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

bouicca21

The largest single bit of the benefits budget is paying out for pensions and pensioner benefits. Anyone who is trying to live on the state pension alone is going to struggle. But people like me, and presumably Artful, who have private pensions, are actually quite well off. I would have no problem if the government targeted its benefit savings by means testing the state pension. Targeting the poor is disgraceful.

Red-Squirrel_2

steampowered wrote: »

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.

SMI didn't pay off anybody's mortgage, it temporarily covered some of the interest (not the capital) when people found themselves out of work, disabled, ill etc.

If you rent, and you find yourself unable to pay your rent for whatever reason, you can claim housing benefit (UC, whatever) to help you get through the difficult period without losing your home.

If you buy (and most people who buy do so to have a home, not as an investment) and you fall on hard times, you have always been entitled to less help, now it seems you won't be entitled to any at all.

And its all well and good saying you shouldn't buy if you can't afford to pay the mortgage even with no income, but nobody knows what life will throw at them. Even somebody with a steady secure job and 6 months worth of savings can get diagnosed with a serious illness or become severely disabled, or find that their job suddenly becomes much less secure. How does it help anybody to let them get repossessed and force them into renting and claiming full housing benefit? The reality is if you can't work again permanently this is what will happen, but SMI gave people a bit of breathing space so that if it was possible they could get back on an even keel without losing their home.

iammumtoone

steampowered wrote: »

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

They never have paid off mortgages, what they did was paid the interest so that person still had a home, payment of the house (capital) has always been paid by the owner.

Personally I don't see what difference this is to paying peoples rent. If you are only paying the interest on your mortgage you are effectively just renting it from the bank.

theartfullodger

Most people pay a mortgage: Either directly, their own mortgage or someone else's (private landlord, council borrowings, housing association mortgages..)

p00hsticks

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

If you buy (and most people who buy do so to have a home, not as an investment) and you fall on hard times, you have always been entitled to less help, now it seems you won't be entitled to any at all.

According to the link in the original post, you will still be entitled to get the interest on your mortgage paid, but as a loan with no fixed repayment date.

seven-day-weekend

I think it is fair enough really. Benefits should enable someone to have a roof over their head, not pay for it for them. So yes, have SMI as a loan, to be repaid on the Homeowner's death..

iammumtoone

theartfullodger wrote: »

Most people pay a mortgage: Either directly, their own mortgage or someone else's (private landlord, council borrowings, housing association mortgages..)

^^^ yet no one seems to have an issue with the government paying peoples rent for them. which as you point out is indirectly paying someones mortgage.

Via the rent money it is not only paying the interest but some/all of the capital as well. Much more than the amount previously given to home owners to help with interest only.

I don't see people demanding to make rent payments loans as well so when those people find work they also have to pay back what help they received with keeping a roof over their heads.

iammumtoone

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Benefits should enable someone to have a roof over their head, not pay for it for them.

So why not make rent paid by the government a loan as well?

The interest only does just that enables someone to keep the roof over their head without the bank repossessing it. It does not pay anything toward the house itself (capital).

Red-Squirrel_2

p00hsticks wrote: »

According to the link in the original post, you will still be entitled to get the interest on your mortgage paid, but as a loan with no fixed repayment date.

That's not help at all though really, is it?

I say this as someone who unthinkingly took out a student loan about 15 years ago that is now bigger than it was on day one despite making not insubstantial repayments every month. I would hate to be forced to take on another government loan like this.

Thrugelmir

iammumtoone wrote: »

Via the rent money it is not only paying the interest but some/all of the capital as well. Much more than the amount previously given to home owners to help with interest only.

By virtue of owning a house the majority of people are still benefitting from an increase in capital values. Switching to a loan system seems far more equitable.