping to buy the house.
I personally would prefer to see my tax used to help keep someone in a house thet have worked to buy, for a couple of years, rather than pay the rent of someone who has no intention of working.
I would rather they either took out insurence or had some savings to carry them through - costing the taxpayer nothing.
The non -working chav is a totally separate argument and I would agree with you on that.0 -
I would rather they either took out insurence or had some savings to carry them through - costing the taxpayer nothing.
The non -working chav is a totally separate argument and I would agree with you on that.
I think we all agree on the non-working chav front. The area people seem to disagree with me is that I think we should have a universal housing benefit that is there to keep people in accomodation while they get on their feet. I don't mind if this is capped, has a 2 year restriction on length or any other restrictions as long as they apply universally to everyone regardless of their occupancy status. It's the fairest way.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »I think we all agree on the non-working chav front. The area people seem to disagree with me is that I think we should have a universal housing benefit that is there to keep people in accomodation while they get on their feet. I don't mind if this is capped, has a 2 year restriction on length or any other restrictions as long as they apply universally to everyone regardless of their occupancy status. It's the fairest way.
In the scenario whereby someone takes on a big mortgage without thinking it through (assuming rates will be 5% for eternity!), struggles with it and then the state helps him with this for two years or whatever .... is this really fair on someone who wants to buy but sensibly does not, but the state is happy he pays someone elses mortgage who has not been so sensible?
It is wrong for people to gain out of state aid, and this includes having house paid for in part by the state....0
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