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

WTF?_2

Really2 wrote: »

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?

There are always examples of needy people not being able to get benefits. The problem about the vulnerable is that they often aren't the sorts of folk who know how to get their full entitlement or won't lower themselves to milk every penny.

Put the system under enough pressure and they tighten up as there's less money to go around - the problem is that often it's the said vulnerable people above who don't get the help and the savvy scroungers who know how to work the system to max effect.

And as it happens, people with savings the sensible responsible ones who put money away for a rainy day will find themselves not able to claim many benefits. I'm pretty sure that outside the statutory 6 month 'contributions based' JSA I'd find it very difficult to claim anything, including housing benefit to pay rent should I be made unemployed. Hopefully I won't put that to the test.

On the other hand, if I'd went out and borrowed say 150k on IO mortgage, spent almost every penny (perhaps kept a couple of grand in the bank, less than 6k for benefits purposes) and found myself out of a job I'd be in clover should I find myself unemployed after the 3 month qualification period is implemented (april, I think though I bet they bring it forward). I'd be able to get loads of benefits and sit in a house with the taxpayer handling the mortgage for me.

WTF?_2

ad9898 wrote: »

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.

Yes, the bank loses income from the repayment part of the mortgage leaving them with a hole in their books whereas under normal circumstances they might find it more financially advantageous to them to repossess. The massive chunk of banking already under state control may well have little say in the matter by the time Gordon has had his day (what a great investment he has made with our tax money).

Now, the hit will ultimately get taken from the taxpayer as we are underwriting the bank. What should be a business is run almost as a charity.

Lovely, and we all get to pay for it as taxpayers.

Actually, I say taxpayers but that assumes the govt. successfully borrow the cash on the markets, which the taxpayer is then expected to repay. Chances are they won't even be able to do that and will end up printing the cash, inflating away the savings of anyone left holding cash at that point.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? 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.

Most men die of heart attacks because they don't exercise enough and are overweight. Are you suggesting we don't give them treatment? Many of them don't die straight away either - no, they hang around for years requiring expensive operations and drugs. This has been going on for decades and involves vast numbers of men. Should we stop treating them 'cos they were reckless and are now costing us a fortune?

WTF?_2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Most men die of heart attacks because they don't exercise enough and are overweight. Are you suggesting we don't give them treatment? Many of them don't die straight away either - no, they hang around for years requiring expensive operations and drugs. This has been going on for decades and involves vast numbers of men. Should we stop treating them 'cos they were reckless and are now costing us a fortune?

I can see a moral case for making people who are demonstrably contributing to their own ill health having to pay some sort of contribution, or prioritising treatment for those who are victims of circumstance over them.

It will become an issue when resources are tight, I'm pretty sure.

dopester

!!!!!!.. what do you think of this price, for this property, in that general area - which I presume you have some familiarity with?

£165,000
*** Vendor offer *** £5,000 lump sum towards your deposit ***

• Stamp Duty Free
• Three Double Bedrooms
• Four Floors
• Period Mid Terrace

• Two Receptions
• Landscaped Rear Garden
• Four Piece Large Bathroom
• Convenient Location

And two Cellar chambers.

CELLAR One: 4.54m (14'11") max x 1.15m (3'9")Useful storage area, space for freezer.
CELLAR Two: 3.86m (12'8") x 3.25m (10'8") maxRadiator, chimney breast, useful storage area.

I presume it is near Heaton Chapel train station as well - so convenient for Stockport and Manchester. I'm not in love with it... but so many 2 bed flat in the City, even Salford, are asking that or more.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-19710331.rsp?pa_n=false&tr_t=buy

Really2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I can see a moral case for making people who are demonstrably contributing to their own ill health having to pay some sort of contribution, or prioritising treatment for those who are victims of circumstance over them.

It will become an issue when resources are tight, I'm pretty sure.

I work in an office and I get a bad neck and back. I used to go the the gym a lot which nailed my back all things I will suffer for in later life !!!!!!.

How can you define who contributed to their own ill health.
Remember Roy Castle?

jamescredmond

Topov wrote: »

its great to see !!!!!!? revealing his true colours in this thread. he is a narrow minded, intollerant bigot who hates everyone who is not like him; white, healthy, male, working.

i am pretty sure he is on the BNP list somewhere. he has already declared that he dislikes black people, disabled people, the sick and the infirm, anyone who is unfortunate to have lost their jobs.

no wonder he hasnt got a partner. who would have him?

i cant believe that people have stood up for him in the past, simply because he shares their wish for a HPC. hopefully this thread and others will open their eyes. he is an intollerant bigot who wants a housing crash so that he can build a btl empire and lord it over his tenants as a slum landlord.

he should be thrown off the MSE boards, there is no room for this sort of scumbag in civilised society.

it's late.

I suggest you sleep it off.

jamescredmond

btw, forgot to add (assuming you're still viewing and haven't passed out yet):

I see you're a newbie who has yet to be acquainted with the site rules re abuse.

being in a 'tired and emotional' state is no defence.


trust me.

setmefree2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

No - as a saver I will be soaked to rescue the reckless..

As a borrower I am fed up that I got soaked with the cost from those reckless savers who invested in Icelandic banks
just so they could a couple of percent more interest. Everyone knew those darn banks where risky but they did it anyway.

(PS I'm not really - just making a point.)

I wonder who will cost us more the Reckless Savers or the Reckless Borrowers? I think it might well be those Reckless Savers!

WTF?_2

jamescredmond wrote: »

btw, forgot to add (assuming you're still viewing and haven't passed out yet):

I see you're a newbie who has yet to be acquainted with the site rules re abuse.

being in a 'tired and emotional' state is no defence.


trust me.

Actually, 'Topov' usually pops up to speak for Chucky.