dalek

Again Mark, I have paid taxes all my life and National Insurance. And when I did, that helped pay rent and JSA for renters who lost their jobs and, up to 2010, mortgage holders who lost their jobs. And that was fair. Why, when I lose my job, should I also lose my home when renters don't? God, why do I bother. This forum has become so bitter and twisted against homeowners we're all now your enemy. Back in the day, when I was posting regularly, there was at least a modicum of compassion for each other. Now you've all succumbed to the government's divide and rule tactic. Accusing other victims of the government and banksters instead of attacking the real perpetrators of the housing bubble which has led to this crisis. Pathetic. So many of you are just sheep.

Opt out wrote: 'Sorry Dalek, but I don't believe holders of property assets should get special treatment at all, so you won't get any sympathy from me for having to wait 6months for it. House prices have to come down. This thread actually gives me some hope, as it's the first sign I've noticed that the govt isn't 100% behind propping up prices indefinitely. Other high net worth people don't get housing costs paid by the taxpayer.' This is the most ignorant post of the thread so far. You obviously haven't read most of it, opt out. It's nothing to do with waiting six months for help. If you bothered to read my original post, it's about the cutting of support for mortgage interest to a cap of 3.65%, which is great if your interest is under that - you get all of it paid - but catastrophic if, like many mortgagors, your interest rate is higher. I'm in no way saying mortgage holders should get 'special' treatment. Renters who lose their jobs get all their rent paid - mortgage holders with jobs only get around half their interest paid and immediately go into arrears and in four to five months face legal proceedings towards repossession and then lose their homes. This then drives many of them into the rented sector - where the taxpayer will end up paying more money in housing benefit than if they had paid the full amount of interest, as they used to before 2010. (My full interest is £400-odd. Renting a room in a flat share would cost the taxpayer £500 upwards for my rent). So as I keep saying, those who keep baying for us to be repossessed are doing so not to save taxpayers money but out of pure spite. Try putting your bitterness towards homeowners aside just for a second, opt out, and try to remember that for 32 years I too paid tens of thousands in tax. Why should people like me have their world turned upside down when they lose their jobs, and not renters? It's hard enough for both renters and mortgagors to survive on £71 a week as it is. As to 'other high net worth people' - homeowners are hardly high net worth! And I am not advocating that any of the repayment part of our mortgages are paid by the taxpayer. Simply that we are not turfed out of our homes. And finally (why am I even bothering to answer this post?!), paying all the interest of unemployed mortgage holders while they look for other work is not helping to prop up house prices! How the hell did you work that out? And Redcellar - for the millionth time, the £50,000 'savings' as you put it, in people's equity is meaningless if you bought your property as a home, not as an investment. I have no intention of selling and using that 'equity', which, as I keep saying, will soon disappear when house prices crash, which they will. And I know renters with savings over £16,000 also have a bum deal. The means testing stinks. But I am comparing renters who have no savings who won't be turfed out of their homes with mortgage holders like myself with no savings who will be. It is discriminatory. It is equally discriminatory with regard to mortgage holders with interest rates under 3.65%, who will get all their interest covered. The system should be fair to all.

Billfunk, equity is just paper money to me. Again, it was not an investment and I had no intention of selling and profiting from that equity. And as I also said, that equity will soon disappear once the market crashes, as it will. The situation I am in currently is that renters do not face losing their homes. I do, equity or no. End of story. Your comment about my moving to rent if I thought renters had it so good is bonkers. Again, as I have said (yawn) I rented up to the age of 39. And to be honest, in many of those houses I felt they were my home at the time. I just don't want to lose this one. And again, as I said, it will cost the government more than it would cost them to cover all my interest payments if I were forced to rent. So your argument (and that of others here) has nothing to with making savings to the taxpayer, but everything to do with spite. And Chairman, you say: 'Averages can move. Rents will probably fall and mortgages rates are only going one way from here and they may have a long way to climb. Without the cap the government takes on a massive exposure to the mortgage rates of unemployed people during what is likely to be a protracted period of high (possibly rising) unemployment.' Now you're talking hypothetically. Rents are actually heading sky wise as we speak. Mortgage rates will no doubt go up so more people will be forced into the private sector, and again, will be paid more in housing benefits. The end result will the a massive exposure to the rental sector. Squeeky, you're really bending over backwards to help me out here! I do appreciate it! Your comments deserve time to be read carefully, but for now I need a break from all this!!! And I'm off to take my little dog for a walk (yes, another reason why renting would prove difficult - and please put your violins down!) and then have my dinner. I shall peruse it at leisure later.

Oh, and Venger, you say: 'Have you any idea how much a renter who wants to buy has to scrimp together to get a deposit together at current asking prices.' Well, boo-hoo, as you might say to me! But seriously, it makes me very angry. But it will change, don't worry. Meanwhile, I reiterate, I did not ask for all the equity that has accrued in my flat and I don't care for it - it was never an investment. And anyway, that equity will soon disappear once things really go tits-up. And Chairman, you said: 'As to putting billions into the banks. We made that choice already' I and millions of others did not make that choice. I really don't believe things would have been worse if we'd let Northern Rock and one or two others fail. It would have been cheaper for the government to have ploughed our money into covering the savers. There were many other banks who would have kept the economy going.

Are you trying to tell us something, Billfunk?

Loui, you forget. You too have a home - you just rent it. It's still the roof over your head, which you will not lose if you become unemployed. But your: 'Lucky them' says it all. Complete bitterness about your situation and consequent hatred towards those, like myself, who were just able to buy before things went doolally. And consequent clouding of your reasoning faculties. And Venger, you say I have no idea of the difficulties facing tenants. Of course I do!!! I rented until I was 39 ffs! I only bought 14 years ago. And I bought because I desperately wanted to get out of being reliant on the whims of landlords - although I have to say many of my landlords were very good, which is just as often the case, as you well know. And I can't buy near where I live now - I'm in London! Wales (which at least I know having been brought up there), or the north is all I could afford - better situation to be in than many I know, but I still wouldn't have a job and yes, it will mean leaving every aspect of my life now, friends and all. Your snide remarks about my 'possibly' not expecting a crash - despite all I've said - are beneath you. Go and read all my posts before continuing along these lines. I'd just rather my life wasn't completely turned on its head. Renters don't face that when they lose their jobs. Living on £71 a week is hard enough to be adjusting to for mortgage holders and renters. The safety net should be there so we don't have to lose our homes however they're paid for. But glad you admitted: ' I do hate home owners more and more.' Will you then be able to live with yourself after the crash happens when you too have bought your own home? I think you will, somehow. The word hypocrisy springs to mind. And yes, Chairman of the Bored, the Treasury or rather government, led by Lord Freud, did reckon the SMI cap would reduce the total spend. But you are wrong to think "someone sat down with the data and a spreadsheet and worked out that once you'd netted off the benefits paid to people who were less expensive after the cap (SMI to keep them in the homes would cost more than the HB paid out to cover their rent) against the people who were more expensive after the cap (SMI to keep them in their home less than the HB paid out to cover rent)" the government made a saving. This has been completely ill-thought-out. Full SMI payments are still on average far less than average full rents. This is the point the CAB and Shelter, and many others are making. This scheme will cost the taxpayer much more.

Loui said: 'As a renter if you lose your job you only get your rent paid (housing benefit) if you have less than £16000 in savings You also only get contribution based JSA for 6 months if you have more than £16000....If a home owner with equity of £70000 loses their job why should they have their asset protected when the same does not apply to the saver?' Because it is their home! The roof over their heads. But I agree with you that the whole means-tested thing stinks. It equally isn't fair. However, in my case, I had no savings above three months' worth and so I am comparing my situation of facing immediate arrears and within months repossession to renters with no savings over that, who get all their rent paid. But I do imagine, though don't know, that most renters don't have savings over £16,000. There are injustices and anomalies throughout this system. But as I keep saying, two or three, or four wrongs do not make a right.

Thanks for your commiserations and well wishes, chairman of the bored, but when you say: 'This financial support to home owners is being cut because as a nation we cannot afford it' then equally you should say the same to renters - we can't afford to pay their rent either when they lose their jobs. Which would be nonsense. Why is it so hard to see this? And you are forgetting the other very important point I seem to keep having to make: once people are repossessed because of the arrears due to the 3.65% SMI cap, they will be forced to rent and in almost all cases, this will mean they get more or even double in housing benefit what they would have got if all their interest had been paid!!!!!!! (oh God...). So where's the cuts there? And why is it that the cuts - which are having to be made because the government (both the previous one and the current) decided taxpayers' billions should go straight to the banks, who then continue to pay millions in bonuses with it to their 'top' people who caused the crisis in the first place - are only hitting the poorest and most vulnerable in society? Tell me that. Don't forget, Osborne has now lowered the tax for the super rich. And lets face it, I and soon-to-be-millions of others are losing their jobs because of the cuts caused by the above in the first place! And remember, none of you here are immune. I too thought I was...

Anyway, here's a post from consumer action group showing you how people worse off than me are faring with these cuts. Maybe this will melt those hearts on here hardened by their bitterness at not being able to buy a home themselves (though probably not!): Re: SMI Mortgage Interest 50% Cut ! Hi, I am disabled father of two and husband who cares for my ill wife,I recieve DLA mobility and the lower care componant and ESA. I used to work two jobs and run a successfull business. I bought a house which is modest and was well within our means and unfortunately, due to bad luck have came out of work due to a back injury and my wife has also suffered a serious illness. I have been claiming SMI interest for just over a year. My mortgage rate is fixed at 6.29% untill july 2013. My interest payments are £950 per month which is similar to equivilant rents in the area. I was recieving £750 per month towards this and struggled to top up the other 200 per month. My new SMI payments are £104 per week(£450 per month)!!! ( i now will have to find £500 per month xtra)If I were renting paying the same amount £950 per month I would be getting an extra £800 per month in benefits!!!!! This is crazy...I thought this country wants to save money!!!! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?277298-SMI-Mortgage-Interest-50-Cut-!

Hi Squeeky. Thanks for the suggestions. I am clinging on to option 1 for now, while sending out tens of CVs - which will soon hit the 100 mark! But putting equity into a pension not an option while still unemployed. It would be classed by JSA as 'deprivation of capital' and so you would no longer be eligible to then claim housing benefit. Government has us by the balls as well as the banks. I am looking at moving back to Wales and buying a two up/two down with the equity, and hopefully get a job there - again, that could be problematic if I didn't get a job, as any future chance of benefits would be hit by 'deprivation of capital' clause again. But it would still mean losing a home I love having lived here 14 years (surely even renters can identify with that!), leaving all my friends, and the end of any hopes of returning to the same job. Leaving behind my life in effect. Sad, really, but it may come to that (don't get the violins out!). And yes, Libspero, I am calling for all of you to make your interest payments for me! JUST AS YOU PAY FOR ALL RENT TO BE PAID TO RENTERS WHO LOSE THEIR JOBS! (sorry to shout, but it needs saying over and over again) And don't forget, I too was until January, one of you! And paying tax towards the Welfare State for 32 years! Although now all our tax goes straight to the banks... Yes, shortfall just over £200. As to family, parents dead sadly and other members with their own lives to lead and no room for me and belongings. And I did have a 'rainy day' fund - so many implications about the 'fecklessness' of homeowners (sigh) - which got me through the first three months of unemployment and covered all the interest.

Thanks Libspero. Your post much appreciated amid this ocean of hatred towards homeowners. Unfortunately, as I am on a fixed rate (I thought I was being prudent at the time!) I will have to pay a penalty for leaving this deal of about £7,000, so it's impossible. On top of that, despite the 'equity', because I have no job at present Cheltenham & Gloucester will not allow me to move to a different product on a lower rate. And no other lender wants to know for the same reason. Believe me, I have tried everything. The lenders have you by the balls in this situation, despite being 'told' by George Osborne when he announced the new cap, to give borrowers some leeway until they find another job.

See you next Tuesday (sigh) said: 'You still don't get it, there is no more a safety for tenants than for owners.' Again, renters in general (not those exceptions who lived with seven children in £2,000 a week Mayfair homes any more) get all their rent paid when they lose their jobs. Many many mortgage holders who lose their jobs, because of the 3.65% interest cap brought in in 2010 now have on average £200 arrears every month and face repossession. That, to me, reveals renters have a proper safety net. Why can't you get that?

Particle man, are you a renter? Do you want to buy your own place? By the way, Steed, I'm not really taking all this personally (although as particle man said, I am getting so frustrated by the irrationality on this threat that I am resorting to calling people barmy!) as I'm sure I'll survive and am being positive. But I do worry about all those other people in a situation similar to me who are in a worse position because of this cap on paying mortgage interest benefit - couples with children and the disabled. And yes, they are being hit by it. You only have to google this topic to find all the horrible cases of hardship because of it - much worse than what I'm going through. Meanwhile, the MPs who decided this, and the multi-billionaire Lord Freud who instigated it, are still horribly tainted by the expenses scandal with their insatiable desire for belfast sinks, furniture from Oka and duck islands - they would have continued if they hadn't been rumbled. Plus their safe as houses pensions. Plus their second homes paid for by us (!). Luckily, both the Citizens Advice Bureau and Shelter have put in reports to a government consultation on this, with horrendous case studies included, asking for the government to reconsider the cap. These are now being considered. Thank God HPCers weren't consulted or all unemployed would be on the streets, renters and homeowners!

'There is only one way to decide this - tie you up and throw you in the lake. If you float, it means you are a servant of the demon "BTL". If you sink and drown, you are at one with the righteous "HPC". Ha ha, Ah-So!! I'll be up for that! And many thanks Steed and gf4! (two rays of light in a very dark place!)

Happy renting said: 'A lot of homeowners resent HB being paid to unemployed people' So that makes it ok to attack me, does it? I was never one of those homeowners when I had a job, and never will be. Everything's black and white to you lot, isn't it. Which is one reason I decided to butt out from HPC for a while. So many of you fail to see the bigger picture. Take your minds off a crash just for one moment. Look at the world. The banks now own the governments of the world and you are doing nothing about it except attacking fellow 'victims'. Get real. The worst is yet to come, and hardly any of you have any idea what's going to hit you. Renters too.

And see you next tuesday, it's not a free lunch I want - I have paid thousands in taxes and I'm now 53. I am as much entitled to a safety net as you renters. So I assume you also see renters who have their full rent paid when they lose their jobs as having a free lunch too? No, I didn't think so. Mind you, I hope you're right about that judge!

Billfunk, why do you ask if I am trying to convince you or myself. Go away and at least have the courtesy to read some of my posts over the past few years - only 100 or so - and see what I really believe. Then come back and ask me that. I don't remember you. And Venger, I do very much take your point about those renters who lose their jobs but have built up savings in the hope of eventually getting enough for a deposit or more not getting housing benefit at all and being forced to live off their hard-earned savings. That too is unfair, I agree. But again, two wrongs, or three wrongs, whatever, do not make a right.

Venger wrote: 'I made an assumption, and you've come back with new information, which hardly supports your position as still wanting a crash.' Well, bugger me, I don't know what will then convince you then. You just aren't thinking straight. Especially when you say: 'The rules were in place about rents being paid vs mortgage support for a long time. It's not something new, other than taxpayer supports having improved for those with mortgages needing help over the last few years.' More astounding ignorance. Up to 2010, all of the interest was paid, it was not capped at 3.65%. So now many mortgage holders go immediately into arrears and face repossession. Previous to that, yes, there was a longer initial waiting time than the current 13 weeks before it was paid, but at least lenders knew they would receive all the interest payments after that time (think it was 39 weeks, can't remember) and so were not so quick to start legal proceedings. Yes, mortgage holders initially got into arrears, but they didn't face losing their homes. Interestingly, before 2010, the mortgage interest cap was 6%. That too resulted in injustice - which enabled many mortgagors on a lower interest rate (and that would have included me) to not only pay all their interest payments but also pay off some of the repayment part of their mortgage. Obviously taxpayers should not have had to meet any of the repayment part. But now the government has gone to the other extreme. It would be more just to cover the individual interest payments of mortgage holders - and it wouldn't result in more bureaucracy, as each mortgage holder is assessed individually anyway up to the new 3.65% cap. And it is not my fault that the price of my flat has gone up, leaving me with more than 50% equity. It is meaningless to me. It's paper money. I have no intention of selling, it was never an investment, it was always my home, and still is. The price will plummet as will properties all over the country, and I really couldn't give a monkeys. But in a nutshell the system is unjust - it discriminates between renters who lose their jobs and mortgage holders who lose their jobs, and equally discriminates between mortgagors who have lower interest rates and higher interest rates. And with some mortgagors on even lower interest rates, below 3.65%, it actually pays off some of their repayment mortgage as well.

Particle man has lost his marbles. He says, in reply to my saying 'I hope to get a job, any job, soon': 'And I hope to win the Lotto' How barmy is that? At least it is realistic for me to say I hope - and I will! - get a job, even in this climate, despite the fact the lower paid ones keep saying I am over-qualified, or I'll leave as soon as something similar to my old job comes up. Being over-qualified does not mean I can't do lower-paid jobs, although they're probably right that I would take a better job if one came up. But the barminess I'm experiencing on this threat is indicative of the intense, irrational bitterness experienced by many renters. But lets face it chaps, most of you renters yearn to buy your own home, and why shouldn't you. But once prices fall (and they will - possibly when Greece and Spain have gone under and the euro falls apart) and you can get on the 'ladder', you'll be on here bleating just like I am if you buy and then lose your jobs and find yourselves in the same predicament as I'm in. Some of you are such hypocrites, and your justifiable anger has turned your rational brains to mush.

Particleman, yes, I actually have more than 50% equity. But it's all paper money. My home was not an investment, I have no intention of selling, ever, and just hope I can get a job, any job, soon. The equity does not make my situation easier - I, unlike you renters who lose your jobs, face losing my home simply because I lost my job. Not my flat, my home. Just like your rental flats or houses have in many cases become your homes. What I see happening here since the start of my thread, is exactly what the VIs, government, bankers et al want. Divide and rule. Let the little people bicker among themselves while we keep our noses in the trough. Let renters turn on homeowners and vice-versa. Great. Hence, I think, this plan of theirs to discriminate between us. Think about it. The word sheeple comes to mind in a different context now...

Oh, Venger! I've just read your next post on how you worked out I was an 'owner' at the time of my posts. So I supported a house price crash because I wanted to trade up, I've become a VI? How cynical Venger. Read all my past posts, and see who I really am and what I really thought, and still think. And why would I want to trade up? I have a one-bedroom flat. It's large, it has a garden, it's been my home for the past 14 years. I'm happy here. I feel comfortable here. I live on my own, and it's more than enough for my needs. Anything bigger just means more hoovering!

Ha ha, Venger, you've rumbled me! Not. You write: 'I guess he couldn't abide by renting any more, or thought prices reflected value, when he chose to buy.' Yes, I was a hard HPCer and still am. I haven't posted for a while - just like those other HPC heroes Right said Fred, Rich, Durch etc (not that I'm comparing myself to them!!! I'm not in their league! EDIT), although they too return every once in a while. But where you're wrong is, I was not a renter at the time!! I'd already bought my flat (14 years ago). But that didn't stop me from being horrified by the iniquitous and unjust system that was pricing young people - and older ones! - out of the housing market, and I spent a lot of my time championing their cause. Unlike many Daily Mail reading homeowners, I did not want my property or anyone else's to go into the stratosphere like they did. It was a bubble and now it has burst. And I can't wait to see house prices plummet. But all that does not mean I now want to see mortgage holders discriminated against when most renters who lose their jobs are not. Two wrongs do not make a right.

See you next tuesday: 'Show the FACTS that back up your claim that lenders are not going easy on borrowers?' I don't need to. Cheltenham & Gloucester have told me they begin legal proceedings against me end of July. I started claiming JSA end of January. This is despite the fact that I never missed paying my monthly repayment mortgage in all of the 14 years I've had the mortgage. Christ, I had no idea you renters were so bitter and so full of hatred towards 'homeowners'.

Redceller, you are seriously weird. How on earth can I be a troll? And Bloo Loo is one of many who are trotting out incorrect facts. Yes, £16,000 is cap on savings for both renters and SMI recipients after first six months, but anything over £6,000 and you find your weekly JSA starts reducing proportionately.

And Venger, as to 'No one should have a mortgage if they expect the taxpayer to step in and keep them comfy in homes' Then equally, no one should rent if they expect the taxpayer to step in and keep them comfy in homes. Eh? And by the way, I bought 14 years ago.