Should I pay off my mortgage discussion

Bargain_Rzl

Hm - Harry Powell's last post (about how I was probably fiddling my taxes and should be horse-whipped) seems to have vanished.

Thanks to the two posters above for answering in a civilised manner what was intended to be a civilised question.

Harry_Powell

What about people who rent and therefore cannot hide their savings as equity? They have to support themselves out of their life savings, rather than hide them away and expect the state to pick up the slack.

Talk about having a vested interest, no wonder you guys are all in agreement, you've all hidden money away in your houses. It's just as bad as someone crying poverty and expecting the state and charities to help them, while sitting on a hoard of gold coins.

Disgusting how some people sit on tens and hundreds of pounds of equity wealth and receive the same means-tested benefits as those who have nothing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

No doubt this post will also be deleted by overenthusiatic mods. Vested Interest?

Welshlassie

Harry_Powell wrote: »

What about people who rent and therefore cannot hide their savings as equity? They have to support themselves out of their life savings, rather than hide them away and expect the state to pick up the slack.

Talk about having a vested interest, no wonder you guys are all in agreement, you've all hidden money away in your houses. It's just as bad as someone crying poverty and expecting the state and charities to help them, while sitting on a hoard of gold coins.

Disgusting how some people sit on tens and hundreds of pounds of equity wealth and receive the same means-tested benefits as those who have nothing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

No doubt this post will also be deleted by overenthusiatic mods. Vested Interest?

You obviously have no idea how the MFW board works and why paying off your mortgage (a DEBT) is a good idea. Why should I not pay off my mortgage just in case I loose my job in the future. That's a ridiculous thing to do.
If you can't say anything nice and sensible, please don't post here!

stphnstevey

Harry_Powell wrote: »

What about people who rent and therefore cannot hide their savings as equity? They have to support themselves out of their life savings, rather than hide them away and expect the state to pick up the slack.

Talk about having a vested interest, no wonder you guys are all in agreement, you've all hidden money away in your houses. It's just as bad as someone crying poverty and expecting the state and charities to help them, while sitting on a hoard of gold coins.

Disgusting how some people sit on tens and hundreds of pounds of equity wealth and receive the same means-tested benefits as those who have nothing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

No doubt this post will also be deleted by overenthusiatic mods. Vested Interest?

I've worked extremely hard to be in a position to pay my mortgage - I have had the same opportunities as everyone else.

I have also payed hundreds of times over through taxes what I would claim in benefits and enough so others can also claim benefits.

Therefore I have no moral drawbacks in the slightest to using what I have paid for 100 fold already.

I think it is disgusting that you believe people who have worked hard in life to pay for thier own home, should in some way be ashamed of this.

Would you prefer that no one purchased their own home and everyone relied on the goverment for benefits? I don't know which planet your from but I wouldn't like to live there!

The goverment allows this as it encourages people to purchase their own homes, which in their mind would lead to people less likely to rely on them in the future.

We all generally try to work within the laws and rules and if the system allows you to do this, then you would be foolish not to.

If you don't like the game, don't hate the player.

jamesd

Harry_Powell wrote: »

What about people who rent and therefore cannot hide their savings as equity? They have to support themselves out of their life savings, rather than hide them away and expect the state to pick up the slack.

In the past I've spent savings equivalent to the price, at the time, of a two bedroom house doing just that. I don't have equity in a property at present and never have had.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Talk about having a vested interest, no wonder you guys are all in agreement, you've all hidden money away in your houses. It's just as bad as someone crying poverty and expecting the state and charities to help them, while sitting on a hoard of gold coins.

UK benefits policy does not say that if you run out of money you will be forced to sell your home immediately. Eventually you will be forced to leave because you'll run out of money to keep up with the capital repayments. The government clearly opposes that result because some schemes have been introduced to try to delay it. Once the property is sold any remaining equity will be savings and will be as much at risk as the savings of a renter. The person who isn't a property owner doesn't face the same prospect of eventually being forced to move home, provided their rent is within the housing benefit/LHA limit.

Meanwhile, consider someone who owns a property outright and isn't entitled to any housing benefit as a result. Their use of their income to provide that property ends up saving the state and the rest of us money. It's particularly applicable to many pensioners living with the assistance of means tested benefits.

UK benefits policy does say that gold coins are savings that must be spent down to the savings limit for the means test of many benefits. Not disclosing them in that situation would be a crime. Having equity in a property isn't.

We're all entitled to try to arrange our affairs within the law so that we minimise the amount of tax that we pay and maximise the amount of benefits that we may receive.

In another context I'm discussing with someone how to rewrite a will to put their inheritance in a discretionary trust so that they will qualify for housing benefit and not lose some £30,000 of inheritance before qualifying for housing benefit. That may mean that they can stay in the home they have lived in for the last 40 years for the rest of their life, through having income from the trust that can cover the difference between LHA and the market rent for the property, which they didn't have to pay until now.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Disgusting how some people sit on tens and hundreds of pounds of equity wealth and receive the same means-tested benefits as those who have nothing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Please have a read of the introductory posts in the benefits and tax credits section. It's fine to say that you think that the benefits policy should be changed but personal attacks aren't in order.

pencekeeper

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Disgusting how some people sit on tens and hundreds of pounds of equity wealth and receive the same means-tested benefits as those who have nothing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

I'd agree that if someone has £50,000 of savings that they really shouldn't receive benefits (including child benefit in my opinion). It's not right for someone to sit on piles of cash and cry "I'm poor - give me money!".

However, as others have tried to point out to what I'm sure to no avail, is that savings is not the same as equity. If it were, then before anyone claims any benefits, they should sell/fully mortgage anything and everything they own. All assets. That appears to be what you are implying.

Of course, that doesn't work. The last thing someone needs when they lose their job is to increase their mortgage debt, and increase payments and the risk of having no where to live (which is much more of a burden of the state). You also don't seem to recognise that those with a home with whatever equity ratio, have at least earnt some money to pay for that equity, and paying alot of tax in the process (I'm ignoring lottery wins, [FONT=&quot]inheritance [/FONT]etc).

I don't think you've thought through what you are saying and it's implications. I also saw the horsewhipping post you made - that wasn't called for.

Harry_Powell

Welshlassie wrote: »

You obviously have no idea how the MFW board works and why paying off your mortgage (a DEBT) is a good idea. Why should I not pay off my mortgage just in case I loose my job in the future. That's a ridiculous thing to do.
If you can't say anything nice and sensible, please don't post here!

It's not a good idea to spend 3,5 or 10 years in the dogged pursuit of a single financial aim, to the exclusion of everything else. After 10 years of overpaying, an MFW may have taken 15 years off his/her mortgage length and saved a lot of interest, but will have lost 10 years in which to pay into a pension scheme or ISA savings for their retirement. Every single financial website is in agreement that the earlier you start saving for retirement, the more time you have for growth and the easier it will be.

To take overpaying to the degree that the MFW'er is not even keeping back emergency cash for job loss or illness is dangerous. It seems that many MFW'ers are concentrating so much on the MFW aim that they forget that the journey is a long one and the wheels could easily come off along the way.

All I see when I venture into the MFW board are people who think they're 'safe' from everything that life throws at them if they could only be mortgage free. Wrong - you'll find that your mortgage payments, especially on a small mortgage, represent only a fraction of your monthly outgoings. If you hit a bump in the road and have zero savings, you'll have to borrow to make ends meet. Eventually you will be forced to sell your house.

I can say what I like on this public forum, you don't own it. Like most extremists, you don't like me undermining your 'MFW religion', but I'm afraid that you can't stop me from speaking my mind. If I stop just one person from venturing down the mad path of 'MFW Crash Dieting' and convince them to pursue a balance strategy of Savings, Pension and Investing then it'll be worth all the abuse you fanatics throw at me.

pencekeeper

Harry_Powell wrote: »

It's not a good idea to spend 3,5 or 10 years in the dogged pursuit of a single financial aim, to the exclusion of everything else.

I agree if it's taken to the extreme. Though that wasn't what Bargain Rzl said. Nor what everyone on this board does. Repay agressively, but within sensible reason.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

To take overpaying to the degree that the MFW'er is not even keeping back emergency cash for job loss or illness is dangerous. It seems that many MFW'ers are concentrating so much on the MFW aim that they forget that the journey is a long one and the wheels could easily come off along the way.

Bargain Rzl (the person you've recently been attacking) indicated they had a Nationwide mortgage. You can borrow back over payment reserves at any time so at least in their case, that isn't an issue. If that weren't the case, I'd agree up to a point.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

All I see when I venture into the MFW board are people who think they're 'safe' from everything that life throws at them if they could only be mortgage free. Wrong - you'll find that your mortgage payments, especially on a small mortgage, represent only a fraction of your monthly outgoings. If you hit a bump in the road and have zero savings, you'll have to borrow to make ends meet. Eventually you will be forced to sell your house.

Agree that having paid your mortgage paid off doesn't make you invincible. It does put you in a much better position though, and much less likely to lose your home. If you're forced to sell your house, that would have happened anyway - and probably much sooner than if you'd had more savings but a bigger mortgage:

The zero savings argument isn't valid in most situations - you can probably remortgage or borrow back over payments. If you've been paying back your mortgage faster than you have to, you'll probably have more money available one way or another than if you'd paid less back and saved more (this isn't always true but mortgage interest rates tend to be higher than savings rates - especially for those of us who have to pay alot of tax). Better to have £5K in savings and owe £25K on your mortgage than £30K in savings and owe £55K on your mortgage.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I can say what I like on this public forum, you don't own it.

No you can't and it isn't (a clue is at the bottom of the page - there's even a link http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/terms). If you need another clue, you'll find one of your posts is already gone. Also, there's laws about what you can say/write. I'm not suggesting you've broken those, but I'm making the point you can't just say whatever you like without restriction. I don't own it, but MoneySavingExpert.com does, and they have rules.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Like most extremists, you don't like me undermining your 'MFW religion', but I'm afraid that you can't stop me from speaking my mind. If I stop just one person from venturing down the mad path of 'MFW Crash Dieting' and convince them to pursue a balance strategy of Savings, Pension and Investing then it'll be worth all the abuse you fanatics throw at me.

Whilst one shouldn't neglect retirement provision, you don't have to have lots in savings if you can borrow back overpayments.

Fair enough some people take things too far. Overpaying your mortgage at the cost of not insuring the contents of your home would in my view be an example, and not appropriate.

I don't know if you'd consider me in the category of "extremists" or "fanatics", but I'd politely point out that you have been the most abusive in this thread in your now removed "horsewhipping" post.

setmefree2

Hi Harry

Firstly, most posters on this board have both savings and pensions. Secondly, for decades bricks and mortar have returned more than stocks and shares in the UK. So it can easily be argued that you are better off investing in property than the stock market.

You might find this interesting reading

Pension fund deficits expand further


The deficit in final salary pension schemes in the private sector hit £52bn in January, up from £33bn in December, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) says.
During January the value of pension scheme assets fell by 1.5% while there was a 0.7% rise in the cost of paying for pensions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8505889.stm


Good Luck with your pension Harry. I hope your pension scheme has some money left in it when it is your turn to retire.

Welshlassie

Harry_Powell wrote: »

It's not a good idea to spend 3,5 or 10 years in the dogged pursuit of a single financial aim, to the exclusion of everything else. After 10 years of overpaying, an MFW may have taken 15 years off his/her mortgage length and saved a lot of interest, but will have lost 10 years in which to pay into a pension scheme or ISA savings for their retirement. Every single financial website is in agreement that the earlier you start saving for retirement, the more time you have for growth and the easier it will be.

To take overpaying to the degree that the MFW'er is not even keeping back emergency cash for job loss or illness is dangerous. It seems that many MFW'ers are concentrating so much on the MFW aim that they forget that the journey is a long one and the wheels could easily come off along the way.

All I see when I venture into the MFW board are people who think they're 'safe' from everything that life throws at them if they could only be mortgage free. Wrong - you'll find that your mortgage payments, especially on a small mortgage, represent only a fraction of your monthly outgoings. If you hit a bump in the road and have zero savings, you'll have to borrow to make ends meet. Eventually you will be forced to sell your house.

I can say what I like on this public forum, you don't own it. Like most extremists, you don't like me undermining your 'MFW religion', but I'm afraid that you can't stop me from speaking my mind. If I stop just one person from venturing down the mad path of 'MFW Crash Dieting' and convince them to pursue a balance strategy of Savings, Pension and Investing then it'll be worth all the abuse you fanatics throw at me.

When did I say I'm persuing MF at the exclusionn of all else??? I have emergency savings, pensions and ISA's, in addition to trying to pay my mortgage off sooner that the bank has planned for us.

If you don't like 'our' way of doing things so be it, but don't start having a go at people that have decided they wish to persue this path.

If is is such a bad thing to do would Martin really have a section and guide for it? I doubt it.

I notice you say on the Debate board you have upset other MSE'ers in the past, you seem to get enjoyment from provoking a reaction from people, we don't work like that over here so please consider what you post before you post it!