Sell up and stop complaining about going hungry and cold.

Percy1983

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

The only answer that anyone has come back with is that they can go on housing benefits. Great, so now we all pay for their accomodation and they become a burden on the state. Is that what you are advocating?

So I pay housing benefit for them or I pay the mortgage for them.

I would rather pay housing benefit.

homelessskilledworker

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Fine, short-term a family will be better off after STRing, while they have released equity to subsidize their outgoings. What happens when that equity is spent and they are left in the situation where their outgoings are even higher now that they rent than they were when they owned?

The only answer that anyone has come back with is that they can go on housing benefits. Great, so now we all pay for their accomodation and they become a burden on the state. Is that what you are advocating?

Whoa!!!

Now we are moving into the territory of moral hazard and good old market forces.
Just say this chap who has sold his house and now has £10,000's of equity and years later his circumstances have not changed and he now has no more savings/equity and still hungry and cold.

As sad as it might be, should he have the right to be a homeowner? and if your answer is yes.. why?

I would say looking at it in a detached cold way that he cannot get work that funds a homeowning lifestyle, and I see homeowning as a privilege, so this guy in my opinion should not have that choice of where to live, it's a case of being grateful for what he is given.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Percy1983 wrote: »

So I pay housing benefit for them or I pay the mortgage for them.

I would rather pay housing benefit.

Even if it cost a significant amount more and even if the mortgage repayments were for a short period, while the housing benefits were for an indefinite period?

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Whoa!!!

Now we are moving into the territory of moral hazard and good old market forces.
Just say this chap who has sold his house and now has £10,000's of equity and years later his circumstances have not changed and he now has no more savings/equity and still hungry and cold.

As sad as it might be, should he have the right to be a homeowner? and if your answer is yes.. why?

I would say looking at it in a detached cold way that he cannot get work that funds a homeowning lifestyle, and I see homeowning as a privilege, so this guy in my opinion should not have that choice of where to live, it's a case of being grateful for what he is given.

Just so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet and to define the example, is this chap claiming benefits while in his house? and if so, why?

homelessskilledworker

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Just so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet and to define the example, is this chap claiming benefits while in his house? and if so, why?

Well he should not be, and whether he is or not is irrelevant.

And to take this further I would say anyone who has their mortgage paid for by the state after a period of time and who have equity should be made to contribute with the taking of the equity.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Well he should not be, and whether he is or not is irrelevant.

I thought not. I didn't see anything in your original post that suggested the moaning homeowners were in receipt of benefits - just that they were struggling financially. Glad we have put that to bed and set tighter parameters, or we'll get nowhere.

So we're back to my original question (unanswered): "What happens when that equity is spent and they are left in the situation where their outgoings are even higher now that they rent than they were when they owned?"

Percy1983

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Even if it cost a significant amount more and even if the mortgage repayments were for a short period, while the housing benefits were for an indefinite period?

By all means I short term safety net should be in place for say 6 months at most, if you can't turn your luck around in that time then so be it.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

By all means I short term safety net should be in place for say 6 months at most, if you can't turn your luck around in that time then so be it.

I hope nothing happens to you as it is very easy to fall into some kind difficulty and it take much longer than 6 months to overcome.

Another thing you seemed to have missed is that the larger amount of rent will most likely be going to your favourite person the BTL landlord.

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

So I pay housing benefit for them or I pay the mortgage for them.

I would rather pay housing benefit.

SMI is generally less than HB though.

ukcarper

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Great question..

And my argument is that we do not need or want as much of it, at what percentage I have no idea. What I am certain of is that there are huge numbers who are living in rented who would prefer to own, but have no choice.

I think there have always been people renting who would rather own and there always will be. The problem is the availability of affordable property to rent the type that used to be provided by council houses. I don’t see paying LHA to private landlords as a very good solution and like you I don’t know the solution, the problem is no one else does.