to think that that state should pay people's mortgage payments if their circumstances change and they lose their income?

[FlouncingMintyy]

Am I right in thinking that this doesn't happen at the moment and that housing benefit only covers rent?

[Talkinpeace]

you know all those dodgy PPI policies that the banks sold on the basis that they would never cough up ....

back in 1987, DH and I had one. He lost his job and while we fought through the courts, the policy paid the mortgage (cap + int) in full for seven months.
Oddly enough the rules changed the week after our claim ceased!!

[MuddlingMackem]

True Flouncy, even with HB towards mortgage it would still be a huge struggle and a major incentive to get a new job asap. Threfore, realistically, it would just remove the immediate risk of repossession, but it would allow the person to concentrate and put all of their efforts into getting a new job rather than stressing about the possibility of losing their home!

[nancy75]

I think housing benefit should be paid if the person rents or has a mortgage, for example in my area the cap is £800 for a 2 bed, so if you lose your job you should get up to the £800 if you are renting or an owner occupier. If the £800 doesn't cover the mortgage the owner would have to find the rest, as with rented accommodation.

[Mimishimi]

YABU, get mortgage insurance.

[sooperdooper]

Flouncingminty, I'm not sure I understand you, why would people with mortgages be more inclined to find a job paying more than benefits than anyone else? Surely everyone would be better off in that situation if it's available

[sooperdooper]

As I said before, why should someone paying a mortgage pay insurance when someone paying rent doesn't have to?

[NotDavidTennant]

"I don't think the government should pay off people's mortgages by any means, but I do think that people should get more help so they don't lose their homes, like people who rent do"

People who rent don't just automatically get to keep their homes though. God forbid we should end up in this situation, but I've checked and we wouldn't get much more than half our current rent in housing benefit.

So this idea that renters will just get everything paid for them and won't be forced out of their home is a bit inaccurate.

[CloudsAndTrees]

Renters don't get everything paid for them all the time, but in many cases HB covers full rent. There is no good reason why people in need who have a mortgage shouldn't be paid the same amount of LHA they would get if they were renting. It takes into account income, and the number of people needing housing.

As things are changing, people won't get money to pay for rooms they don't need, and I think it would be fair enough for that to apply to mortage owning applicants too.

I agree that people paying a mortgage shouldn't have to pay insurance when renters don't have to.

There is too much division in the way benefits are paid at the moment, and it's very unfair.

[ReallyTired]

I think that helping home owners in the short term makes financial sense. It is very expensive to the state if a family gets repocessed and needs to be re housed or put up in B and B. However there needs to be a cap on what is paid and it needs to be for a limited time.

I like the idea of a loan. Prehaps paying off the mortage of an unemployed person is a relatively cheap way of increasing council housing stock if the person does not get a job within two years.

Prehaps there could be the risk of being forced to move into a council property in a cheaper area or a smaller property if you have extra rooms after a couple of years. Otherwise people would end up taking the piss of having Jo taxpayer paying for their lovely four bed detached house when they have one child.

[Talkinpeace]

in the USA, mortgage interest is a tax deductible expense, no matter how many houses you own, how rich you are or how stupid the mortgage ratio is

the uk system is a beacon of sanity by comparison

[stargirl1701]

I think it should return to being based on NI contributions. A worker who has paid full NI for 30 years should be entitled to our full support if they lose their job. Someone who has no record of NI contributions should receive far less support than worker A.

I would exempt disability benefits from this though.

[Talkinpeace]

I think it should return to being based on NI contributions
it never was ....
MIRAS had nothing to do with NI - DH and I got it straight out of University
and housing benefit used to be given to university students during the short holidays

not flamed - just talking bilge

[stargirl1701]

Ah well. It should be based on contributions then!

I thought that was how the welfare state was set up by Bevin in the late 1940s.

[Talkinpeace]

so nobody under 50 gets any help?

[stargirl1701]

You get help on a sliding scale. A person with 5 years contributions gets less help than a person with 30.

[Talkinpeace]

so a person who just bought their house is stuffed, but a person who bought theirs 20 years before and has savings gets help ....

[stargirl1701]

No, a person, say 25 who just bought a house (obviously not now ) would get their mortgage interest paid but a person, say 60 who has a full contributions record, would get capital & interest help.

It would reflect the years of paying into a system like National Insurance.

Tbh, it's all pie in the bloody sky. The country can't afford the welfare bill we've got now!

[Talkinpeace]

what about housewives who never pay in - should they get nothing back ?

[WhitesandsofLuskentyre]

We were in this situation last year (DP out of work for 6 months with cancer). They paid 3 months' interest (we had to cope for the first three) so I am now up to my eyeballs in debt because the shortfall had to go on a credit card. Well, that, and having to make up the shortfall between the £500 a week DP WAS earning (and then lost, being self-employed), and the £71 per week ESA he was awarded. So I've taken out insurance for me, now! Wish to god I knew how people managed on benefits...

[thekidsrule]

yanbu

i have been in the position of the DWP paying my interest only on the morgage,i had to top up and obviously you incur more expense in a morgaged property rather than renting

many in this position really struggle

makes no sense the current rules

[stargirl1701]

Anyone claiming Child Benefit gets credits. A 'housewife' without children isn't going to be entitled to anything but, I would imagine, her husband must be a high earner and it would be him who pays the mortgage.

[midastouch]

I believe they pay the interest? I think its right to stay that way, otherwise it doesnt give much incentive to find another job does it? The govermnet would basically be buying you a house?!

[midastouch]

Renting costs more a month than a morgage, so you should pay insurance, surely its your decision and a chance you are willing to take like buying anything with credit? That you cannot guarantee your income for the next 40 years

[GregBishopsBottomBitch]

I know a woman who has 500 pound of her mortgage paid, she has to pay the other 600.

[CloudsAndTrees]

Of course there's still an incentive to find another job!

Unlike renters, mortgage owners still have to find the money to do essential house repairs and maintenance, and pay the costs when their plumbing or electrics or boiler breaks down.

They would only have to be given the same amount as renters will get in HB, so the government wouldn't end up paying for their spare rooms, they would be paying for the number of people living in that house to have a roof over their heads. The same as renters on a low enough income get.