fledermaus

I agree, surprisingly. A friend back in the UK has been made redundant while off sick with a broken arm. She is now on 65 pounds a week income support or sick pay. As she has a mortgage there is no help towards her housing as there would be if she was in rented. She will soon be unable to pay her mortgage.

iaink

There is no support if you have a mortgage here either...

Alan2005

And nor should there be.

fledermaus

I don't see why people in rented get help and those buying a home don't. I can see that the govt shouldn't help you buy your home but there could be some sort of loan from the govt to stop you having to sell. I have no idea how this could be managed but it doesn't seem balanced they way it is.

Jingsamichty

Can't you take out unemployment insurance with your mortgage?

Alan2005

Eh? You've got an asset. It should be sold before tax payers have to bail you out.

Edit: I wouldn't expect renters to be bailed out either.

If you have social housing, it should apply the same to everyone. I.e. you lose your home, then you get help. You don't get help to keep your current lifestyle.

fledermaus

I suppose one can. My friend says that she couldn't afford the insurance. I don't think the flat is an asset either now as I think she's in negative equity.

Alan2005

If you can't afford the insurance, then you can't afford the mortgage. It's tough if you are in that situation, but it's people like that that have bid up on property that they can't afford at the expense of more sensible people. I have limited sympathy when it goes wrong.

fledermaus

Just read your edit.

It's the inequality that annoys me. If she rented her place then she would get help. Why do renters get help? If she loses her home because of this then she won't find it easy to get a new place without having a job.

Maybe there should be a scheme where if you are unable to pay the mortgage then the govt becomes part owners of your property and so pays the mortgage. Or they pay it and you have to pay them back when you sell, or within so many years.???

Alan2005

I'd expect renters who can't pay to be booted out of their expensive condo's and put into the same social housing (if it exists) as home-owners. That's the equitable way. Otherwise you end up paying the mortgage for the home-owner who then reaps the benefits whilst the renter ends up with nothing.

brizzle

Didn't there used to be help in paying mortgage interest only for unemployed people ??

Alan2005

In the UK they used to do this. I remember reading of changes to this scheme, so am not quite sure what it is exactly now (this is the reverse of fled's complaint: i.e. renters get no help, home owners get the interest paid)

Lord Vader

Because you are talking with your butt cheeks wheatsheaf. Please back up the statement of companies "deliberately firing employees who could soon collect pension benefits". I don't mean an article somewhere or the fact that perhaps with the recent economic turmoil a few companies forced into laying people off. I am talking about cold hard evidence. Do you know the difference between a defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan? So you know what "vested funds" mean?

I would also like you to explain what you meant by Canadians or Americans working for retirement being a gross lie. What are you talking about?

dboy

I think its in part because the bank has been around for so long and everyone knows about it. I some times give evidence at court in Richmond which is near one. I parked behind a convertible GT mustang and a middle aged woman dressed to the nines was loading up the trunk.

Not say that there aren't those that are needy. There is clearly no system in place to assess who really needs the help.

Alan2005

To put one in is probably prohibitively expensive. The cost of a few people taking the piss is probably negligible compared to the cost of enforcing it.