Gransnet forums

News & politics

Can anyone explain the logic of this please?

(117 Posts)
grannyactivist Mon 11-Oct-21 13:07:58

I am not an economist and hold my hands up that I don't 'get' the finer nuances of financial matters, so please forgive me if my ignorance is showing.

The photo attached highlights something that has perplexed me for years. We are constantly told, by government, that 'market forces' must not be interfered with, however the bailout for bankers demonstrated quite clearly that governments do intervene and use huge sums of money to 'shore up' some businesses.

It is apparent that the government, through payment of (much needed) benefits, subsidises extremely profitable businesses by permitting them to pay their staff very low wages, and then picking up the tab for the shortfall in people's basic living costs. Is it not within the realms of possibility for the government to reclaim such money from the excessive profits companies make?

Where is the justice in this? I hear so much (far too much in fact) about 'benefit scroungers', but never about shareholder scroungers, company scroungers, business scroungers etc. - and yet look at the sums involved in just these four examples. Why is it that people talk disparagingly of one, but rarely (never?) of the other?

Pammie1 Mon 18-Oct-21 20:25:47


It's not the same situation, so people won't get exactly the same help.
Do you think we should pay people's mortgages?
There are people who would be only too happy to point out that people shouldn't have taken on a mortgage for others to end up footing the bill.

The loan is cheaper than a credit union one, as well as every other option, and in reality only needs paying back if the property is sold.

The loan may not be repayable unless the property is sold, but interest is charged on it, so repayment largely depends on how long you want to go on racking up the debt, which then eats into the equity of the house if/when you’re in a position to move up the ladder.

MissAdventure Thu 14-Oct-21 22:14:42

Let's not shilly shally about the willy nilly. smile
I think we're all of
the same opinion, really.
It's crap any way round.

Doodledog Thu 14-Oct-21 22:00:16

I am not at all suggesting that benefits are thrown around willy nilly. I am fully aware that it can be a long, humiliating and frustrating process to get them, and that they are too low for people to live on comfortably. My point was in response to whoever said that help with mortgages is in the form of a loan, unlike help with rent.

MissAdventure Thu 14-Oct-21 20:52:33

It is a long time, I think. (Probably long enough that people may well be back in work by then; conveniently)
Not that it applies to me, but I just wanted to point out that benefits are not thrown around willy nilly to some and not others.

M0nica Thu 14-Oct-21 20:36:47

Well, I suggested this further up the thread and I was told that the government no longer paid mortgage interest, which was news to me, but I accepted that my knowledge was a bit out od date.

I have a feeling that you have to wait some months before you can get it, possible there was some confusion.

MissAdventure Thu 14-Oct-21 18:50:15

Like they're currently doing, you mean?

M0nica Wed 13-Oct-21 21:58:48

I suggest that the government go back to the old system of paying the interst but not the capital part of the monthly payment.

nadateturbe Wed 13-Oct-21 20:40:22

I can understand the viewpoint of those who don't want to help buyers but I do not agree with it..
Not helping mortgagees is a major flaw in the benefits system, which the government just ignores. But then this is a government that thinks foodbanks are acceptable.

Doodledog Wed 13-Oct-21 20:06:02

Yes, I know - so all the more reason for people with mortgages to get the same deal as those who rent (ie get housing costs paid if they are unable to work).

M0nica Wed 13-Oct-21 19:46:18

Things always change, when you think you know the answer!

Doodledog renting is more flexible. If you do not keep up with mortgage payments, the lender can foreclose and the house will be sold, but this may take time and the debt builds up and after all is sorted you may still be in debt to the mortgage lender. Not only that it make getting amortgage again later more or less impossible.

With renting, you can just give notice and go, perhaps to something smaller and cheaper. If you do go into arrears, you can also stay where you are until evicted, with no worse problem than a poor credit score.

Pammie1 Wed 13-Oct-21 17:51:15

Sorry - that should be DWP not duo !!

Pammie1 Wed 13-Oct-21 17:50:48

@M0nica. I don't think the duo offer help with mortgage interest any more.

Doodledog Wed 13-Oct-21 16:33:39

I genuinely can't understand people not wanting to fund a mortgage if they are happy to fund rent.

If someone has been made redundant, or is too ill to work (or has another valid reason for not working) and they have paid into the insurance scheme that covers welfare, they should be able to claim on it, regardless of their situation. I can understand people feeling that this can't go on for an indefinite period so that a claimant could get a house paid for by the state, but as has been said, rent payments will go to a landlord, who will get their mortgage paid, or their assets increased, and I don't see why people would be happy to do that but not pay towards a mortgage. The unemployed and the sick have to jump through hoops to be able to claim, so it's unlikely to be abused in the short-term. Maybe after a year the funding could stop, although quite where people who are unable to work are supposed to live, I don't know.

nadateturbe Wed 13-Oct-21 14:42:50

It's very complex and no easy answer.
Working people on low income will get help with rent but not mortgage. I can understand taxpayers not wanting to fund a mortgage, but there should be some proper form of help, or more long term rentals.
Surely it would be in the government's interest long term to help councils provide more social housing, rather than pay large rents to private landlords.
And to go back to the original post, there is no logic behind low wages from companies making a fortune.

Doodledog Wed 13-Oct-21 10:22:11

That's fair enough - I was querying why some people are given a loan and others have their housing costs paid.

M0nica Wed 13-Oct-21 08:28:59

I am picking up on a few posts above, so may be misinterpreting the direction of the thread.

When those with mortgages get help with housing costs, it is usually interest only, nothing towards the capital repayments, so their situation is no different from someone renting. Once back in work, they will go back to paying capital and interest, but with a backlog of capital to pay off.

MissAdventure Tue 12-Oct-21 22:46:20

The loan is only repaid when and if the property is sold on.
I have no idea what happens if it never is sold.
Yes, it doesn't seem fair, I agree.
As home owners, people are responsible for repairs, etc, which have to be paid for out of benefit money, which also doesnt sit right, if we want to go through each situation.
A renter would have the landlord to do running repairs and major ones.
Those who are 50p over the amount which qualifies them for benefits will miss out, too.

It's such a complex state of affairs these days.

Doodledog Tue 12-Oct-21 22:30:55

No worries smile

But one is a loan and the other non-returnable? If so, that is not equal.

MissAdventure Tue 12-Oct-21 22:21:12

I think I've read that wrong.
Apologies. blush

Still though, anyone who is out of work will be entitled to the same amount to live on, across the board.
Those who rent will get help towards it, those with a mortgage will get help towards that, with end result that both are housed, with the same amount to live on.

MissAdventure Tue 12-Oct-21 22:13:33

Surely that's contradictory?
Higher earners will get more under your system.
That isn't equality.
That's a value judgement.

Doodledog Tue 12-Oct-21 22:10:27

As you say, people won't get exactly the same help. In my opinion, if they pay the same tax and NI (and I stress that I think the system needs to be reformed so that high earners pay more and low earners less than now) then they should get the same help, irrespective of whether they rent or pay a mortgage.

I firmly believe that the welfare state should be fair, equal and available to all who have paid in, with provision made for those who are unable to do so. I don't think that the government should decide who qualifies and who shouldn't, whether that is based on marital status, housing situation or whatever. Payments should be based on contributions, with no value judgements.

MissAdventure Tue 12-Oct-21 21:48:37

Who isn't getting help?
Anyone whose income falls below the allowed amount will and does get help.

Doodledog Tue 12-Oct-21 21:25:00


It's not the same situation, so people won't get exactly the same help.
Do you think we should pay people's mortgages?
There are people who would be only too happy to point out that people shouldn't have taken on a mortgage for others to end up footing the bill.

The loan is cheaper than a credit union one, as well as every other option, and in reality only needs paying back if the property is sold.

Paying money towards rent is likely to be paying the landlord's mortgage though, so what's the difference?

I believe that there should be a better system of taxation, and people should be able to claim on NI when they need it. Fair enough, there should be checks and balances, but I don't see why some people should get help and others not, if both have paid tax and NI.

varian Tue 12-Oct-21 19:12:20

We should look at the way other countries deal with supporting the poorest in society and learn how things might be done better.

The gulf between rich and poor in the UK is wider than almost any country in the developed world.

Such inequality breeds extreme politics and the manipulation of public opinion by the extremely wealthy through their control of the media, especially our predominantly right wing national press.

MaizieD Tue 12-Oct-21 19:08:23




Maizie NICs don't depend on the hours somebody works, but the amount.

Anybody earning £184 (or more) a week pays NICs. That works out to just over 20 hours a week on minimum wage. but would obviously be fewer hours if the person earned more.

I told you. I was working it out on 16 hours paid at the current minimum wage of £8.42 per hour. I am not altogether stupid you know.

But why are you obsessed with 16 hours? It's irrelevant with the current system.

PS. The current minimum wage for those 23 and over is £8.91 per hour.

Because someone was querying why people worked 16 hours.

Apologies for getting the minimum wage wrong, I must have been looking at out of date figures. I don't think that an extra 50p (ish) per hour will make enough difference to their income to put them into the NIC payment bracket. Will it?