If the government can pay rich landlords mortgages off - why can't they pay the interest on mortgages of people going through financial difficulties?

[UndertheCedartree]

My friend was asking how my financial situation was (as I have been unwell and in hospital) and I was telling her that it has finally been agreed that I am entitled to some help with my housing costs (interest on my mortgage) but that it is a loan. She was shocked and said when she had financial difficulties the government paid most of her high rent (more than double the interest on my mortgage) and it ultimately went to her rich landlord who was able to pay off his mortgage with it. It made me think about the supportive accomodation my boyfriend lives in. The owner is extremely rich and gets housing benefit for 10 bedrooms when there is only 6 as each tenant gets housing benefit at a 2 bedroom rate. He also gets £800 per month for utilities/broadband from the tenants.

It does feel unfair that I have to take out a loan to cover the interest on my mortgage while I'm unwell (as surely keeping a roof over myself and my children's head makes sense?) while wealthy landlords benefit from housing benefit.

@ivykaty44 - in supported accomodation all of the tenants are getting the housing part of Universal Credit.

UC housing element isn’t paid for supported living. This is one case where housing benefit is claimed, another being state retirement age people - though if a couple and one is still working age UC still applies

@CooCooAchoo - yes, I get what you're saying. I am of course extremely privileged to have been able to get a mortgage. Although how I got the money wasn't really that lucky. But I'm not sure I'm thinking as a rich person (although I could be) I just want my children to keep their home. I'm scared that isn't going to happen. And yes, I don't want to have to pay sky-high rent as my earning potential is going to be limited to some extent or more and I want my children to not just have a scraping by life. If social housing existed then I wouldn't be so worried as that would mean a secure house with reasonable rent. But as it is we will probably end up in temporary accomodation.

@ivykaty44 - you said you didn't agree with minumum wage and UC top op? Sorry if I've missed it but not sure that explains why temporary accomodation or private rent is cheaper than the interest on my mortgage?

Reread your own post

I think it’s very unhelpful of your friend telling you this when you are paying your own way, and I would question what she thought she would gain by sharing this with you when you are clearly going through a very difficult time.

Then go back and read the post at 21:40
Read all 3 paragraphs, pay particular attention to the middle paragraph

I'm going to throw into the mix

Ref comment about stability
Some families move lots for work or other reasons. A relocation can sometimes be a positive, not a negative

Ref paying mortgage if unemployed
Not all people that have a mortgage, have children or dependents

Did the payment rules change once UC was introduced ?

I'm sorry that you are in this position

@PolPotNoodle - I know the landlord of my boyfriend's supported accomodation, I know what my boyfriend pays for utilities (and the others there), I know what all the payments are as I sorted it all out. The father of the children is only just making ends meet and can't help me. I make as much payment to the mortgage lender as I can so yes, they are getting some money but I have arrears. You might not think public spending is for that, I disagree. I was happy for my tax money to go towards that a few years ago.

@PolPotNoodle - and a car is different to shelter - I sold my car a long time ago.

@ivykaty44 - fair enough - my mistake. I thought it came under UC as he gets that but obviously not - it was a while ago I sorted it out.

I've paid tax for a long time and 'I' paid for the interest on others mortgage

Unless a high rate tax payer for a good number of years it’s unlikely you’ve covered the costs of your own education, healthcare etc much less the mortgages of others.

The new loan system is far better for tax payers as the money is returned to the pot at some point.

which is what the previous pp point was

You don’t know what’s being claimed or paid in benefits, only the agents and people receiving know

@ivykaty44 - I get you don't agree with it. But the amount the government would have to pay out for private rent or temporary housing would be much higher than the interest on my mortgage.

Can you sell the house now? Would there be a profit? If you can maintain the mortgage and probably won't be able to for a while, would renting not be less stressful for you?

It’s morally wrong in my mind to make money from benefits

@Sn0wdr0psSnow - Thank you. Yes, relocation can be positive but it wouldn't be in our situation, I don't think. It's something Social Services talk about a lot - stability for the children. I'm not sure when the rules changed but I know a few years ago people still got the interest on their mortgage paid. It could well have changed with the introduction of UC.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss - yes, I get that. It was in response to 'why should tax payers (not just high-rate tax payers) have to pay for the interest on your mortgage?' I was just pointing out as a tax payer myself (and many others) were happy with the policy of paying the interest on mortgages of those struggling.

Why should owning your own home be subsided by other tax payers

But why should owning a second/third/forth home be subsidised by the tax payer? And that is what happens. I asked a couple of days ago (on a social housing thread) for someone to correct me if I was wrong and no one did, so I assume I’m correct. The rich buy another house, which they rent to those who don’t have as much and who claim housing benefit, which they then pay to the already rich landlord, who then gets even richer and buys another house to add to their portfolio. Meanwhile, those struggling to put food on the table or those trying to save for their first house deposit find it is being pushed ever further away from them.

The government/councils need to take some responsibility and sort out the social housing crisis that we have at the moment. But why would the rich (Who are the people who generally are running the government and councils) want to sort it out, when they would loose financially if no one wanted to rent their extra houses?

The issue is that a mortgage is considered an investment as even with an interest only mortgage if the price goes up you'll make a profit. If you're able to buy a house you're also considered better off. I wish there was more social housing but there isn't so if people aren't going to be homeless we have to help them with rent and landlords will benefit from that.

@ivykaty44 - I do know. I was the one who sorted it all out. I know what HB is being paid and I know what utilities is being paid and I know social care fund the care.

Can't whoever is living in your house with your children pay the interest on your mortgage? If they are saving on their own rent or mortgage I mean?

Underthecedartree you’re being petulant now

The interest isn’t going to be paid on your mortgage. However many times you repeat that it will be cheaper than renting and claiming UC won’t affect the outcome.
You can start to sort your affairs with the many suggestions that have been kindly offered

I doubt you will though

In the meantime there are people that are screwed by the benefit system, many deemed fit for work when there actually dead

UndertheCedartree It was you that said UC was being paid...

So the government money paid to renters in difficulty just goes to pay off "rich landlords mortgages". I assume you must also understand that any money used "to pay the interest on mortgages of people going through financial difficulties" just goes to pay off the rich banks?