Sell up and stop complaining about going hungry and cold.

lessonlearned

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

"

Here is the question on the 3rd attempt:

"I assumed we were talking about a long-term problem because surely you would agree that it would be madness to make such a long-term decision such as selling a house in order to fix a short-term problem?"

Do you/other people agree?

I agree. Despite all that has happend - see above post. I've managed to hang on to my home - only just but I've done it. 6 long years of struggling but I think it's worth it, selling everything that wasn't nailed down, spending pared to the bone.

Next year the endowments mature and I can breathe again...

I won't be homeless.

Selling is an option for some, but I'm sure most would see it as an absolute last resort.

The problem as I see it is it would only work if there was a substantial amount of equity because at the moment, given the state of the market, to get a quick sale you would have to sell at substantially less than it's market value.

I'm guessing that the people most likely to be in serious difficulty are those who have little or no equity. In such cases selling is not an option because they probably wouldn't even be able to clear the mortgage and yet would still be liable for paying it. The only option then would be to declare themselves bankrupt.

Whilst bankruptcy can alleviate immediate difficulties there are ramifications so that's not a painless option either.

The ones struggling to make ends meet but sitting on a pile of equity are probably few and far between when compared to those who are struggling with little or no equity, so I don't think it would work for many.

I see nothing wrong with state help for mortgage interest as a short term stop gap. It would cost far less that paying out HB on a long term basis.

Percy1983

lessonlearned wrote: »

I agree. Despite all that has happend - see above post. I've managed to hang on to my home - only just but I've done it. 6 long years of struggling but I think it's worth it, selling everything that wasn't nailed down, spending pared to the bone.

Next year the endowments mature and I can breathe again...

I won't be homeless.

Selling is an option for some, but I'm sure most would see it as an absolute last resort.

The problem as I see it is it would only work if there was a substantial amount of equity because at the moment, given the state of the market, to get a quick sale you would have to sell at substantially less than it's market value.

I'm guessing that the people most likely to be in serious difficulty are those who have little or no equity. In such cases selling is not an option because they probably wouldn't even be able to clear the mortgage and yet would still be liable for paying it. The only option then would be to declare themselves bankrupt.

Whilst bankruptcy can alleviate immediate difficulties there are ramifications so that's not a painless option either.

The ones struggling to make ends meet but sitting on a pile of equity are probably few and far between when compared to those who are struggling with little or no equity, so I don't think it would work for many.

I see nothing wrong with state help for mortgage interest as a short term stop gap. It would cost far less that paying out HB on a long term basis.

I would agree on the surface, as you have done cutting back everything to get by is your choice and if you can do it then well done.

But what if you cut back everything and still can't afford it, how long should somebody be allowed to keep something they clearly can't afford?

Generali

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

"I assumed we were talking about a long-term problem because surely you would agree that it would be madness to make such a long-term decision such as selling a house in order to fix a short-term problem?"

Do you/other people agree?

I agree.

Using the benefits system to allow people to hold on to a valuable asset for an extended period of time is ludicrous however expecting people to sell because they have lost a job and it took a little longer than expected to get a new one is just as daft.

I think it's reasonable to give someone 6-12 months to get their act together after losing their job and the state should support them through that. After a year, if someone still wants/needs support then a different set of criteria should apply. Certainly at that point I would expect that someone would have to start to sell assets to live rather than living off the largess of the taxpayer except in case of sickness/disability.

lessonlearned

Percy1983 wrote: »

I would agree on the surface, as you have done cutting back everything to get by is your choice and if you can do it then well done.

But what if you cut back everything and still can't afford it, how long should somebody be allowed to keep something they clearly can't afford?

I agree with Generali - a cut off after 12 months seems reasonable.

Percy1983

I will admit I did say 6 months earlier, I guess 12 months isn't too much.

As Generali said maybe further critera after 12 months to protect those where isn't just a case of failing to get another job.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

hsw has pointed out that his 'struggling home owners' aren't in receipt of benefits.

To be honest, I can see why people (including myself) keep talking about benefits, because unless the 'struggling home owner' is actually being supported by our tax pounds, then his situation is nothing to do with any of us.

Bit of a pointless thread I guess.

homelessskilledworker

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will admit I did say 6 months earlier, I guess 12 months isn't too much.

As Generali said maybe further critera after 12 months to protect those where isn't just a case of failing to get another job.

I think that is perfectly reasonable, 12 month is a fair enough length of time.
Also there is enough people abusing the welfare system as it is, it was not that long ago when I had my first mortgage(and many of my mates were the same) that it seemed like all of our money was going on the house, and I am sure it is the same today if not worse. sitting at home taking it easy and having the big mortgage paid is for some no worse financially than someone working their socks off to pay all their wages on the mortgage.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Looks like Graham_Devon has lost interest in this thread after my retort about selling a house to solve short-term problems, which is a shame. I guess people prefer to 'ghost' rather than complete a discussion when they suddenly realise that they're not making any sense.

homelessskilledworker

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Looks like Graham_Devon has lost interest in this thread after my retort about selling a house to solve short-term problems, which is a shame. I guess people prefer to 'ghost' rather than complete a discussion when they suddenly realise that they're not making any sense.

Without wanting to upset you, maybe GD just has you on ignore or maybe he just does not value your contibutions enough to be bothered to reply to you, just a thought.

DpchMd

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Without wanting to upset you, maybe GD just has you on ignore or maybe he just does not value your contibutions enough to be bothered to reply to you, just a thought.

Why don't you marry him