What's wrong with letting people get repossesed ?

Ephemera

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

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.

Mortgage holders are sitting on an asset. They should also have payment protection in place to cover themselves in the event of job loss - that is partly why they receive less help.
Would you, if you were a renting taxpayer, be happy to pay the mortgage of someone sitting on a 1/4 million pound asset for six to twelve months while they look for a job? Wouldn't you want something back if and when they realise that asset?

Joe65_2

Ephemera wrote: »

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...!

That's a wonderful idea... Like Northern Rock - Nationalise homes that the owner can no longer afford to pay for. Letting them continue to live there , while the State takes the Capital ... It would be a bit like the National Trust already does for the landed gentry. In the Future these State owned houses would be spread among the community, instead of bunched together on estates like the council houses of yestday.

SingleSue

Ephemera wrote: »

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...

I totally agree with your last sentance even if I am now a single parent on benefits! I hate being on benefits, I want to work and I have instilled (and will continue to do so) in my children that the only way to get on in life is to be self reliant and that includes working and paying their own way....but then they still remember the mum of old (me) who would run them about from school to school, do the housework (while daddy was at work) and then get dinner on the table, gulp it down and then go off to work every night of the week... me and hubby were like ships passing in the night! :rotfl:

fc123

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

Homeowners will have enough support to ensure that their homes are not repossessed, the government says. The comments came after key mortgage industry figures met Chancellor Alistair Darling and Housing Minister Caroline Flint at 11 Downing Street

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7361137.stm

If someone gets repossesed, the house gets auctioned off, someone else buys it; net result ? Same number of houses in circulation and same number of homeowners. Only difference is that those who have been sensible with their finances will be rewarded and those who have been reckless punished. Why should it be the other way round ?

Mate you need therapy or a hobby.

smk77

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

If someone gets repossesed, the house gets auctioned off, someone else buys it; net result ? Same number of houses in circulation and same number of homeowners. Only difference is that those who have been sensible with their finances will be rewarded and those who have been reckless punished. Why should it be the other way round ?

Not all people who have their homes repossesed have been reckless with their finances. People loose their job and can end up loosing their home.

LillyJ wrote: »

Don't forget though, that if someone is made homeless (and remember there are often children involved here) they become priority for social housing and will therefore be emergency housed followed by long term housing.

This is not true. Emergency housing would be provided as local councils have a legal duty but long term housing would be unlikely. As the person is likely to be able to afford a private rent (they were happily paying a mortgage before they were hit by interest rate hikes) and there isn't enough housing stock the council would not provide long term housing.

Davesnave

How about....

Yes, pay the mortgage of those having trouble, BUT put a charge on the property so the beleagured tax payer has a chance of getting something back! After all, Joe Taxpayer is paying their mortgage! Then when they sell later at a tidy profit the taxpayer is reimbursed. That is fairer!

I'd go with that. A year or two down the line, one government, or probably another, will be trying to ameliorate the vast costs involved in keeping people in their own homes, while avoiding the even higher social service costs of allowing them to be repossessed.

Martinslovechild

Yes, pay the mortgage of those having trouble, BUT put a charge on the property so the beleagured tax payer has a chance of getting something back! After all, Joe Taxpayer is paying their mortgage! Then when they sell later at a tidy profit the taxpayer is reimbursed. That is fairer!

That's like saying that everybody who has kids should pay the taxpayer back all the child benefit, working families tax credits, childrens' tax credits, baby bonuses etc that they receive.

And how about a National Insurance refund for everybody who pays for Private Healthcare?

Personally, I'd like all my tax to be given to the banks to help them in their time of need. Oh? it already has been? Oh goody...

HammersFan

It strikes me that everyone would be better off if they just showed some effort and guts and concenrtated on doing their own thing without wishing misfortune on others. Even if people have been financially reckless I wouldn't wish repossession on anyone, it must be a bloody nightmare. I think if that if seeing that happen to others gives you a kick / pleasure there is a lot missing from your life. IMO.

And, unfortunatley for some on here, I reckon the vast majority of homeowners will be OK (and do bloody well in the long term). For loads of people mortgages have got cheaper over the last few months. Again IMO, but I guess time will tell.

MiserlyMartin

LillyJ wrote: »

If house prices do drop they will not be able afford private rented as the rents would go up.

Thats highly questionable. With house prices dropping, therefore the cost of mortgage loans also dropping, rents are quite likely to fall with them. If you look at the correlation between rents and mortgage payments historically, it used to be cheaper to buy than rent. But that was when house prices were sensible and mortgage amounts were realistic.

MiserlyMartin

smk77 wrote: »

Not all people who have their homes repossesed have been reckless with their finances. People loose their job and can end up loosing their home.

If I were in that situation I would make sure I got a another job to prevent that from happening. Any old job I wouldn't care. Its about time people took responsibilty for themselves - but all the while we have the welfare state as a safety net and this government in power this won't happen. Nobody will ever be taught anything except 'if you are irresponsible - you are bailed out'

smk77 wrote: »

This is not true. Emergency housing would be provided as local councils have a legal duty but long term housing would be unlikely. As the person is likely to be able to afford a private rent (they were happily paying a mortgage before they were hit by interest rate hikes) and there isn't enough housing stock the council would not provide long term housing.

As it should be.