Sell up and stop complaining about going hungry and cold.

wotsthat

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Come on Wotsthat, it's on my avatar 2+2 =

I'll apply some Foxy Rightmove logic to this problem.

2+2 has always been 4, it was last year and the year before, but this year it's different - I can feel it in my bones.

Is it 3.8 and falling?

squeeks

Never understood this.

If you have assets (anything of worth) but you are short of cash-flow/liquidity you sell up, so you no longer have an issue with cash-flow.

Yes it may be expensive, you may not get the optimal price, but you need the cash flow for something else so you have to make a decision, hopefully before the decision is made for you.

With regard to housing, if it is your only asset and you can't meet your other basic needs why wouldn't you sell it? You'd rather have a mausoleum having eaten all your children like a bad survivor film, then go for it...

If you didn't have a house, but say had equivalent value tied into shares you wouldn't get any government support until the money is gone, why is a house which many do view as an asset (until they have to sell, then it is their home and of significant emotional value and couldn't bear to part with it .... for anything less than the asking price!)

Why should it be different for a house. There are other perfectly good houses out there and there are other perfectly viable options besides purchasing another house. Yes over the long term these other options may not be your utopian ideal or the cheapest options available or you may not get the best possible price when you sell, but surely the cash flow issue is only temporary and once you have resolved that you can then choose how to spend your money.

Until you actually need the money, why should you have government support which is supposed to be a safety net rather than a 'oops, running a little short this month, can you just top me up please as I don't want to sell anything, take money out of my savings or borrow anything myself, but your free money would be wonderful, and I am really hungry and cold....... thanks'

wotsthat

squeeks wrote: »

With regard to housing, if it is your only asset and you can't meet your other basic needs why wouldn't you sell it?

..because in the real world the people with no money to buy food or heating aren't the same people sat on £50k worth of equity.

squeeks

wotsthat wrote: »

..because in the real world the people with no money to buy food or heating aren't the same people sat on £50k worth of equity.

It would be interesting to see actual equity figures and to have that included with any means tested benefit assessment. As at the moment I believe the system doesn't really take that into account.

...

Well if I turn this argument again against another asset which people don't get quite as attached to, a car.

So someone has an entry level luxury car valued at 40 - 60k. They don't actually own the car as they took on a huge finance package to buy it. In fact they couldn't sell it now and walk away with a profit ever since they drove it off the fore court.

Now they need a car to get to work, but they can no longer afford the repayments on the car, and they can't afford to sell it as it wouldn't cover the outstanding finance.

Do you keep giving them money to drive around in a car they can't afford the repayments on? Which also has higher tax implications and running costs than other alternatives out there?

How would you feel if they had say 5k equity in the car? You can buy an adequate used car outright for 5k or you could rent out/lease a car for a year or two.

If they had 15k equity in the car, again we're still talking a huge debt of 30 - 40k outstanding. But if they are really stuck and in a bind, do you think tax payers money should be used to help my fictions guy out? He still needs to get to work, he still can't meet his financial commitments, he still 'needs' the financial help.

wotsthat

squeeks wrote: »

If they had 15k equity in the car, again we're still talking a huge debt of 30 - 40k outstanding. But if they are really stuck and in a bind, do you think tax payers money should be used to help my fictions guy out? He still needs to get to work, he still can't meet his financial commitments, he still 'needs' the financial help.

....in the real world the people with no money to buy food or heating aren't the same people sat on £15k worth of equity in their car.

ukcarper

I think we are going off topic it’s not about giving people benefits to stay in their home but people whinging they can’t afford to live when in fact they mean they can’t afford to live in the way they think they should be able to live.

Mallotum_X

Interesting reading the replies to this thread.

It seems that the main criticism of HSW suggestion is that rents are too high and the equity wont last long. But isnt that the point, those in rented are currently paying these too high rents. The help/assistance provided to poorer families should be equitable. If a renter was saving up for a deposit and they fall on hard times they would be expected to use the money they saved to tide them over, same the home owners. If they have equity then this should be also used to help them through the tough times. The equity or savings should be regarded in a similar way.

It comes back to the highly dysfunctional housing market we have in this country, whether buying or renting property values have got out of step with what the country as a whole can actually afford, and this cash drain is dragging us further into recession.

Rising house prices fuelled the boom, and sadly they are now very much at the heart of the recession. The trouble is now that if prices were to fall significantly we would have real problems with the banking sector, so prices cant move. People are stretched, and the recession will continue.

There is no quick way out of all this, just a long game while prices stay static in £ terms and gradually the value is eroded by inflation.

But we cant risk high inflation, so its going to be a long drawn out affair.

squeeks

wotsthat wrote: »

....in the real world the people with no money to buy food or heating aren't the same people sat on £15k worth of equity in their car.

You're a very literal person.... Do they have more than a weeks shoppings worth of equity across all their assets, if so sell them (as they can't afford them), and they won't go hungry. When you are truly desperate deal with things one week/day at a time

But you are right the real world can be a strange place. Some people spend a year working their butts off for 15k. Some people will spend the same amount on a good bottle of wine in a half decent restaurant.

The problems arise when the person who only earns 15k a year also tries to buy single bottle of wine in a half decent restaurant.

squeeks

Mallotum_X wrote: »

It seems that the main criticism of HSW suggestion is that rents are too high and the equity wont last long. But isnt that the point, those in rented are currently paying these too high rents. The help/assistance provided to poorer families should be equitable. If a renter was saving up for a deposit and they fall on hard times they would be expected to use the money they saved to tide them over, same the home owners. If they have equity then this should be also used to help them through the tough times. The equity or savings should be regarded in a similar way.

Agree full heartedly.

The 16k asset limit on benefits is a little low in my opinion, but I also think it should include less liquid assets such as properties, vehicles etc.. in any calculation.

If someone actually has little or no assets and isn't able to feed themselves etc.. then fine, thats what the system is there for. Otherwise you have to pay your own way be it cashing in savings, bonds or if needs be selling a house/car/horse/great grand mothers engagement ring, what ever your wealth is invested in (I'll accept that selling children is probably a step too far )

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

....in the real world the people with no money to buy food or heating aren't the same people sat on £15k worth of equity in their car.

See you are completely stuck with the questions.

Lets face it, all you care about is having a pop at the OP.

Squeeks asked some very valid questions, which you obviously didn't care for, but you could at least respond with a bit of courtesy, or not respond at all.

For info, there will be PLENTY of people struggling, but having loads of equity. Especially those towards the pensioner end.