government bailing out house losers - good or bad?

dubsey

I have given details of my sister's situation lots of times on different threads.

Summary - DMP with the CCCS, consolidation loan with First Plus and had already extended their mortgage before that. Money mainly went on curtains, carpets (different carpets - didn't like the first lot, then wooden flooring) new fittings (old ones were fine), holidays and general crap - nothing that is an asset and could be sold.
Her DH MUST work overtime on each of his days off to keep afloat. Overtime has now dried up completely and needless to say they are now pretty stuffed.

Do I want the government to help them? Nope, because they have not learnt a thing yet from their mistakes, but they do seem to expect someone else to sort it all out for them.

They still do the lottery twice a week and luckily won a few thousand pounds a few weeks ago. They are putting a little aside for christmas pressies for the kids and are considering using the rest for a holiday, because they 'deserve' one.

I know I sound bitter and believe it or not I love my sister more than anything, but we too work very long hours, we don't have a beautiful home yet - ours is literally falling apart so why should they be helped simply because they overspent?

mean_momma

nearlyrich wrote: »

..... everyone who needs help should get it for a LIMITED time, that would sort out the really needy from the people who are taking the proverbial in my opinion.

Depends on the definition of 'needy', they all 'need' to fund the lifestyle in their new homes. Perhaps 'deserving' would be a better word, but can the government differentiate? And what of those who didn't even risk buying because they are in need. Do they sit back and watch the handouts with disbelief?

moanymoany

nearlyrich wrote: »

very easy to be on a high horse and condemn people's choices in life but there but for the grace of god go many of us.

If people choose to use credit, MEWing to put in a new kitchen, holiday, new 4 x 4, or whatever, if people like to live a lifestyle that would be impossible if they had to pay for it - or even save up for it, why should anyone help them out of their self-dug hole!

Yes, there are people who will only have their mortgage as debt if they lose their job. However, there are many more who have not. We could also demand that anyone wanting 'extra' help from the Government produce ALL their credit card and bank statements. If they show up spending on expensive rubbish then no help is given?

The Victorians divided the needy into the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. We in the UK have a benefits system that makes no such division. It is there for people who fall on hard times. Losing your job and being unable to pay your mortgage is exactly that. It is enough!

MORPH3US

nearlyrich wrote: »

I would rather my tax went towards helping those who help themselves.

I kind of agreed with all the posts above saying the govt shouldn't bail people out until I read your line above and it makes great sense...

As always, the people who work hard and pay taxes get left to fend for themselves whilst those who live off handouts from the govt don't have to worry about job losses / mortgages / bills etc

Thank you for making me see the other side of the coin :T

carolt

mean_momma wrote: »

Last week I bashed out an irate email to You & Yours, Radio 4, in response to a broadcast about how the government should bail out those who had got into debt due to house price inflation, courtesy of the taxpayer. To my surprise, it was read out on air almost as soon as I'd finished typing it. This was immediately followed by a sob story from a single mother, but the next few emails were also disapproving. A left wing friend commented that R 4 obviously decided to air the views of the Rabid Right! Sorry, I thought that it was just old fashioned common sense not to borrow more than you could afford to pay back, nor to expect reward for failure (whatever the sad circumstances).


Yesterday, I was surprised to hear a part of my email being read out for a second time, along with a selection of others, all negative. This was followed by a professor, going on about 'schadenfreude' and the 'self righteous'. R4 are now urging listeners to send in their views.

So if you have strong views, visit the You & Your website and get commenting!

Thanks for the link OP - I'd been contemplating a petition etc on the same topic myself, as I find it extremely unreasonable that those who chose to buy at historically high prices should not have prepared for the possible downsides themselves, but should instead be bailed out by the prudent, including those who decided to stay in rented accommodation as current prices were too high and they would be jeopardising their familiy's security if they bought.

TBH, I suspect far more attention is paid by ministers to You and Yours than any of the No. 10 petitions sadly, but that's modern democracy for you - so I shall get writing.

Please post more!

lethal0r

I would happily help out homeowners who truly needed it. I would NOT be happy to help out those who purchased a house to make money off it (eg BTL) and anyone who withdrew equity (eg greedy people).

I would even vote for a different party if I had to bail out people who were trying to make money from houses or gambled on ever increasing prices.

Have the details of this bail out been decided upon yet or is it just talk at the moment?

PasturesNew

Help those who borrowed sensibly and lost their job/became ill/similar.

But I'd not want to see help for anybody that overspent on new stuff. If they borrowed for holidays, for plasma TVs, for new cars, for kids' stuff, for nights out, for a conservatory, etc etc then they walked into their situation from their own free choice.

Are you a bad parent because you didn't buy your kid a new PS3/XBox? Or are you a bad parent because you over-borrowed on credit cards to take the family to Disneyland and other exotic places and now can't meet your commitments so might lose the house?

Those that have feasted ravenously of goodies that they hadn't saved for and planned for need to be slapped with a bit of Darwinism.

carolt

I'd disagree that anyone who bought in recent years - certainly in the south - bought 'sensibly', ie they all paid far more than they would have been paying to rent the same property.

How would we police others' spending? As a parent, I could understand a parent buying their kid a toy, say, whereas to a non-parent, that might seem a pointless luxury.

But as a non-driver with no interest in cars, I'd think anyone who bought a new car full stop let alone a flash one, was wasting their money deliberately.

Better not to hand the money out at all, than try to ration it.

mr.broderick

carolt wrote: »

I'd disagree that anyone who bought in recent years - certainly in the south - bought 'sensibly', ie they all paid far more than they would have been paying to rent the same property.

How would we police others' spending? As a parent, I could understand a parent buying their kid a toy, say, whereas to a non-parent, that might seem a pointless luxury.

But as a non-driver with no interest in cars, I'd think anyone who bought a new car full stop let alone a flash one, was wasting their money deliberately.

Better not to hand the money out at all, than try to ration it.

I don't mind being taxed if it helps.
Sure you are a communist carol.

carolt

Just to add, OP, I have now emailed You and Yours (annoyingly whiney programme, but there you go!) - who knows whether it will just end up in some researcher's 'delete' folder, but at least I've had another chance to mouth off, and who knows, it might do some good.

Thanks for the tip!