George Osborne warns £25bn more cuts needed

Loughton_Monkey

antrobus wrote: »

Quite the contrary. We need children so that they can grow up to become tax-paying adults and fund the pensions and health care of an ageing population.

We need a sustainable number of children to replace the old. This will happen naturally without 'bribing' the nation to produce them. I suspect that one child voluntarily and deliberately born to parents who want the child and can afford to support it is worth 5 of those born 'accidentally' to those who can ill afford to bring the child up properly.

Graham_Devon

Believe they are also going to look into SMI too.

Basically for those in receipt of SMI, of which the numbers are still growing, there will be a charge put on the house at resale. So it becomes a loan rather than a giveaway.

Which seems fair. But I wonder how many will suddenly stop using the scheme?

Secondly, couldn't they stop the ludicrous scheme of "spend it or lose the budget next year". The wastage in order to spend the money just so they receive the same next year is just appauling.

All these type of things will add up. Don't really get the under 25 thing though, just seems rather ageist and will no doubt contain a clause meaning most under 25's still receieve housing benefits anyway. Bit like the emergency fund for housing benefit which just keeps increasing.

Secondly, this coalition have consistently put things off under after the election. Why not just do it now?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Believe they are also going to look into SMI too.

Basically for those in receipt of SMI, of which the numbers are still growing, there will be a charge put on the house at resale. So it becomes a loan rather than a giveaway.

Which seems fair. But I wonder how many will suddenly stop using the scheme?

All these type of things will add up. Don't really get the under 25 thing though, just seems rather ageist and will no doubt contain a clause meaning most under 25's still receieve housing benefits anyway. Bit like the emergency fund for housing benefit which just keeps increasing.

there seems little in principle been paying people on JSA (and other benefits) housing assistance for rent than for interest on the mortgage.
One could see an issue if the capital was being paid

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

there seems little in principle been paying people on JSA (and other benefits) housing assistance for rent than for interest on the mortgage.
One could see an issue if the capital was being paid

I don't want to drag this thread into an SMI discussion.

However there is a huge difference.

One helps the person BUY their home.

The other helps the person rent a home, from which they will never be able to profit.

I see nothing wrong with an attachment order should the homeowner require SMI to service their mortgage payments. Up to the homeowner at that point whether they are happy with the loan type arrangement. Many have 10's of thousands of pounds in equity and could sell up and move to a smaller place. Up to them how they play it, but at least it's a loan rather than a giveaway.

AndyGuil

The £25bn is coming off welfare from what I read when I glanced at it earlier. The UK spends far more on welfare than it should.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't want to drag this thread into an SMI discussion.

However there is a huge difference.

One helps the person BUY their home.

The other helps the person rent a home, from which they will never be able to profit.

I see nothing wrong with an attachment order should the homeowner require SMI to service their mortgage payments. Up to the homeowner at that point whether they are happy with the loan type arrangement. Many have 10's of thousands of pounds in equity and could sell up and move to a smaller place. Up to them how they play it, but at least it's a loan rather than a giveaway.

SMI helps to pay the 'dead' money i.e. the interest which seems comparable with funding rent
if the householder sold up because they couldn't pay the interest and moved into rented they would presumably (depending upon full circumstances) be able to claim HB

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

SMI helps to pay the 'dead' money i.e. the interest which seems comparable with funding rent
if the householder sold up because they couldn't pay the interest and moved into rented they would presumably (depending upon full circumstances) be able to claim HB

Only if they had less than £16,000 left after selling up. Which seems unlikely considering over 60% of SMI claimants are over 60 years of age and are the most likely to have the most equity in their homes.

Do you not feel it's fair to treat this as a loan then?

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Only if they had less than £16,000 left after selling up. Which seems unlikely considering over 60% of SMI claimants are over 60 years of age and are the most likely to have the most equity in their homes.

Do you not feel it's fair to treat this as a loan then?

Presumbly to be fair you would need to apply the same 6-16k capital rules which would make the whole thing pretty complicated especially as house prices are variable and uncertain - as stated above if paying interest is cheaper than paying rent there is a risk of the govt 'cutting off its nose to spite its face'.

Edit: I do agree with you re the pricinple regarding fairness and not treating different asset classes differently. However the govt policy now seems to be 'pander to the oldies cos they vote' so don't expect to see any changes soon.

Generali

I'm with GD on this one. I can see no good reason for taxpayers to support the ownership of an asset indefinitely.

The safety net should be just that. After a period (2-3 years?) if you can't afford to own a home you should be expected to sell.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I'm with GD on this one. I can see no good reason for taxpayers to support the ownership of an asset indefinitely.

The safety net should be just that. After a period (2-3 years?) if you can't afford to own a home you should be expected to sell.

I honestly don't mind the attachment order.

So long as it's a loan and the homeowner (or those inheriting) don't benefit from the government paying the interest on the mortgage for, in some cases years (and it will, in many cases due to the age of the receipients be up to the point the mortgage is cleared).

Of course, if they don't agree, they are free to sell up and use the equity to buy a cheaper place, or use it to pay rent.

Ultimately I can't see many having to rely on housing benefit after selling the house. It stands to reason due to the demographics of those on the support that there will likely be considerable equity to tap into.