Government's Mortgage Rescue

drbeat

Zammo wrote: »

Cut out the middle man, just find the nearest hard working tax payer and take his wallet. After all, it is his duty to bail you out for your own financial stupidity.

When people take out a mortgage should they:

(a) consider how they would pay it if a partner went sick
(b) consider how it would be paid if both were out of work
(c) consider how they would pay it after a rate rise
(d) consider what they would do if they went into negative equity
(e) consider what they would do if they split up
(f) consider all of the above
(g) or sod it, just don't consider anything at all!

(g) qualifies for Financial Stupidity!

drbeat

italia wrote: »

zammo has a complete lack of understanding of the financial markets, underwriting or the gobal market. its made me laugh out loud, he has a blinkered outlook ie hey i can get another house. but he hasn't the intelligence to understand what state the rest of the economy would be in.

the mortgage help isnt there to help individual finanical pain its because the mass repos that would take place will hit the already overstretched banks and the underwriters (freddie may, fannie mac - does zammo own a tv or can he read (newspapers), i think not). zammo has no concept of what would happen if all the banks fail. its not just your average joe thats bought something they cant afford, the banks (hbos, again zammo buy a tv!) have overstretched too.

i think zammo thinks that if someone defaults the mortgage is magically paid off to the bank.... i dont think zammo studied economics. i am sure the one bed flat he wants to own outright is on an island somewhere which will be unaffected by the bank failures (if thinks are left to rot as he would like) and no retailers will go out of business and he will be able to stroll out from a palacious 1 bed flat (haha try aiming higher!!!) to unboarded up high street.

the idea zammo is the government would rather a home owner pay as much as they can off say a 100k loan on something now worth 60k that just let you buy it for 60k at auction and the banks go bust after loosing the other 40k many many times over as this repo happens on mass.

its in your best interests that the institutions dont fall, you just cant see it because you are an uneducated cretin.

Hey Zammo, looks like you've earned yourself a friend! LOL:rotfl:

chewmylegoff

italia wrote: »

zammo has a complete lack of understanding of the financial markets, underwriting or the gobal market. its made me laugh out loud, he has a blinkered outlook ie hey i can get another house. but he hasn't the intelligence to understand what state the rest of the economy would be in.

the mortgage help isnt there to help individual finanical pain its because the mass repos that would take place will hit the already overstretched banks and the underwriters (freddie may, fannie mac - does zammo own a tv or can he read (newspapers), i think not). zammo has no concept of what would happen if all the banks fail. its not just your average joe thats bought something they cant afford, the banks (hbos, again zammo buy a tv!) have overstretched too.

i think zammo thinks that if someone defaults the mortgage is magically paid off to the bank.... i dont think zammo studied economics. i am sure the one bed flat he wants to own outright is on an island somewhere which will be unaffected by the bank failures (if thinks are left to rot as he would like) and no retailers will go out of business and he will be able to stroll out from a palacious 1 bed flat (haha try aiming higher!!!) to unboarded up high street.

the idea zammo is the government would rather a home owner pay as much as they can off say a 100k loan on something now worth 60k that just let you buy it for 60k at auction and the banks go bust after loosing the other 40k many many times over as this repo happens on mass.

its in your best interests that the institutions dont fall, you just cant see it because you are an uneducated cretin.

given that the government announced that they were devoting £200m to this mortgage rescue scheme for the 6,000 "most hard pressed families" (and £1bn in total for the entire package, although that was based on pure fantasy figures of stamp duty concessions on non-existant sales and a baseless prediction of uptake of the stupid 30% share ownership loan offering) it seems rather unlikely that this scheme will have any real effect on the economy.

chrisandanne

quote=dopester;14242733]Is that really how much it costs? It was only back in 1997 I got myself a nice clean room, with own key access, double bed, television, well-heated, for £12.50 a night, and cleaned each morning, for a week whilst visiting London. And that included a hearty cooked breakfast in the morning as the woman owned the cafe below. Found it from Loot.

How times change. There is no possible justification in £400 a week.[/quote]

I wasn't sure dopester of how much it costs to put a family out of their home and into a homeless hostel. So today I rang a friend who works as a social worker in the mental health sector and this is what she told me :-

Local councils have a duty to re home anyone with children who become homeless...they (the local authority) run the hostels and charge the government per person, the fees vary, but a 'normal' charge would be c £40 per person per night and half of that for a child, so in the case of the OP it would cost £100 per night = £700 per week !!!!.

She also told me that this can be more in London where there is more demand and less supply. And also London has a dearth of social housing which is not the case in all areas, which causes hostel prices to be higher.

Also on top of the £700. This type of re- housing of families causes, health, mental health and social problems which then have to be addressed at more cost to the tax payer. The hostel places are also available to people with health or mental health problems who find themselves homeless which includes drug users and alcoholics which can make them very grim places to be. They are not available to healthy single people with no children who for whatever reason find themselves homeless. A x

carolt

Wouldn't it be cheaper to put them all up in 4 star hotels? I've stayed in plenty of lovely family rooms all round the UK for less than £100/night - how on earth do they justify that tremendous waste of taxpayer's money?

I smell corruption or at best complete ineptitude here.

Incisor

carolt wrote: »

Wouldn't it be cheaper to put them all up in 4 star hotels? I've stayed in plenty of lovely family rooms all round the UK for less than £100/night - how on earth do they justify that tremendous waste of taxpayer's money?

I smell corruption or at best complete ineptitude here.

Maybe 4 star hotels don't want the business? More of this credit crunch and they might.

house184

Actually £100 a night for families isn't rare at all and they aren't 4 star hotels. Local Authorities can't really be seen to have homeless families sleeping on the street so if their best attempts at gatekeeping fail and they have to actually assist a family they often don't have any where for the family to go. This is why b and b proprietors can pretty much charge what they like so the LA don't have to explain why a family is street homeless.

Incisor

italia wrote: »

zammo has a complete lack of understanding of the financial markets, underwriting or the gobal market. its made me laugh out loud, he has a blinkered outlook ie hey i can get another house. but he hasn't the intelligence to understand what state the rest of the economy would be in.

the mortgage help isnt there to help individual finanical pain its because the mass repos that would take place will hit the already overstretched banks and the underwriters (freddie may, fannie mac - does zammo own a tv or can he read (newspapers), i think not). zammo has no concept of what would happen if all the banks fail. its not just your average joe thats bought something they cant afford, the banks (hbos, again zammo buy a tv!) have overstretched too.

i think zammo thinks that if someone defaults the mortgage is magically paid off to the bank.... i dont think zammo studied economics. i am sure the one bed flat he wants to own outright is on an island somewhere which will be unaffected by the bank failures (if thinks are left to rot as he would like) and no retailers will go out of business and he will be able to stroll out from a palacious 1 bed flat (haha try aiming higher!!!) to unboarded up high street.

the idea zammo is the government would rather a home owner pay as much as they can off say a 100k loan on something now worth 60k that just let you buy it for 60k at auction and the banks go bust after loosing the other 40k many many times over as this repo happens on mass.

its in your best interests that the institutions dont fall, you just cant see it because you are an uneducated cretin.

Zammo is probably bitter and twisted and cynical, but if he/she was an uneducated cretin, I don't think he/she would have had the insight into the finance markets to be able to make his/her comments and identify that the mortgage bailout will cost the tax payer.

While it might be harsh to let people lose their homes, for some of the things people have MEWed on, I would resent bailing them out. And if the consequences are not felt in the economy, it will all happen again to a much worse extent. People will say 'why not borrow £STUPID? The government will bail you out.' The effects of bailing people out so that they feel no pain will be corrosive in the long term.

ALIBOBSY

Must be a postcode thing, I know the local "DSS hotels" as they are reffered to in the nearest city to us are REALLY rough and charge about £20-£30 per person per night. Mind you I live "up nooorrrrth".

ali x

carolt

house184 wrote: »

Actually £100 a night for families isn't rare at all and they aren't 4 star hotels. Local Authorities can't really be seen to have homeless families sleeping on the street so if their best attempts at gatekeeping fail and they have to actually assist a family they often don't have any where for the family to go. This is why b and b proprietors can pretty much charge what they like so the LA don't have to explain why a family is street homeless.

So explain to me how we got to that situation again?

Why we sold off all our social housing so we could spend enough money to house the homeless all in luxury houses (if we bought them houses instead and were paying £700/week on mortgage payments, you could get somewhere pretty nice, even at current prices!), but gave it all to B & B owners instead?

Sorry, I'm no financial genius, but that is clearly a shocking misuse of public funds.

Bloody Maggie.