George Osborne warns £25bn more cuts needed

wotsthat

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.

Most of the nonsense spouted about SMI seem to involve the green eyed monster worrying about someone getting 50p of capital repaid but I'd have a time limit - 18 months seems like more than a reasonable time to give people the chance to sort themselves out. After that it should be between the them and the lender.

It may well be cost additive but sometimes principles cost money. No-one living on the goodwill of the taxpayer should be allowed to ever be fully comfortable that the goodwill is permanent.

MFW_ASAP

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?

Taking this logic further, do you not feel it's fair to treat any benefit as a loan? For example, job seekers allowance could be repaid at a few quid a month once the person was back in work. Sickness benefit repaid once the patient is cured and back at work, etc.?

MFW_ASAP

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.

Same question as the one I asked GD. Do you also feel that after a period (2-3 years?) of having a safety net, that other benefits should be removed?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

If there was considerable equity and releasing this allowed them to downsize without using the benefits system they would have done so already.

I think you're making over optimistic assumptions about the wealth that recipients of SMI have accumulated.

antrobus

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We need a sustainable number of children to replace the old. This will happen naturally without 'bribing' the nation to produce them.....

Unfortunately recent history suggests it does not happen 'naturally'. In the recent past the UK, in line with other European nations, has not been producing a "sustainable number of children to replace the old". Which is why there is a problem.

P.S. If the payment of child benefit is really a government bribe to produce children, what can we expect in return from pensioners in respect of their government bribe?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

If there was considerable equity and releasing this allowed them to downsize without using the benefits system they would have done so already.

Why would they have done so already?

SMI means they don't have to. That's the whole point.

MS1950

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.

https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest/what-youll-get

"Time limits

If you’re getting income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and apply for the first time or started getting SMI after 5 January 2009, you can only get help for 2 years.


There’s no limit to how long you can get SMI if you’re getting:

• Income Support
• income-related Employment and Support Allowance
• Pension Credit"

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

It doesn't work like that.

Unemployment falls so spending on benefits fall.

Hopefully. Though benefit spending increased vastly during the previous boom... can't think what party might be responsible for that.

SailorSam

Generali wrote: »

It doesn't work like that.

Unemployment falls so spending on benefits fall.

It doesn't work like that.
Unemployment is falling because so many have been forced into low paid part time jobs, then they need to claim Tax Creits or Child Credits so it costs the Country more while the likes of Tesco and Poundland get subsidised employees working for them.

N1AK

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.

Add another voice to the choir on this one. My own view is that I would likely prefer a system where the government covers the interest via a loan payment rather than forcing sale if the occupier doesn't want to sell. The government could then take payment in a similar manner to student loans, of via first dibs on the estate when the occupier passes away.