kilroy Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 pdf containing some info about recipients of SMI (rates they are paying, % oif mortgage covered etc). Had a quick flick but maybe someone with more time on their hands can have a squizz to see if htere is anything that can be implied about the market etc http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/support-for-mortgage-interest.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeryMeanReversion Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 225,000 people are getting this benefit 10,000 people are paying under 1% rate but getting 6.08% from the taxpayer Half of clamaints are over 60. Third of claimaints also claim disability Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 (edited) pdf containing some info about recipients of SMI (rates they are paying, % oif mortgage covered etc). Had a quick flick but maybe someone with more time on their hands can have a squizz to see if htere is anything that can be implied about the market etc http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/support-for-mortgage-interest.pdf What a great find. I didnt realise that they will give you this benefit, even if your mortgage is way larger than the limit, they just limit how much they will pay you. I dont quite understand this, if say you have a 500 grand house, the taxpayer pays interest on 200 grand, and who knows how the rest is settled. It just complicates things, and in such a case you would need to clear out of your home, cos you cant afford it. So many pensioners as well getting this benefit. I thought that the point of it was that you were out of work for a bit, so the government keeps you in the home, until you get back into work again. This benefit though goes way beyond that aim, it pays the mortgages of pensioners??? How on earth did that happen. Banks shouldnt give mortgages to people unless they can see that they have a steady income. So unless the bank can see that you have a pension or other income flow for when you have retired, it shouldnt give you an overly large mortgage to begin with. Are banks giving mortgages now to people who cant pay, knowing that the taxpayer will be obliged to make up the difference? All that stuff about equality, it just makes me puke. I will have a go at making the scheme equal and fair. Axe it now. If you cant pay with your own income, then Mr Taxpayer is now equal to you, as he wont pay either. And we will save millions on the administration of this scheme, created to stop those who can afford their from getting it, their own home by taxing them, and giving to those who cant afford their own home, so that they can. Where is the equality in that? Are politicians who implement this stuff sane? Edited September 2, 2010 by leicestersq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonkers Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A third claiming disability as well, this does not point to the short term unemployment that this scheme was intended to ease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 A third claiming disability as well, this does not point to the short term unemployment that this scheme was intended to ease. Tonkers, yes, good point. It looks like you can use this scheme, if you get a mortgage, to pay your mortgage. I guess if you found a crooked lender, or lied about your income, you could get a mortgage, then claim your income has fallen, and get the state to pay it. Yet another case of the taxpayer being ripped off, either by fraud, or by people gaming an ill thought out system. No excuses for continuing with this scheme a second longer, given that there is always HB to fall back on should you get evicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pent Up Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Can't wait untill this is halved in October. Then the two year limits starts expiring 5th Jan. Hopefully see some distressed sellers soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilroy Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 Tonkers, yes, good point. It looks like you can use this scheme, if you get a mortgage, to pay your mortgage. I guess if you found a crooked lender, or lied about your income, you could get a mortgage, then claim your income has fallen, and get the state to pay it. Yet another case of the taxpayer being ripped off, either by fraud, or by people gaming an ill thought out system. No excuses for continuing with this scheme a second longer, given that there is always HB to fall back on should you get evicted. Just read it fully and it is an outrage! Are they fking sh1tting me?!? 50% in receipt of SMI are over 60? 10% are under 40? It really is a case of the priced-out generation paying for older people who cannot afford to stay in their homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I don't get it, I thought this was a short term benefit for those (usually with kids) who have lost their job. But looks like it's mainly old people who have no prospects of making money again. How long does this benefit get paid for, I thought it was 2yrs max? Why do 65+yr olds even have such a large mortgage anyway !?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Just read it fully and it is an outrage! Are they fking sh1tting me?!? 50% in receipt of SMI are over 60? 10% are under 40? It really is a case of the priced-out generation paying for older people who cannot afford to stay in their homes. kilroy, I share your outrage. It is taking your money, and giving it to someone else, just because they have gamed the system. The organisation that distribute said funds, will be encouraging as many people as possible to do this, as the more business they do, the more they can argue that what they do is necessary. The organisation will be self serving to the max. I bet they even help people make claims - "Hey Dad, fancy a bigger house? Just cos you are retiring, doesnt mean you cant get a mortgage and trade up, you wont believe what they are doing where I work!" I bet someone working there has said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Why do 65+yr olds even have such a large mortgage anyway !?! MEW to BOMAD ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Why do 65+yr olds even have such a large mortgage anyway !?! (1) As has been said, MEW to BOMAD; (2) MEW to fund other activities, like, Ooh I don't know... BTL? (3) Just BTL? Is that covered by the scheme as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie plimsolls Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I know a guy, a plumber, who went sick about 15 years ago. He's had his mortgage paid since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Har Fast Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Is anyone in the media onto this? If not, why not? Surely the right-of-centre papers should be all over this as a classic bit of Brown? Anyone got any contacts they can alert to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zngland Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 What a great find. I didnt realise that they will give you this benefit, even if your mortgage is way larger than the limit, they just limit how much they will pay you. I dont quite understand this, if say you have a 500 grand house, the taxpayer pays interest on 200 grand, and who knows how the rest is settled. It just complicates things, and in such a case you would need to clear out of your home, cos you cant afford it. So many pensioners as well getting this benefit. I thought that the point of it was that you were out of work for a bit, so the government keeps you in the home, until you get back into work again. This benefit though goes way beyond that aim, it pays the mortgages of pensioners??? How on earth did that happen. Banks shouldnt give mortgages to people unless they can see that they have a steady income. So unless the bank can see that you have a pension or other income flow for when you have retired, it shouldnt give you an overly large mortgage to begin with. Are banks giving mortgages now to people who cant pay, knowing that the taxpayer will be obliged to make up the difference? All that stuff about equality, it just makes me puke. I will have a go at making the scheme equal and fair. Axe it now. If you cant pay with your own income, then Mr Taxpayer is now equal to you, as he wont pay either. And we will save millions on the administration of this scheme, created to stop those who can afford their from getting it, their own home by taxing them, and giving to those who cant afford their own home, so that they can. Where is the equality in that? Are politicians who implement this stuff sane? Why ? Pollitics Labour Brown fighting for electoral life , simples. Repos + unemployment = out on **** in political wilderness. Bankrupting the nation and risk revolution for political gain only Gordon would do that If this credit crunch happened at the beginning of a new parliament, "sense" would have prevailed, the incumbents knowing by the time of the election the economic imbalances may clear. The risk reward ratio would be in their favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I know a guy, a plumber, who went sick about 15 years ago. He's had his mortgage paid since then. By who? His mum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 It really is a case of the priced-out generation paying for older people who cannot afford to stay in their homes. Yes, it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie plimsolls Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 By who? His mum? The Great British Taxpayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Mortgages to older people. Of course, it was all par.... A customer of mine lived in a flat...she had a long IO mortgage...extending well into her 80s.....the mortgage co had no problem with this 5 years ago. OK? no, they persuaded her to take on a BTL, 100% and part of THAT income was part of the equation for her paying BOTH Mortgages. And no, Im not making this up. She was a part time worker in a place for the "special". No doubt the SMI has been a lifeline for her, her BTL and her BANK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Mortgages to older people. Of course, it was all par.... A customer of mine lived in a flat...she had a long IO mortgage...extending well into her 80s.....the mortgage co had no problem with this 5 years ago. OK? no, they persuaded her to take on a BTL, 100% and part of THAT income was part of the equation for her paying BOTH Mortgages. And no, Im not making this up. She was a part time worker in a place for the "special". No doubt the SMI has been a lifeline for her, her BTL and her BANK. Keep these anecdotes coming. Nice one Bloo Loo. These crimes are not victimless. Property prices are driven higher by such subsidies, and that is paid for by the taxpayer. The honest ones are made poorer, and can afford less housing, so that said lady can have a BTL and a place instead. A bit like a queue where certain people can push in. Makes me laugh when the survey was all about equality and fairness. The whole SMI system creates inequality and fairness. No figures on the report though about the numbers priced out of housing because of the system, nor any figures on the gender of race of those dispossessed by this system. But I will give them a mention. They deserve the housing, not SMI recipients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 The Great British Taxpayer Do tell how they managed this - sounds like they are telling porkies to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 (edited) Some number crunching from the report: The average 65+ claimaint receives on average £27 p/w (£117 p/m) compared to £100 p/w (£433 p/m) for 25-29 yr olds. The average payment to all claimaints is £47 p/w (£203 p/m), a total of £10.6 million pounds a week or half a billion a year. 92% of all claimaints have an interest rate below 6.08% and are therefore having their capital repaid as well as interest. Even with the planned benefit cut to 3.67% 115,000 households (50%) will continue to have their capital repaid in addition to 100% of the interest Edited September 2, 2010 by exiges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 And no, Im not making this up. She was a part time worker in a place for the "special". Nice wording! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I don't think I've ever seen a more disgusting and blatantly political policy. No, wait a minute - QE. Why on earth should there be a 'standard rate' and why should it cover over 90%+ of those claiming which means the rest make a great profit for f*ck all. Moral hazard all over it. Why don't they just pay the mortgage up to a limit for 6 months - with the same rule for rents. After 6 months they have to adjust to their long term reduced circumstances which includes selling their assets. As per Sweden. Stop asking. Start demanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Some number crunching from the report: The average 65+ claimaint receives on average £27 p/w (£117 p/m) compared to £100 p/w (£433 p/m) for 25-29 yr olds. The average payment to all claimaints is £47 p/w (£203 p/m), a total of £10.6 million pounds a week or half a billion a year. 92% of all claimaints have an interest rate below 6.08% and are therefore having their capital repaid as well as interest. Even with the planned benefit cut to 3.67% 115,000 households (50%) will continue to have their capital repaid in addition to 100% of the interest In the last recession...sorry I mean the 90s recession, bankers would charge EXTRA interest if you were a problem case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 In the last recession...sorry I mean the 90s recession, bankers would charge EXTRA interest if you were a problem case. must give a warm fuzzy feeling paying tax in the UK, bulldog spirit and all that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.