Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dalek

  1. I've been unemployed six months having paid 32 years' worth of tax! Most claiming JSA were taxpayers! You talk as though we're a sub-species, not people who have been unfortunate enough to be made redundant, which could happen to anyone. Wake up. So it's not, as the sub-head of this thread implies - 'something for nothing', it is, as I keep saying, a safety net for all of us, paid for by all of us through our taxes. Lets face it, much of our tax goes to bail out bust feckless banks! It's only right the people too gain from paying tax. It's you who is the joke.
  2. Yes dervis, I'm 53, which probably isn't helping my applications... Many thanks for your good wishes.
  3. It's a safety net - you might need it one day. I never dreamt I would. And you use the word 'steal' - I paid tax for 32 years. The welfare state is there for all of us. Government, remember, is chosen by the people supposedly for the benefit of the people. That was a joke until the 1940s, when the welfare state, like the NHS, was at last something for the common man, not just the upper classes. Now it's all being eroded. The only people 'stealing' from us mate are the bankers and MPs with their nose-in-trough expenses. And yes, insurance only covers you for a year. I've been unemployed six months so far. One job I went for a few weeks ago, I was told there were about 300 going for it! I apply every day, most people don't even bother to reply. I'm applying for jobs other than what I'm qualified for, and I'm consistently told I'm over-qualified. You can't win.
  4. And just to remind you - at least get your facts right if you're going to pontificate - I am on contributions-based JSA until the end of the month. This is the case for the first six months for everyone who has paid in. Then it goes automatically onto means-tested. https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance As to under-25s, many of them have worked since they were 18. And many have been hit by redundancy. For the government to attack the under 25s by proposing to stop their housing benefit is beyond sick just at the time when jobs for them have been substantially reduced only because of the recession caused by the banks and previous and current government.
  5. Where have all today's posts, including mine, gone that criticised this proposal to scrap housing benefits for under 25s???? (or am I going mad? )
  6. Just to remind some of you - though it gives me hope for humanity that some of you agree with what I said! - I have to live on £71 JSA a week, not just for food but for gas, electric, water, buildings insurance, never mind things I will soon have to cancel like contents insurance, broadband, phone to be contacted for jobs, TV licence, as there's no money left. And I did have savings put aside, which have helped me survive until now. How many people have more than three months' worth of savings. And under 25s have to live on just £56.25 a week. Let them at least have a roof over their heads ffs!
  7. I can't believe most of you. This Welfare State - or 'something for nothing culture' as you put it - is not just for the 'feckless', is for YOU. All of us. It's a safety net that every single one of use might need one day, when we least expect it! And most of us have paid our tax dues towards this - including many under 25s, who may have worked for five or six years already before being made redundant. I'm 53 and worked very hard all my life but have been unemployed for six months - something I thought would never happen to me. It could happen to you too, you smug idiots. And you just don't get it, do you - tens if not hundreds of thousands of these under 25s are looking for work, but there isn't any - very often they apply for a job only to be told they are one of 40 or more doing the same. And who has created this situation where so many companies are having to cut jobs and vacancies - the government and the banks! The consequences of this proposal would be catastrophic - don't you know the young hate us already? We had it so good - free higher education, affordable homes. What do they have - enormous debt and no hope. What needs to be tackled to bring the debt down is the housing problem in general and ridiculously high rental and house prices. Don't you realise that this is the government's plan - divide and rule. You HPCers bleating about scroungers are the sheeple now.
  8. Apologies if this has already been posted - couldn't see it. But for me the important aspect is that surely this will be the last straw for the Greeks in particular - even the pro-bailout parties. And I can't see Spanish citizens taking it either. See link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/eu-weighs-direct-aid-for-banks-common-bonds-as-crisis-antidote.html
  9. 'dalek, good luck. That forum you linked to earlier has a subsection with very knowledgeable people for avoiding repossession; the forms and process.' Thanks Venger, will check it out.
  10. I think that's a great idea. At least it prepares people for what might be round the corner.
  11. WSG wrote on a different threat about licensing for private landlords in Wales (my underlining): http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-18142604 Private landlords will effectively need a licence to let homes under reforms drawn up by the Welsh government. They will have to sign a mandatory register before they can take on tenants. The proposal is part of an attempt to tackle homelessness, improve conditions in private rented homes and provide more housing. Housing Minister Huw Lewis said making sure people had an affordable home in good condition was essential. He set out the changes the Welsh government wants to make in a white paper which says all landlords will be expected to sign a mandatory register and pass a "fit and proper person" test. "Housing is fundamental to delivering many of our goals as a progressive government” Maybe I should move to Wales after all!
  12. Ha-ha See You - thanks for the publicity! But you know I already know all this, and empathise regarding means-testing for tenants.
  13. The problem is Loui (and you do have a point) once legal proceedings start the lender often puts a stranglehold on you and forbids you from selling, and then sells it off cheaper - to get a quick sale and to just ensure they get their money back. They don't care about your 'equity'. But as I have said, I'll survive - but others without equity will not. And then they'll be forced to rent. Even if I'm able to sell, why should I face the upheaval of having to leave my home, London - where my best chance of work is - my friends, my life. Renters in general (those without assets over £16,000 and those many whose rents are completely covered by housing benefit) will not be forced to do this. That is my gripe. It's hard enough adjusting to living on £71 - cancelling contents insurance, broadband, phone, renegotiating with gas and electric and water companies etc - at the same time as desperately applying for jobs most companies don't even bother to answer, without all this anguish. Maybe if something isn't 'morally right', as you suggest, then maybe it should be remedied. This whole banking and housing bubble crisis was morally wrong - and New Labour and the Condems only facilitated it, and continue to do so. Maybe it's time we insisted on a change in morality (and I don't think helping keep mortgagors in their home while they look for work is a moral hazard either, no more than for renters - as I said earlier, most people don't take on a mortgage because they think, 'oh, I'll get the interest covered if I lose my job, let's go for it'! Or do renters say: 'oh, I'll be fine renting this because if I lose my job I'll be sitting pretty' )
  14. Loui and Quicken, for the last time, equity is not savings! And, again, once the crash comes that equity, for me and many many others, will quickly disappear. Read my previous posts on this subject. Equity was a construct used by the banks to entice people to MEW. Once the bubble burst, people realised that that 'equity' was nothing but debt that they had to keep furnishing (is that the word?) - especially when so many descended into negative equity. As to your No. 2 point Quicken, I don't understand! The comparison I give shows also the discrepancy i.e. that renters without savings do have all their rent covered while we don't have all our interest covered. There would be no point my making a comparison with a renter who's rent is not covered fully by housing benefit (my head is beginning to hurt now...). By the way, Quicken, thanks for taking the time to read the whole thread! (you poor thing!)
  15. Dorkins said: 'Not if your rent is more than the maximum housing benefit you are entitled to.' Well that's stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it. But if you read closely, my interest in full a month is about £400, if I were to share a two-bed flat in London they start at £500 each. So that's £100 more a month the taxpayer is shelling out for me until I find a job. It's the case for many people, families too. If a family is in a three or four-bed house their interest might be £1,000-£,1,400 a month, but rents would start at £1,500 easily to £2,500 a month and would be met by housing benefit. This cut in SMI does not make fiscal sense. It is, in most cases, cheaper to keep people in their homes until they get a job - which means also that they can focus all their energy on looking for work, while also trying to adjust to living on £71 - £100 and something a week for a couple out of work, but without losing any more sleep over also getting into arrears with their mortgage while facing imminent repossession - something a renter in the same position does not have to deal with. Thanks for graphs, mad penguin. Time to start learning Luxembourgish, I think! See you next Tuesday, please read my last few posts. I have already addressed all the issues you've listed. (oh God...) And, for your information, I hate the Daily Mail. By the way, who the hell made you an HPC 'guru'?!?
  16. Thanks Manchester. But although it sounds like I'm after pity, I'm not, I just want fairness. When you say: 'here was a scheme that encouraged people to plunge all their money into a house without planning sufficiently for periods of low/no income' I really don't believe many people if any took on a mortgage because of that. No one really thinks they're going to lose their job, not when things are good anyway. You say: 'I can't see any reason why the state should keep someone in the standard of house to which they're accustomed or prevent someone needing to sell the house if that debt is too great for them to service.' yet renters are able to stay in their homes without the upheaval of losing their homes because of losing their jobs, aren't they. I think this discrepancy has to be considered. And if renters did not have all their rent paid, within reason since the new rules, there would be people and families on the streets. Is that what you want?
  17. I know, ozbear. And that's unfair too. I've just said renters shouldn't be means tested in first six months either! Christ on a bike.
  18. Chairman of the Board said: 'It's either the most tightly reasoned, patient and passionate wind-up or it's not a wind up. Either way you've earned the right to a reasoned response.' Thanks for that Chairman, and I also appreciate the fact that you have read this thread so carefully. I am hurting, as you said, but there are many others hurting much more than me because of this. Russe11 said: '...what they want to see is market correction, for that to happen sellers need to start taking a loss or mortage holders need to default, resulting in forced sale.' Frankly, that attitude is disgusting. I think you need to distinguish between the truly feckless homeowners who took on far too much debt - five times salary etc, MEWers - who will lose their homes due to that fecklessness, and those like myself who were more than able to meet their mortgage payment requirements - until they lost their job through no fault of their own. To rub your hands with glee at the thought of people like myself allowing you and others to profit from their misfortune is reprehensible, and makes your mentality no better than that of a typical BTLer. And when you say: 'Lets have a state safety net where the loan is serviced, but the state also gets a charge on said property ' Ok, then, and to be fair about it, lets also claim back housing benefits to renters by having a state charge on their pensions or their property when/if they finally buy. And that would be equally stupid. It's one rule for you and one for us, isn't it. As to Manchester - good for you. I mean it. But I didn't have a £30,000 fund to back me. Most people getting a mortgage don't. I had savings to get me through the first three months, and that's more than most people manage. And Manchester added: 'Don't expect the state to prop you up if you've spent too much money/not kept enough back. It's that attitude that's caused a good chunk of the financial problems we have today.' Ok then. So equally, renters should also not be propped up by the state if they haven't kept back enough money to cover their rent for a year. It's that attitude that's caused a good chunk of the financial problems we have today... Porca - I keep saying that I am comparing like with like in a way. Renters with no savings get their housing benefit covered when they lose their jobs, unemployed mortgage holders only get about half their interest covered. I also keep saying that the means test for renters is not fair. They, like mortgage holders, should not be means tested for the first six months of unemployment either. Venger, thanks for your commiserations. Much appreciated. But you say: 'It does seem like time with your mortgage problem has been running down for quite a while, if the lender is stepping up their letters about possession proceedings.' If you read my posts you'd know that I signed onto JSA at the end of January. C&G say they will start legal proceedings end of July. End of. As to blame, many renters here are blaming homeowners for their situation instead of the people they should be blaming. And it is a fact that the rich are getting richer. Prove otherwise, if you can. You know from my old posts way back that I am in favour of a crash and don't care about my equity. It is meaningless as this is my home. I think too many of you are getting hung up on this equity thing and wasting time in envy and bitterness about it. The only thing equity was good for was to persuade many homeowners to MEW. Then the party stopped, and they realised that all that this equity was simply debt. And when the crash comes - watch Greece after the elections and then Spain/the euro - most of the equity will disappear into thin air. Especially mine - it's only a one-bed flat for God's sake! But it's in London. Watch this space. As to an Arab Spring-type protest (meaning a peaceful one, by the way, not the Libya model), I guarantee you I shall be joining you renters on the streets! (and I am not saying that to pander to you, as I don't care what you think about me - but again, just read my old posts to see that I mean what I say). SI1 said: 'no, the same safety net exists for you - sell your house and rent if you cannot afford the repayments' Fine, and then the taxpayer has to pay more. My interest in full would cost £400, a room in a two-bed flat share in London would cost £500 upwards. (London is where any chance of a job is for me atm). So you are coming not from a place of concern over taxpayers' money (and until recently I paid 32 years in tax and NI), but from a place of pure malicious spite towards homeowners. Ugh. And why am I repeating myself over and over again... And why, btw, do you not have any idea whatsoever as to the role played by the bankers in this unholy mess so many countries are in?
  19. Thanks for link, Particle Man. Will read it tomorrow. Off to bed now. It's been an interesting day. Strangely, despite dealing with the topic in writing, it's somehow raised my emotional state of mind from just dwelling on my near future. What bugs me most is how the need for 'austerity' - and yes we must pay the piper - is hitting only the poorest and most vulnerable. The rich just keep getting richer, as do most bankers and MPs. And they keep control by dividing the populace slaves. I'm sorry, I'm just an idealist. However, we should never forget the Arab Spring... Thanks to all of you who commiserated with my situation and offered advice, even those who didn't always agree with what I'm trying to say. Night all.
  20. Russe11 wrote: 'This thread has to be a wind up. The OP wants to stay in the mortaged property, wanting the state to service the debt...Why don't they just rent and not have any of this worry?' Obviously not a wind up, and you know it. And yes, I want to stay in my home, just as renters who lose their jobs can stay in theirs. As to renting, yes, I wouldn't have the worry of arrears and repossession. But I've been in this property for 14 years. It was a shell, rotting windows, not even a kitchen. I spent those years making it a home - and no, I didn't MEW to do so! All from my hard-earned. I'm in London, so I'd have to leave not only my home, but friends, my life. Renters who lose their jobs are not facing this. And as I keep saying, if I have to rent it will cost the taxpayer (and I was one until recently!) more than covering all my interest payments. No one benefits, except those rabid HPCers (most of whom haven't actually come on this thread yet actually, thank God) who were rejoicing in the SMI cut when it happened in 2010 because they thought it would mean cheaper homes for them to buy due to all the repossessions. Ugh, no better than BTLers. I knew at that point that HPC had really hit rock bottom, compared to when I used to post. And Particle Man, you keep banging on about "HB doesn't cover average full rents, as the thread has already pointed out (it pays at the 30th %ile)." My mortgage interest is about £400. If I was forced to rent, the minimum for a flat share (not sole use of a flat as used to happen) is £500 here and going up and all of it would be met by housing benefit. As I said, the taxpayer does not benefit from making me lose my home. The same goes for families - many have interest payments lower than the rent they'd have to pay - and again will get covered by benefits. And don't forget, the public sector (I worked in the private sector, by the way) includes nurses and doctors who gave my Dad an extra 10 years of good health after he was given a week to live, teachers who educated me so I could get a good job, fireman, police etc. Not just hideous pen-pushing council workers and civil servants! And anyway, why are renters here turning on all homeowners. Read my past posts for God's sake - like many homeowners, I was never one who desperately wanted house prices to rise. I could always see how wrong it was that FTBs were priced out. I was an FTB once! I was just lucky - and yes, older, 39 when I bought. This is exactly what the government and banks who caused all this want, the little people turning on each other while they are left to keep their noses in the trough. Surely we should be venting our anger towards them - and doing something about it...
  21. Squeeky (still haven't read your suggestions yet as still trying to deal with more general issue as comments flood in!), of course I wouldn't allow SMI for life of loan. That would be ridiculous. But there has to be a safety net for mortgage holders as well as renters. We paid our taxes and NI too. I lost my job and signed on in January. Already C&G are talking about legal proceedings end of July to repossess. How can that be a good deal? Full SMI would have saved me this worry and carried me through, while somehow surviving on £71 a week, to my next job. SMI ends after two years (that sounds fair to me, although renters get their rent paid forever!). But it has to cover all the interest. And Bloo Loo, you said: "with GB quoting he had helped 350,000 hard working families with SMI, your more likely to be knocked over by a red london bus than losing your home" - please read above!
  22. Here's the link: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_180321 Note, especially: 'How SMI is calculated The standard interest rate used to calculate SMI is currently 3.63 per cent. From 1 October 2010 the standard interest rate is set at a level equal to the Bank of England’s published monthly average mortgage interest rate. The starting rate that applies from 1 October 2010 is 3.63 per cent (the rate published by the Bank of England on 31 August 2010).' As I said, it was 6% in 2010 - too much, as many mortgage holders with lower interest ended up having some of the repayment part as well. But now the government has gone to the other extreme, resulting in much hardship, instead of meeting individuals' needs.
  23. Bloo Loo said: 'the same person owing a mortgage will get the SMI, regardless of house size.' No Bloo Loo, they will get about half the SMI. But you're right when you suggest that the bankers should pay for all this... Sounds like you're in a tough place too. I'm sorry.
  24. Redceller said: 'Incidentally, I had a quotewith my last mortage apporval that said it would only cost £50 per month.' Then you are a sucker - a quote from your lender! Ha ha! Yes, £50 a month. Those insurance policies were the worst going and most didn't pay up if you lost your job. No wonder they were cheap! Look at how lenders had to compensate borrowers for mis-selling them such insurance. Winkle, insurance does only last a year - though it would have helped me in my present situation! - and yes, SMI lasts two years, but by then, those with interest rates over 3.65% will have been long repossessed or forced to sell.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.