Your Opinion: Kick Starting The Mortgage Market With Tax Payer's Money

Generali

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

ManAtHome wrote: »

Racking up to 100 BILLION QUID so far - 3 times defence budget, 3 times policing budget - how much more before it gets past "some taxpayer money"..?

Wasn't that the total of the liabilities on Northern Rock's books when they were nationalised? There are a lot of assets that NRK owned that can be offset against that.

Paul_N_4

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

fiish wrote: »

The poll answers with their follow-up statements are IMHO quite polarised - I personally stand somewhere in between.

Sorry but your options are either yes or no. You don't get to decide how much the government spends on the scheme. That's down to them. It could potentially be more or less than the amount you would agree to. So take your pick.

ManAtHome

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

Generali wrote: »

Wasn't that the total of the liabilities on Northern Rock's books when they were nationalised? There are a lot of assets that NRK owned that can be offset against that.

I was thinking NR plus the "special lending thingy" - both are loans (as would any further "kick-start" initiatives), but the capital needs to come from somewhere and we're at risk until paid back.

carolt

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

lynzpower wrote: »

Can we actually do sometihng about this for once instead of having the smae conversation over and over? I fear we are all preaching to the converted here!

I will aid with wheelchair if you like no problem!

Can we just do this? Dooz can arrange which pub we'll go to after

Go lynzpower! lynzpower for president!

(Oh, we don't have one of those?)

Love it. Think it's a fantastic idea. But how to get the masses onboard?

With any luck, Brown will be dethroned before he has a chance to do anything about it, and then the next guy can get out of it by blaming all the country's economic woes on the previous guy. Works every time. :rolleyes:

lostinrates

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/list

Can someone help with the wording to start one of these?

I bet we could get somethng pretty impressive this side of Christmas if we really pulled together.

Sir_Humphrey

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

Hi

I voted "no" of course.

It is not a really important question actually, as the govt can't save the housing market anyway. Even if they were competent to try (qv Stamp Duty fiasco). The issue is how much money they might waste trying.

carolt

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

Of course.

Generali

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Hi

I voted "no" of course.

It is not a really important question actually, as the govt can't save the housing market anyway. Even if they were competent to try (qv Stamp Duty fiasco). The issue is how much money they might waste trying.

Over the years, the British Government (and many others too) have wasted billions at least on trying to buck markets. From fixed exchange rates (failed every time) to incomes policies (failed). When will they learn not to pour good money after bad? Trying to get the voters to pay a load more in taxes for the privilege of paying more for housing is a new low possibly matched only by the Common Agricultural Policy.

jamescredmond

No way. Why should our taxes be spent on propping up the housing market

Generali wrote: »

Over the years, the British Government (and many others too) have wasted billions at least on trying to buck markets. From fixed exchange rates (failed every time) to incomes policies (failed). When will they learn not to pour good money after bad? Trying to get the voters to pay a load more in taxes for the privilege of paying more for housing is a new low possibly matched only by the Common Agricultural Policy.

yep, and yet another cynical/desperate wheeze.

to be fair, this is just testing public opinion water and not a policy commitment. nothing new in that. all UK gov's have done this in the past, just to check how far they can push the electorate.

this, though, is a push too far.......or is it?

I once asked my grandfather (who wasn't British) if he had any criticisms of the Brits.

'only one' he said. 'they're too tolerant. they'll put up with just about anything for a bit of peace and quiet. just look at the way their governments treat them'.

he said this a long time ago.

still rings true.

mr.broderick

Fine by me. I think house prices need to be kept as high as possible in these times

jamescredmond wrote: »

yep, and yet another cynical/desperate wheeze.

to be fair, this is just testing public opinion water and not a policy commitment. nothing new in that. all UK gov's have done this in the past, just to check how far they can push the electorate.

this, though, is a push too far.......or is it?

I once asked my grandfather (who wasn't British) if he had any criticisms of the Brits.

'only one' he said. 'they're too tolerant. they'll put up with just about anything for a bit of peace and quiet. just look at the way their governments treat them'.

he said this a long time ago.

still rings true.

Think we are also good at queuing alhough when i am in the post office taxing the days handovers i don't half get frustrated when the young asian lady behind the counter takes 20 minutes to cash some old dears pension