Should the government provide assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure?

Yes, but only in extreme situations, and as long as it does not encourage irresponsible borrowing, and is not unfair to those who pay their mortgages.

Yes, but it shouldn't come at the cost to the taxpayer, e.g. any financial assistance provided should be payed back in full. Restructuring home loans to give them longer to pay back the principal would be ideal. Financial education is something that I believe must be taught in schools from an early age, especially in the current economical times. The cost of living is ridiculous and financial freedom is near impossible to achieve thanks to years of greed.

They should provide it for a year or less, then stop. This way, if someone has fallen on tough times they can bounce back; if it's a pattern, they'll be foreclosed soon enough.

case by case with an independant upire

Look at interest rates, see if they have spoken to the bank to work a solution out. If bank not assisting the government should step in, not to provide money but to adivse banks to assist in feasibility payments till in better situation to go back paying the full repayments

Depends on the circumstances of the homeowner facing foreclosure.

Yes with loans at lower rate

Yes if it’s due to government mismanagement

i think it depends on the circumstances of the homeowner

Yes, provided the homeowner was brought to foreclosure due to circumstance outside their control.

asses the person

Yes - when the homeowner only owns the one home (not if multiple properties are owned)

Only if the person was financially responsible and was genuinely struggling financially

Yes, but temporary borrowing restrictions should be included as trade off for that assistance.

Each case is different, some are negligent, others are caught through no fault of their own. It would have to be case by case.

Yes, if the property in question is the sole housing asset owned by an individual or couple and is not excessively valuable.

Yes via long term low interest loans, not proving of funds now or financial input. Government needs to keep us accountable to our commitments and provide education and support via counsellors and financial advisors, so we are responsible and still in our own homes

Their policies and manipulation of money have created this situation - they can fix it. You actually need a lecture onwhat is involved here... all the social issues that lead to homing disaster for many - 50% and most of them Aussies.

If they brought it upon themselves with bad habits, no. However, if it was not brought upon through bad habits, yes.

Yes, but only after meeting eligibility criteria. I'm not aware of foreclosure being a significant issue in Australia at the moment.

if they have an australian citizenship and have been living in australia for a while and are local to the area.

Yes if it is found that the banks have overstepped in their authority and manipulated the money market

Depends why the financial difficulty, if it’s through fault of their own then no, but if it’s due to not working for health reasons, being let go etc then yes

No Provided they have ensured property prices are not massively inflated due to policies favouring developers, investors etc.

Yes, as long as it is a last resort, and does not encourage irresponsible borrowing and is not unfair to those who pay their mortgages.

Yes, where the home owner can show future capacity to get back on track with their mortgage payments, but if that capacity is not possible, then no

it depends about the situation and whether the homeowners have any family that can offer them shelter

only where the homeowner is requiring help to stay in their own home and this should not apply to investment homes.

Nanny States ultimately become Communist States with intrusive Regulations and take intrusive control over our lives.

Why should the majority who CAN manage their finances resonsibly, be penalised and taxed to pay for the folly of a few, with intrusive Regulations and Legislation imposed upon them?

Only temporary assistance for struggling homeowners in genuine hardship but prioritise reforms that increase housing supply and reduce market risk.

Yes; government assistance should be provided to those at risk of losing their primary residence; their home, due to financial difficulties. Through early intervention strategies, individuals at risk of foreclosure, and their household, would receive the support they need to retain their house, thus, stabilising the situation from any further progression to homelessness, and preventing the transference of an, exponentially, increased burden, to other services.

Yes, providing that the home owner participates in a responsible spending agreement set by the government.

If it was due to governmental actions, or economical out lying events. Not due to personal spending habits.

Depends on the circumstance. Someone who has worked and contributed to society should be assisted in times of need. Someone who has not, should not.

Yes, but only for people who have a genuine case of hardship and not for people who are irresponsible

Depends on the situation. Banks should be kept accountable for inappropriate loans to people who can't afford them.

It is contextual. I think assistance should be provided when unforeseen circumstances caused the foreclosure.

depending on their financial records, yes if it was out of their hands, no if they were facing foreclosure due to their own actions such as reckless spending

Yes, but case dependent. Subsidy should be used to minimise risk of homelessness and dependence on government housing

Assistance in restructuring loans, but not gifts of money. Money must be repaid eventually if assistance provided

Yes, only if it is their primary residence and the govt will own a percentage with the opportunity for them to buy back.

Yes, but only after determining that before the financial crisis they faced that they had been able to repay their home loan in a proper and efficient manner, and we not irresponsibly provided a loan without the means to pay it back.

Yes, but each case needs to be assessed to confirm owners hardship and circumstances. Alternative housing to be sourced before eviction with support for housing placement by the government.

I can see the benefit but I would need to know more about how this would be assessed and implemented

Yes, but it depends on the circumstances and can not be used due to financial irresponsibility alone.

They should attack the causes which are: Immigration, crooked banking practices, urbanization, Allowing foreigners to purchase house and land in Australia, AirB&B, unworkable and stupid vote catching government policies... and so on.

Yes, depending on situations. E.g. being able to prove that there wasn’t irresponsible borrowing at the time of purchase, as well as providing details around spending during times of difficulties and trying to reduce such spending, to be able to afford the home before resorting to external assistance.

Depends on the reason foreclosure is occurring and whether or not the homeowners are contributing meaningfully to society.

Only if a plan can be made for the home owner to be able to pay in a certain time period eg 6 months 12 months

I believe homeowners should receive assistance if they're at risk of losing their homes, but there should be an investigation into their spending habits to determine whether they’re genuinely struggling or have been financially irresponsible. If someone is spending excessively on things like drugs, alcohol, or gambling, the government should offer free counseling and closely monitor their progress. However, if all reasonable support has been provided and the homeowner still cannot meet their mortgage obligations, then assistance should be withdrawn.

Yes, but this should be completed on a case by case basis so people cannot be given access to assistance they do not actually need.

If that homeowner has been working and paying taxes for 10 years or more and they are foreclosing due to things out of their control such as cost of living etc then yes, give them support to stop them loosing what they have achieved to date without previous assistance

Yes but it depends on why, did they loose their employment for a reason not caused by them, are the medically ill??

Yes, but certain circumstances must be meet to meet this. For example, someone who hasn't tried reducing their lifestyle (buying high value clothes, food etc) should not be included.

I think it's entirely dependent on the situation. For those who have come across serious hardship, yes absolutely. But for those who have recklessly spent, no.

Yes, but only if they are facing foreclosure due to circumstances outside of their control or decisions.

Yes, but only to those who show they are not irresponsible with their money causing them to be unable to pay their mortage, only for those who are having sudden financial issues caused by lose of their job, medical issues (hospital fees), or family issues (death in family, nursing home costs) for example.

Depending on the home tenets' situation, if it is within their financial control, then no, but if circumstances occur out of their control, then the government should chip in fairly minor amounts of financial aid.

Yes, but the situations should be fairly monitored for reasons of foreclosure etc

No, insurance companies and Work Cover help with that already

Yes, To those that only have one home ownership property in their name and currently reside in the home

Yes but only those meeting very strict criteria as government cannot afford to bail out everyone. Government to help them to link into services to receive help for long term sustainability.

Yes, but only in circumstance beyond the persons control ie: injury, sickness. NOT in circumstances of irresponsibility like drug addictions, drinking, smoking instead of paying mortgage repayments.

Advices and budgetry assistsnces and consessions but not monitry payments. It could act as an underwriter.

Yes - if they have a financial plan showing they have capacity to continue to pay after a short term issue.

Yes depending on their circumstances. If the person's house is foreclosed dur to their own neglect then no.. if it's because of severe hardship beyond their control then yes.

This should be determined case by case looking using set guidelines that consider the homeowners situation

Yes, but only for homeowners that live in the property facing foreclosure

Yes, but only if the homeowner reasonably attempted to repay their loan

Yes. but they should be means tested. not every rich person requires government assistance. They just need to live below their means.

Yes, as long as it is not unfair to those that pay their mortgages, and irresponsible borrowing is not encouraged.

Yes, as long as it does not encourage irresponsible borrowing and is not unfair to those who pay their mortgages.

Yes, but only for single home owning individuals/families

Yes, as long as it does not encourage irresponsible borrowing or is not unfair to those that pay their mortgages.

Yes, but only when facing severe and unforeseen circumstances I.e death of many income earner, pandemic, war etc.

Yes, but only for low-income families who desperately need it, and if it does not encourage irresponsible borrowing or is not unfair to those who pay their mortgages.

Economic review should be done to consider the community cost of not providing this assistance and then the assistance should be lower than that. We know homelessness costs the community significantly so if this is cheaper and kinder then we should do it

No because the lending institutions should be following strict guidelines for affordability and serviceability.

Depends on the reason for the foreclosure (I.e. drug habits - no, I.e. financial difficulties - yes)

Yes, but it should be regulated. It should be investigated on a case by case basis and individuals who have been found to have borrowed irresponsibly should be denied or given limited assistance. Individuals who are found to be genuinely struggling financially should receive help in order to keep their homes.

Yes, but only for those that have one home. If someone owns multiple properties then there should be no extra service provided.

Yes but the reasons for why the foreclosure is occurring should be collected to inform future responsible lending policies

No, but invest in reducing the amount of foreclosures by reducing instability in the rates of mortgages, or higher standards for mortgages in the first place.

Yes, but only doing so going on the basis for why they're facing foreclosure, whether if it is legitimately because of going through hardship OR if because they've mismanagement their payments due to crime/drugs/gambling reasons.

No, but interest rates should be lowered to where they were pre covid. That would literally help everyone.

No, instead incentivise insurance companies to do so, with strict guidelines and rules in place to deter irresponsible borrowing.

Yes, especially where children are at risk of homelessness. Losing one’s home is extremely traumatic so support is needed

Yes, but if misuse becomes an offense, it can be punished by loss of property,>10 years in jail, and >$100,000.

Perhaps provide aid of education where they provide strategies on ways to get out of the foreclosure

If it is an Investment, No. They wouldn't help me keep an investment in Bitcoin, Why would a housing investment be any different. Sell it so a first home owner can buy it.

Yes, specifically in cases where the house houses children or people who are unable to make enough money through no fault of their own.

Yes, for a set time (12mths). Then if the bank still forecloses, they should be LIMITED in the value they can sell it for. a maximum of the load amount remaining, the amount the government provided to assist and costs. Banks should be prohibited from making money on it.

Depends on the situation but it should be done based on merit and what steps the homeowner has done to try prevent this.

Yes, if it is the only house they own and they have a legitimate reason (e.i. Losing a job, medical reasons)

Yes, but only if it is the only residential property they own, and if it is their primary place of residence