Benefits to be replaced by loans!

trigger_fish

nannytone wrote: »

why should the families of a person receiving SMI benefit after that persons death?
i agree it should be repaid from the profit gained

What if there isn't any.

Stop_Watch

Great idea! If only they could backdate it. To be fair if people have to repay loans to get a education why should they not repay loans for when they where sitting on there backside!! Do it for all benefits and strip all assets if they die.

Too many free loaders in this country. I am a bit grumpy after doing a 55 hour week to pay for others!

trigger_fish

FBaby wrote: »

I don't think it is right compare SMI become a loan and JSA. The two are totally different. In the first instance, claimants were actually gaining from the arrangement in addition to getting support to have a roof over their head. This is totally totally wrong.

There is no investment gain to be made from being on JSA.

If the OP is even close with his prophecy then even income based JSA will become repayable at some time in the future perhaps with threshold like a student loan.

trigger_fish

Stop_Watch wrote: »

Great idea! If only they could backdate it.

As I understand it its only available for 2 years anyway.

So what happens then.

Have the house repossessed-great idea that.

The social housing wallahs virtually never lose their homes whatever they do.

Fairness in Britain aye my arris.

nannytone_2

trigger_fish wrote: »

What if there isn't any.

unlikey, but if there is no asset then no repayment would be due.

nannytone_2

trigger_fish wrote: »

As I understand it its only available for 2 years anyway.

So what happens then.

Have the house repossessed-great idea that.

The social housing wallahs virtually never lose their homes whatever they do.

Fairness in Britain aye my arris.

it is clear that the loan is only repayable when the property is sold.

social housing tenants do not gain an asset by having their rent paid

Housing_Benefit_Officer

sargeantsalt wrote: »

2 years ago I predicted that the benefits system would be eventually replaced by a loan system where those who fall on hard times would receive money to live on that they would repay once they are better off.

Well, it has started. SMI benefit is being replaced by a loan system from April 2018 onward.
There will also be interest to pay on top.

My predictions for the future are:

1. More benefits will be replaced, e.g. jobseeker loans, rather than benefits.
2. At some point the claimants 'debts' will be sold on to debt collection companies for a fraction of their value and the claimants will be aggressively pursued for the money.

Debt should never be forced on anyone.

If you care, then write to your MP or start a petition.

The change was announced in the 2015 Summer Budget - 2 years ago.

IAmWales

nannytone wrote: »

LHA is paid towards ret.
this rent goes to another person/company.

the claimant doesn't end up with an asset.

why should the families of a person receiving SMI benefit after that persons death?
i agree it should be repaid from the profit gained

It's ok for a BTL landlord to profit, but an individual not to have their interest paid?

I recall you kicking up a right fuss over the bedroom tax, yet now you're happy to kick other disabled people because it doesn't affect you. Shame on you.

Mersey_2

glentoran99 wrote: »

Just right too!! Get the government to pay your interest then sell your home and pocket the cash, a loophole quite rightly being closed

The logic of that argument would be to end the Right to Buy though.


Many who bought their homes for just £15k (due to the large discount) are now sitting on - or sold - properties worth £150k.


Likewise those who save aren't entitled to help with care homes and those who didn't get theirs paid for.

FBaby

It's ok for a BTL landlord to profit, but an individual not to have their interest paid?

You've got to be kidding asking this question! The BTL will be paying taxes on his investment and won't be relying on benefits for it. The latter doesn't pay anything in but think he should be entitled to the growth of what he doesn't pay towards. We are not talking about people losing their home but to repay what they would otherwise have had to pay for their investment, absolutely fair.