more government benefit piss taking- n/g | Vital Football

more government benefit piss taking- n/g

wxgill

wxgill

Vital 1st Team Regular
As of next month if you own your home (mortgaged) and you need benefits to help pay the interest the government may help you but it is now a loan you have to pay back.

But if you rent you can have your rent paid but you do not have to pay the money back.

How can this be right when rent is sometimes a larger amount of money than a mortgage?

After listening to a programme on radio 4 today this was the first i knew of this.

Another poke in the eye for people who choose to buy their property!

When will any government streamline the benefits system to stop the abuse of it?
 
It does assume that the home owner has more money behind him or her .There are many generalised assumptions built into the system. The government of whatever colour are using our money and rules are often abused. In a ideal world money would only go to those in need .Often those in most need get the least help .Because they are outside main stream society.
 
Chris is quite right because ill fortune can befall both home owners and those who rent. Like student loans, these loans may never get repaid, which means the Govt are storing up huge problems for future generations as loans are written off.
 
No fan of this government BUT this sounds about right to me.

As a homeowner my property is increasing in value. If I fall into difficulties and the benefits systems helps me keep my house it will still be growing in value while the benefits systems is helping me.

As a renter I gain nothing from the rise in property prices.

I think its good that the benefits system helps prevent people adding to the homelessness issue and I don't think its wrong that home owners pay the money back. After all their investment has continued to grow.

Government has to balance income and expenditure like any budget.

I think they do far worse than this but that's just my view.
 
The home owner only realises the value of his/her house if it is sold. If you're on benefits for whatever reason, you can't buy a replacement house, perhaps a smaller one, if you need a mortgage.
 
Wayne.Kerr - 18/3/2018 09:48

The home owner only realises the value of his/her house if it is sold. If you're on benefits for whatever reason, you can't buy a replacement house, perhaps a smaller one, if you need a mortgage.
Click to expand...

Eventually the house will be sold even if its on the death of the owners. There is no perfect system , at some point money borrowed has to be repaid (by tax payers) why should tax payers fund a private individuals investment. I haven't researched the details but may be the payback could be on selling the property (not too hard to implement with computer systems). I am all for the benefits systems helping working people out and helping them keep their home is a great but it shouldn't be free.

There are never easy answers but in my view this one is well down the list of things to chastise this government over.


 
My point is two different people with the same unemployment but one is loaned the money and the other has it for free.

Why cant both sets have it for nothing?

https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest
 
Markinkent: you pay back the loan when you sell your house but then you don't have enough to buy a new home and have to rent. That makes no sense at all.
 
This and other governments have been steadily decreasing the benefits available, making them harder to claim, less rational and more unfair for a number of years. The relentless propaganda suggesting that an army of mickey takers live high on the hog on benefits is absurd and without any foundation in fact. The true story is more complex and requires more than a micro second of thought. I give you an article from a communist inspired leftie paper, which shows where the really serious amounts of public money go from our benefits system.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/17/homeless-crisis-housing-benefit-micro-flats-cost
 
wxgill - 18/3/2018 10:50

My point is two different people with the same unemployment but one is loaned the money and the other has it for free.

Why cant both sets have it for nothing?

https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest
Click to expand...


I understand your point but neither can have it for nothing. Someone (the tax payer) is paying.

I paid 30K for my first house, I have moved three times and I now have something worth 500K. If at any time during those 25 years I had needed the benefits system to help me pay my mortgage then I think its only fair that I pay that back into the system that supported me.

Meanwhile Mr.X has rented for 25 years - he has made nothing. I can see a clear difference between Mr.X and me. Maybe I am fortunate, maybe I just worked really hard but I can see why one of us should have t pay back that loan and one of us shouldn't. The value I paid back is more than made up for it the capital growth of the investment.

Its why the ability to buy a home is a much sought privilege, infact I would go further and say all the money that comes back should be ring fenced into building more affordable homes for people to be able to have a place to call their own. I would actually go further and have a central government funded mortgage system. Rather than billions of interest payments going to the banks they could have gone into a government system for building more homes.

I am becoming a real socialist :-)

 
Wayne.Kerr - 18/3/2018 10:54

Markinkent: you pay back the loan when you sell your house but then you don't have enough to buy a new home and have to rent. That makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I think in many cases especially down here the value of the property will have risen so much that people could sell, down size if necessary and pay off the loan. Surely we are talking relatively short term loans here before they get back on their feet and into employment.

 
If successive administrations had built the number of homes required, yours wouldn't be worth half a million. No one will let councils build for renting or selling and keep the proceeds, which is the way to go, surely. Imagine the votes the Tories would lose if the housing market collapsed?

Get back on your feet, eh? You become widowed with a young family; you are a carer for an ageing/aged parent; you work in the steel industry with no prospect of a new job for five or six years until there is new investment in your area. The list is endless and, yes, some may be out of work or indisposed for a short period but many will not be.
 
Defiantly a poke in the eye for home owners

Don`t forget home-owners may end up fore-fitting their home to pay to care in later life - renters who have no savings will have to be paid for by tax payers.

 
Excuse me for asking, but if you rent doesn't someone else own the place?

So, if the government pays the rent, they're effectively paying the owner of the property which is almost always mortgaged anyway. So the non-residing landlord is ok.

The problem occurs if you've attempted to take up Thatcher's property owning mantra. The Tories now screw you for following one of their key "desires".

Therefore it appears to be better if two people (say) who have mortgages, swap houses and pay a rent equivalent to the mortgages to each other.
 
Agree with Mark. The system is by no means perfect but if the benefits system is designed to help people who need it most, someone who has equity in their home is clearly better off than someone with no equity in their home. I believe most benefits are means tested so don?t see how this is any different. I assume there would also be a cut off for the renter based on their savings?

Of course, when the ?homeowner? has no or very little equity in their home then it is unfair. Perhaps the amount of equity in the home should be used as the cut off for the most fair solution.
 
How can a measure of equity be fair - it's only a paper figure and may not be realised for decades?
 
Wayne.Kerr - 18/3/2018 12:43

How can a measure of equity be fair - it's only a paper figure and may not be realised for decades?
Click to expand...

It?s only a paper figure until the home is sold. It?s still money the homeowner can access if they really need to. Not instantly but not decades either.

WX - you say this takes effect from April (?). How is this different from the current arrangement?
 
Currently a homeowner would not have to pay back the interest paid on their mortgage if they are unemployed.

From April any payments made to a homeowner will be viewed as a loan.

Why cant a renter have a loan to pay back when they are back in work? Another two-tier system to favour renters.

 
markinkent - 18/3/2018 10:04

Wayne.Kerr - 18/3/2018 09:48

The home owner only realises the value of his/her house if it is sold. If you're on benefits for whatever reason, you can't buy a replacement house, perhaps a smaller one, if you need a mortgage.
Click to expand...

Eventually the house will be sold even if its on the death of the owners. There is no perfect system , at some point money borrowed has to be repaid (by tax payers) why should tax payers fund a private individuals investment. I haven't researched the details but may be the payback could be on selling the property (not too hard to implement with computer systems). I am all for the benefits systems helping working people out and helping them keep their home is a great but it shouldn't be free.

There are never easy answers but in my view this one is well down the list of things to chastise this government over.
Click to expand...

So it's ok for the taxpayer to fund a renter but not a homeowner - why the difference?

Why should the renter be treated better than the homeowner?

By the way the benefit only pays the INTEREST not the capital owed so the owner also has to pay the capital owed to the bank at a later point also.

You think it is ok to give the homeowner a double-whammy but nothing for the renter?
 
It's not going to the renter though is it, its going to the landlord.
The home owner will presumably own their home and have nothing to pay eventually, where as the renter is paying all their lives, and gets nothing in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.