One in five homes for sale because owners unable to afford mortgage repayments

Really2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Sadly, the axe will fall equally on both the "reckless" and the cautious in terms of redundany. TBH I know folks with very large mortgages, interest only (they get big bonuses) and they will almost certainly be fine. Truly, they are life's winners. The person who has been cautious with their mortgage multiples and those who rent are just as vunerable to redundancy. It just depends what industry you are in.

Going back to health analogy. Hospitals are full of fit and unfit people. Some smoke, drink, take drugs, don't exercise, over eat - however, some exercise loads, never smoked in their life, never drank,etc. Sometimes life just throws you are curved ball.

It's pointless looking for villains in all this IMHO.

Totaly agree with that. As you can see from the posession order nearly half are made by landlords.
Going on that the renters are being just as hard and claiming just as much housing benefit.
Are they any different or needy than a mortgage holder geting in to trouble?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

And of course taxpayers will be funding massive holes in balance sheets anyway as debts default.


Any way you look here, the taxpayer is being screwed over.

I get that you as a tax payer don't wont to pay benefits for people who in your POV were reckless. But the fact is that we all have to pay for lots of public spending that we don't necessarily agree with. People who live unhealthy life styles cost the NHS a fortune. Many people didn't want to pay for the War in Iraq. Unfortunatley, it's not optional what we as tax payers pay for.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Try and keep it civil please.

Inflation will erode savings as well as debt. It disadvantages savers to bail out debtors.

I considered taking on a reckless amount of debt to buy a house almost 2 years back and concluded it was a bad idea.

I've saved lots of money, putting it in NS&I and the banking system thus enabling the banks to operate their lending and providing direct funding for the government's borrowing activities.

I've been urging other people of the dangers of borrowing to buy an overpriced house ever since I did the sums myself.

Meanwhile, lots of people have just went out and borrowed absolutely stupid amounts of money that meant they were always going to have problems if things changed in the economy over the 20/25 year course of their mortgage.

Now, I'm going to be soaked even more than otherwise to bail them out. Either through government intervention in the banking system or vastly increased load on the welfare budget through support of overblown mortgages.


So, if you consider me to be on a high horse then I would consider that I have every right to be there. Clearly that annoys you, too bad.


So you just thought you'd conflate the two issues and maybe score a few points?
(I'm fully behind the NHS by the way before you start to go on with "ANSWER THE QUESTION")

I don't however have a lot of time for people who abuse their bodies and then place strain on the system as a result. e.g. Heavy alcohol consumers who as a result require organ transplants or treatments sucking money that could have went to people who just happened to suffer an arbitrary illness.

Same goes for the debt junkies who end up falling back on the good old welfare state.

Lot's of people are reckless. Do you smoke, drink, take plenty of exercise, never eat fatty foods?

Everytime you eat a chocolate bar you are doing something reckless that might cost me money - but that's alright. I FORGIVE YOU.:rotfl:

WTF?_2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Sadly, the axe will fall equally on both the "reckless" and the cautious in terms of redundany. TBH I know folks with very large mortgages, interest only (they get big bonuses) and they will almost certainly be fine. Truly, they are life's winners. The person who has been cautious with their mortgage multiples and those who rent are just as vunerable to redundancy. It just depends what industry you are in.

Agree totally.

Going back to health analogy. Hospitals are full of fit and unfit people. Some smoke, drink, take drugs, don't exercise, over eat - however, some exercise loads, never smoked in their life, never drank,etc. Sometimes life just throws you are curved ball.

It's pointless looking for villains in all this IMHO.

Yes - and I fully support the support systems that are there for people who unwittingly find themselves in trouble.

But IMO just because something random and arbitrary could happen is no excuse to behave recklessly in the hope that the same support systems that are there to support the unfortunate will rescue you too.


I think that all this will become an issue as the Welfare State starts to creak under the weight of claims for new support. There is just so much government borrowing planned that there's no way they are going to be able to achieve it all, the appetite for UK debt just isn't there in the markets as far as I can see.

WTF?_2

Really2 wrote: »

The differnce is !!!!!! i do not try to hold a Moral High ground over you.

But you as a "saver" will rescue the world and pay for everyones mess.

Sorry !!!!!! that irritates me.

Thats why i made a light dig then decided not to read your response as you fail to see what gives you the right to pour scourn on people for having a house.

No - as a saver I will be soaked to rescue the reckless. I have every right to be ticked off and won't be muzzled because you find it out of order.

And what is this "(I) pour scourn on people for having a house" stuff that you came up with? Where on earth did you pull that one from?

I certainly pour scorn on people who recklessly borrow stupid amounts of money that they can't really afford without thinking twice about it and then throw themselves upon the support of everyone else - but saying this means that I pour scorn on house buyers is a ridiculous generalisation.

Heyman_2

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

I guess there will be those so close to the brink, that even a brief shutdown could be the straw to break the back...

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7741269.stm

"Honda Swindon closing for 50 days"

Sorry to grab this one all the way from the first page but thought I should clarify this -

Honda have said none of the staff will lose their jobs, all will be on full pay for the closure (nice!) and they have also initiated training programmes to give staff the chance to develop skills in other areas.

So this could be considered a non-point - but it IS a sign of the things to come unfortunately.

WTF?_2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Oh come on. Have you never exceeded the speed limit? Never driven in the fast lane without the correct number of chevrons from the guy in front, never talked on the phone while driving. If you had a crash would you expect the ambulance to take you to hospital despite the fact that it was your fault. Are you aware that a jumbo load of people die on British roads every month. Do you know how much that costs each and every tax payer?

If loads of people started to choose to drive recklessly to the extent where it placed a burden on emergency services, I fully expect that it would in fact become an issue as to whether or not someone at fault could in fact expect free treatment like anyone else. As long as the numbers are low and the system can easily handle them, it's a non-issue.

This is the same effect I expect to see happen on welfare payments for mortgages in the coming year. The last time around there were some humdingers where formerly well-off people were living in really expensive houses, mortgages paid by the state, whilst there were examples of needy people who couldn't get housing benefit.

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

!!!!!! Talk me through this one!
However, even if people switch their mortgages to IO it means a shortfall in the banks income - which will also have to be funded by taxpayers.

!!!!!! have you answered this one yet?

Really2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

If loads of people started to choose to drive recklessly to the extent where it placed a burden on emergency services, I fully expect that it would in fact become an issue as to whether or not someone at fault could in fact expect free treatment like anyone else. As long as the numbers are low and the system can easily handle them, it's a non-issue.

This is the same effect I expect to see happen on welfare payments for mortgages in the coming year. The last time around there were some humdingers where formerly well-off people were living in really expensive houses, mortgages paid by the state, whilst there were examples of needy people who couldn't get housing benefit.

So !!!!!! what about the rental posession orders.
I presume if they do not pay get kicked out they get housing benefit.
Are they also overstretched themselves as they account for half of all posession orders.

I would also imagine their is less rental property than mortgaged property so perhaps as a % more of the population?


Explain the bold bit as far as I know the criteria are virtualy the same? Surely anyone without money is entitled to housing benefit or are people with savings the more needy in your eyes?

ad9898_3

StevieJ wrote: »

!!!!!! have you answered this one yet?

I think what he means is the capital of the original loan isn't being paid and so is still outstsanding on the balance sheet if the bank gets into trouble. This is a statement of how stupid the banks were with their reckless lending.

IO mortgages should never have been allowed to be taken out unless a proven vehicle was in place to repay, this doesn't include fantasy HPI which as we are seeing is rapidly disappearing. I had to show my endownment policies and how they were performing to the manager in '96 when I had a IO mortgage.

This would have stopped the amateur BTL'r dead in their tracks, as these were just using HPI as their repayment vehicle, which is now being shown to not only stupid but reckless.