George Osborne warns £25bn more cuts needed

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

What are the circumstances of the people on permanent SMI?

You seem to have missed the main part of my post, asking if other benefits should have a time limit...

Let me google that for you...

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

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Let me google that for you...

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

Why come onto a discussion forum if you are just going to avoid answering questions?

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The homeowner pays the capital. The government pays the interest.

Afterall, the homeowner can't just stop paying the capital as that's a default.

So the home does get paid off, unless they are on an interest only mortgage. In that case, they are essentially paying nothing for the house, but taking all the equity when it's sold and the taxpayer get's nothing.

A bit like housing benefit, other than with housing benefit, the claimant never gets to keep the house.

How does the claimant afford his capital payments? With his other benefits, I assume?If the claimant can pay his mortgage with income support or other bens, should that also be withdrawn from him as it means they keep the house and the taxpayer gets nothing?

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Why come onto a discussion forum if you are just going to avoid answering questions?

I'm not sure what I'm avoiding, but let's put you to the test.

Why do you feel it's unfair, or wrong to ask that SMI is paid back when the householder moves on or passes on?

Maybe you could explain, as all you appear to be doing is nit picking without offering a shred of opinion.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure what I'm avoiding, but let's put you to the test.

Why do you feel it's unfair, or wrong to ask that SMI is paid back when the householder moves on or passes on?

Maybe you could explain, as all you appear to be doing is nit picking without offering a shred of opinion.

By 'putting me to the test' you do realise you're still avoiding my questions?

I hold the opinion that if we are going to have state benefits, then they should be available for whomever needs them, regardless of their property ownership status.

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I hold the opinion that if we are going to have state benefits, then they should be available for whomever needs them, regardless of their property ownership status.

OK. So basically, as SMI is solely reliant on property ownership status, and those not owning a property can't ever hope to have such a luxury as the government paying off your mortgage interest.....surely you would be all for an attachment on the property equity in order that it becomes a loan rather than a giveaway to a certain section of society, reliant on their property owning status?

Why should someone using help to buy pay phase one pay back the loan when someone at the other end of the scale doesn't have to?

If were looking to save money, it's surely pretty stupid to be giving money away to property owners at one end of the age spectrum in order that they don't have to use their own equity, while stating anyone under 25 will be exlcuded from housing benefits altogether?

It's a conundrum, one which I doubt you will admit to coming around to seeing sense on, so one which I assume you will go off on a tangent on and continue attacking a poster rather than the subject.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

A further £25bn spending cuts will be needed after the next election, Chancellor George Osborne has warned.

Shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. As the deficit has been far from fixed for some years. Interesting that the Tories have choosen now to highlight. Probably in response to Labour's attempt to talk about Living Wages and Freezing Energy Prices. While avoiding the lack of credible economic policy.

SAHD_Jim

Osborne and Cameron need to stop all the posturing and actually do something about structured tax avoidance and tax evasion. Then the £25bn would not be an issue.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK. So basically, as SMI is solely reliant on property ownership status, and those not owning a property can't ever hope to have such a luxury as the government paying off your mortgage interest.....surely you would be all for an attachment on the property equity in order that it becomes a loan rather than a giveaway to a certain section of society, reliant on their property owning status?

Why should someone using help to buy pay phase one pay back the loan when someone at the other end of the scale doesn't have to?

If were looking to save money, it's surely pretty stupid to be giving money away to property owners at one end of the age spectrum in order that they don't have to use their own equity, while stating anyone under 25 will be exlcuded from housing benefits altogether?

It's a conundrum, one which I doubt you will admit to coming around to seeing sense on, so one which I assume you will go off on a tangent on and continue attacking a poster rather than the subject.

Let's cut the theatrics, Graham.

SMI does the same job as housing benefit, it keeps a roof over vulnerable people's heads. It does it at a fraction of the cost of housing benefit.

grizzly1911

SAHD_Jim wrote: »

Osborne and Cameron need to stop all the posturing and actually do something about structured tax avoidance and tax evasion. Then the £25bn would not be an issue.

On the too difficult pile.

Can't go hounding your own. They want jobs later.