They can't be.....can they?

moneyistooshorttomention

:eek:

As in - am I getting this right - we are talking about unemployed people, for instance, getting their mortgage covered for them whilst they are unemployed?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/09/support-mortgage-interest-benefit-axed-reposession

Is this really the benefit I would have had if I had become unemployed (again) after I'd bought a house on a mortgage all those years back? The one which made me feel I could safely buy a house (despite that risk of unemployment) because I knew the Government would cover all the cost of the "interest" part of my mortgage/however much it was/starting immediately/for however long I needed it? - and now it's about to vanish totally = completely abolished basically.

Here to warn people that even that small amount of that benefit that was left in 2017 (after a load of cuts on it since I got my mortgage) and that I was able to take for granted 30 years back would be there if I ever needed it is about to go completely....

p00hsticks

Probably better posted on the Housing debate or Discussion time areas on the forum (assuming you wish to actually discuss the whys and wherefores of the move)

katebl

The benefit isn't about to "vanish", it's just being replaced with one with a condition, and too right too. If the woman in the article "can find" the extra £55 a month, why didn't she before? Too many people with too much entitlement. Giving a share of the house back after time is more than reasonable

theartfullodger

See
https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest

SMI as a benefit is ending on 5 April 2018, and will be replaced by a loan.

It's paid after 39 weeks and is only interest, not the repayment part.

Benefits ain't fair: (eg I, relatively well off, get pension, winter fuel allowance, £10 Xmas bonus, free prescriptions, free eye tests, 'bus pass: I don't "need" them: Funny how Tory governments haven't been cutting back - actually increasing - on hand-outs to the old, who largely vote for them whilst benefits to the young, the sick, the disabled, the poor, the out-of-work have been reduced or capped: Nope, never voted for the toads...)

Best regards

Typhoon2000

So interest only loans with no repayment vehicle when you retire wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.

bouicca21

I strongly suspect that paying mortgage interest is often cheaper than paying housing benefit.

theartfullodger

bouicca21 wrote: »

I strongly suspect that paying mortgage interest is often cheaper than paying housing benefit.

Almost always: It's how most BtL landlords make money (mortgage costs are so - currently - way way less than rent costs).

Red-Squirrel_2

Of course they can.

Haven't you noticed that this government has been slashing safety nets left right and centre since 2010?

Or are you only bothered when its one that might have had an impact on you?

theartfullodger

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Of course they can.

Haven't you noticed that this government has been slashing safety nets left right and centre since 2010?

Or are you only bothered when its one that might have had an impact on you?

Apologies, I'd not made myself clear: I was attempting, but failing, irony. Of course I'm well aware of the cut-backs, I help out at a local advice centre, the numbers of poor s*ds keeps growing & growing. If there are to be benefit cut-backs (not sure I'm in favour of that) then they should be applied fairly and equably: The current protection of ALL the old, including a large proportion of them quite well off, is wrong, wicked, evil, when so many others are suffering this government's cut-backs.

I'd be quite content to find my benefits cut. And have said so for many years: (But charities are getting significant payments in the mean-time).

That old British tradition of "Fair-play" needs more paying attention to!

Red-Squirrel_2

theartfullodger wrote: »

Apologies, I'd not made myself clear: Of course I'm well aware of the cut-backs, I help out at a local advice centre, the numbers of poor s*ds keeps growing & growing. If there are to be benefit cut-backs (not sure I'm in favour of that) then they should be applied fairly and equably: The current protection of ALL the old, including a large proportion of them quite well off, is wrong, wicked, evil, when so many others are suffering this government's cut-backs.

I'd be quite content to find my benefits cut. And have said so for many years: (But charities are getting significant payments in the mean-time).

That old British tradition of "Fair-play" needs more paying attention to!

I was replying to the OP, I hadn't even read your post yet!

steampowered

This all seems completely fair to me.

I don't see why the government should be government should be paying off people's mortgage for them.

It is only fair that if the taxpayer pays part of your mortgage you pay that money back, or that the government gets a share of your property.