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

moneyistooshorttomention

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.

Errr...the whole point is that it's a change from mortgage interest paid = end of.

To = we'll loan you the money (ie put you in debt for money we are currently giving you and that's the end of it).

...and discriminating against people whose housing money is "mortgage" rather than "rent".

It means that those paying mortgage interest will land up having a debt imposed on them that they havent chosen to have.

Thrugelmir

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You commented upthread, does it only become the wrong forum when you don't like the points being made?

I'm not sure what point you actually trying to make. As such the benefit isn't being withdrawn. However the ultimate cost to the taxpayer is being reduced. That's the bottom line.

Red-Squirrel_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you actually trying to make. As such the benefit isn't being withdrawn. However the ultimate cost to the taxpayer is being reduced. That's the bottom line.

It is being withdrawn as a benefit. It appears to be a financial product now, minus the regulation.

If you are struggling to understand a point, feel free to ask for clarification or even to ignore it, rather than telling the poster they shouldn't be making it.

iammumtoone

Thrugelmir wrote: »

However the ultimate cost to the taxpayer is being reduced. That's the bottom line.

Not necessarily.

People may now decide that the best option is to sell up and move into rented. Depending on the cost of this and if any equity left the cost to the tax payer may be increased as their full rent will be paid.

Even those that can afford 6 months rent with the equity the taxpayer will still lose out as the full cost of rent onwards will be much more than the interest only part of their previous mortgage.

Thrugelmir

iammumtoone wrote: »

Not necessarily.

People may now decide that the best option is to sell up and move into rented. Depending on the cost of this and if any equity left the cost to the tax payer may be increased as their full rent will be paid.

Even those that can afford 6 months rent with the equity the taxpayer will still lose out as the full cost of rent onwards will be much more than the interest only part of their previous mortgage.

You can create endless speculative scenarios. Which could occur in any event even without this change of policy.

moneyistooshorttomention

I can certainly foresee that some would decide rented accommodation might be "safer" than mortgaged accommodation in this scenario. Rented accommodation = no loan imposed on you against your will. Mortgaged accommodation = high chance of loan being imposed on you against your will.

Not entirely sure the Government has thought this one through somehows....:cool:. They've almost certainly not thought through a scenario of "come someone getting another job again eventually" and finding they are supposed to start repaying what has been turned into an imposed/compulsory loan - but they simply dont have a high enough income to do so and it could well end up in the Government making people bankrupt (with all the attendant cost to the taxpayer of doing that to someone who'd never have become bankrupt of themselves).

Typhoon2000

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Errr...the whole point is that it's a change from mortgage interest paid = end of.

To = we'll loan you the money (ie put you in debt for money we are currently giving you and that's the end of it).

...and discriminating against people whose housing money is "mortgage" rather than "rent".

It means that those paying mortgage interest will land up having a debt imposed on them that they havent chosen to have.

I suspect that the loan will only be repaid from their estate when they pass. They will never be made to sell to repay the loan. So they are not worse off.
Well their offspring may be worse off with less of an inheritance but no different than if their parents were renting and did not own their house.

iammumtoone

I have just read the link and have had a part change of opinion.

I never released it was paid infidelity as part of pension credit. I do agree that part should be stopped as those people are never going to be able to start paying themselves again. If people are unable to re-pay their mortgage before they retire, they should not take on the mortgage in the first place or work after retirement age (plenty of people do this) .

My previous points for the unemployed/sick, those who unfortunately lose their jobs/become sick who are able to re-pay their interest in future when they find work/recover (if possible, if not it should still be paid). Should still be entitled to it for at least the year time frame it was paid previously.

steampowered

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

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.

I think that is a very arbitrary distinction. Paying interest is still paying the mortgage.

Money is money. £10 is £10 whether it is interest or whether it is capital.

If the government pays the interest on your mortgage, you are benefiting from inflation (reducing the value of the principal) and from increases in capital (increasing your equity) over time.

The taxpayer is paying for you to have a more valuable asset. Its a bit different to paying rent - you don't get to keep rent.

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.

I agree. But the fact remains that the government is still paying towards an asset you get to keep. It is only fair you pay back that money when you are able, or that the government gets a share of the asset.

Red-Squirrel_2

iammumtoone wrote: »

I have just read the link and have had a part change of opinion.

I never released it was paid infidelity as part of pension credit. I do agree that part should be stopped as those people are never going to be able to start paying themselves again. If people are unable to re-pay their mortgage before they retire, they should not take on the mortgage in the first place or work after retirement age (plenty of people do this) .

A lot of people in that position will have ended up there by circumstance, not design though. Who is helped by them being forced out of their homes into rented ones and paid housing benefit instead of SMI?

I think its far more useful to think 'who is helped' by an action than in terms of who 'deserves' what.