What's wrong with letting people get repossesed ?

Benefits_Blagger

LillyJ wrote: »

yes I totally agree, but what is done is done, and I just don't think making loads of kids homeless is a good plan, they haven't done anything wrong have they?
I am just pointing out the problems if these people are made homeless, and that it may actually be cheaper in the long run to keep them in their homes. I certainly wouldn't want to pay more tax in order to make lots of people homeless just to "teach them a lesson"

what about the kids who have been deprived of being able to goto a good school because the parents others kids have bought in areas they cant afford just to be in a catchment area of a good school?

for every winner there has to be a loser, wether it's the parents or the kids.

the point i am making, shouldnt things be allowed to take their natural course to restore some social justice. if we dont, we are making a rod for our own backs in that we are teaching future generations that selfishness and greed pay off.

LillyJ

Maybe but I just think that that is like letting smokers kill themselves without trying to help them or letting obese people die just to show other people how bad smoking and obesity are.

SingleSue

I would agree that things should be allowed to take their own course...my disagreement was the manner in which those who have been and who are being repossessed were being labelled.

We found our building society to be most helpful and they had several schemes to offer to keep us in our home but in the end, it was not to be.

Suffice to say, I have never bought another home since, will never have a mortgage ever again (my own choice) and will only purchase my own home if I could buy it outright!

Benefits_Blagger

SingleSue wrote: »

I would agree that things should be allowed to take their own course...my disagreement was the manner in which those who have been and who are being repossessed were being labelled.

We found our building society to be most helpful and they had several schemes to offer to keep us in our home but in the end, it was not to be.

Suffice to say, I have never bought another home since, will never have a mortgage ever again (my own choice) and will only purchase my own home if I could buy it outright!

of course there will be people who are repossesed through no fault of their own, but this would happen in time of non-credit crunch aswell. It's the present help for the reckless that I disagree with.

LittleMissAspie

I am under the impression that tenants get housing benefit immediately but mortgage-owners have to wait several months. The rules should be the same for both.

However, I am still concerned about what I read, about the Government not letting people be repossessed. What are they going to do, actually pay people's mortgages individually forever? That would be unaffordable for the taxpayer and it's unfair for people who would struggle to get a mortgage to be paying off someone else's via tax. Given that mortgages are more expensive than rent at the moment, it would be cheaper for someone in trouble to rent privately.

But then part of me thinks they are just saying it because they are so desperate to keep sentiment up and also to get re-elected.

pickles110564

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

It's the present help for the reckless that I disagree with.

1st time I agree with you, bout time dossers like you had the social taken away.:rotfl:

MUDGUTS

SingleSue wrote: »

There are several posts on here that are pretty hurtful.

We were repossessed in the early 90's, we were not reckless or stupid, we planned, we could afford (easily) the mortgage etc but circumstances beyond our control came into play ...totally unforeseen circumstances.

Yes there are some who may have their spending out of control, rely on never ending credit etc but we were never like that, we fought and fought to keep our home even to the extent where I was threatened with being removed to the local mental hospital as I was seen as being a danger to myself as I was going completely against medical advice and taking on more and more jobs when I was really in no fit state to be working even the most sedentary of jobs.

Being repossessed was hard, it was a complete shock to our pride and god did it hurt to have gone from such a bright start to a completely desperate state of affairs due to completely unforeseen changes in our lives.

Please have a thought for others, not everyone is the same and their reasons for losing their homes is not always down to people being silly with money.

Doesn't it make you sick then to see how financially reckless some people are now, they will get much more help than you ever did.

Ephemera

Yes, pay their mortgage but put a charge on the property...that way, they keep their home, are not getting 'charity' and the taxpayer is not financing someone else's investment.
I think it is wrong to expect non-homeowning taxpayers, or those who already own their homes to pay the mortgages of those who cannot, or will not, sell up.
And yes, it is politically motivated...!

m00m00

and anyone who has MEW'ed should be turfed out on the street instead of giving them yet another chance

there's a difference between those in genuine hardship, and those who have just been !!!!less.

Ephemera

LillyJ wrote: »

Fine but I just don't like to think that children are punished for bad parenting. I also don't thin these people will learn their lesson if they were evicted and would just get more credit. You can't go and assess people's "worthiness" for help, like all those who smoke get no help as they waste money on ciggarettes which could go to pay the mortgage etc.

I am not saying whether this is morally wrong or right, just that, with the system in place it makes sense to keep people in their homes.

PS I am a taxpayer and currently a renter so it is not like I have something to gain from this.

Unfortunately, children are already, and nearly always will be punished for and by bad parenting.

Anyone who is able can have kids, and there seem to be plenty of parents that have child after child simply in order to live off benefits or avoid jail, and the kids are almost feral.

Yet those of us that would love to have kids, be socially responsible and feed, clothe and home these children at the bare minimum of taxpayer's expense, are penalised so the !!!!less can breed more. I have no children because I cannot afford to. I could have children, but that would mean living off benefits to do so. I do not want the taxpayer funding my life! But then that means I have to give up my chance of being a mother just because I am socially responsible.

Give it a generation or two and this socially-responsible streak will have been eradicated, and we will all look to Mother Government England for our sustenance...