Nationwide: No More Rate Cuts

Kez100

There are stupid people but there are a hell of alot of ordinary folks who don't ever want to rely on Government help. As far as I am concerned welfare is there for those who circumstances are such they need it and to ensure no one lives in poverty (yes, I know people fudge the system but that's the price we pay if our fraud officers can't catch them).

I want to get my mortgage in such a position I do not have to pay it for three years if I don't want too (another advantage of my product - why I have been bigging it up all these years!).

I also have shares - they car carp value at the moment but they are yielding 11%. I am fully expecting a cut in the final dividend but they have gone ex div at 5% for 6 months (on my original investment cost) so if the final dividend is cut I will still get in excess of my mortgage rate which has been 2.69 to 5.69 annual rate in the last six months. That's not investment advice - just me trying to keep myself sane after a 50% fall in share value!

Gorgeous_George

leveller2911 wrote: »

"forget savers for a moment" (thats been the problem)

"without taxpayers cash thered be no savings left" (we do pay tax)

"It is after all savers who were bailed out" (nationwide saver,so how?)

Oh pardon me for saving money,dirty,filthy,underclass arent we?, I save with the nationwide,why should I as a saver bail out greedy,!!!!wits who overextended themselves because they wanted bigger,better houses,cars,boats ,2nd home etc......

When I saved my money I hoped Id get some reward (decent rate) for being honest..

Am I no better than someone who has a 125% mortgage, self cert, interest only, who has £50k of un secured debt.....To say that borrowers would still owe the money is fina all the time they can pay it back.....

I feel dirty now, get the impression us savers are 1 up from MP,s and estate agents, im off for a bath, but I guess theres some things you just can clean off.......

You miss my point.

If the banks had been allowed to go under:
1. borrowers would still owe every penny that they borrowed. Therfore, borrowers were not bailed out by the taxpayer.
2. savers would have lost all (or most) of their money as the bank collapsed. Therefore, it was savers who were bailed out by the taxpayer (and quite rightly so IMO).

I'm a saver too although, overall, I'm a net borrower as I have two modest mortgages on two modest properties (50% fals would see me with 40% LTV).

GG

Gorgeous_George

BTLNEWbie wrote: »

Wish i had done so over Christmas, would not have put another inch on around my waist.

You've got a waist!

Well done.

GG

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

The greedy and reckless are not really just people who stretched to buy houses. They are the BTL brigade who thought they would get rich quick etc etc.... You should stop taking my posts so personally. You being one of the greedy would depend on your circumstances. I don't know them but you seem intelligent enough for that not to be the case.

Not all BTLers were/are expecting to 'get rich quick'. Many are/were simply looking for an alternative to fund their retirement due to having their pension funds raped through taxation, unscrupulous employers or over ambitious fund projections. People don't trust Pensions as much as they did in the past.

stevetodd

uzubairu wrote: »

All the more reason to make hay while the sun shines and overpay and get rid of it in less time..

I expect to be mortgage free in 7.5 years time.

I am mortgage free now (in the house that I live in) it's not worth being mortgage free when you can claim the interest payments as a expense against tax

stevetodd

MrDT wrote: »

Maybe because it's not outside the realm of possibility for that 0.38% above base rate to equate to an effective 12.38% interest rate sometime in the next few years?

fixed rates would still not be a viable alternative to a product that only has an increment of 0.38% over the Boe base rate, you cannot get away from the fact that 0.38% over base is a very small increment, If rates are high then the fixed rate alternatives will also be high.

Gorgeous_George

stevetodd wrote: »

I am mortgage free now (in the house that I live in) it's not worth being mortgage free when you can claim the interest payments as a expense against tax

You can't claim interest payments as an expense against tax (for the house that you live in).

You can for a BTL (or any other business) but it ain't worth a lot. 20% of 2.89% of my BTL mortgage is hardly worth the hassle of completing a self-assessment tax return - but I do of course.

GG

stevetodd

clobber wrote: »

Err perhaps because in order to pay for all the bank bailouts, interest rates are going to hit the roof?

So? fixed rates will still not be a cheaper alternative in the long run (ie for the full duration of the mortgage)!

stevetodd

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

You can't claim interest payments as an expense against tax (for the house that you live in).

You can for a BTL (or any other business) but it ain't worth a lot. 20% of 2.89% of my BTL mortgage is hardly worth the hassle of completing a self-assessment tax return - but I do of course.

GG

I think that you have misundertsood my post George.

I am saying I am mortgage free in the house I live in but not in my 5.5 investment properties. I am saying that it is not IMO worth being mortgage free in my investment properties as I do claim the interest payments as an expense.

As a matter of interest (before someone else says it) I'm sure that you know that you can in fact claim interest payments for a mortgage on the house that you live in. I could for example remortgage the house I live in to buy an investment property, in which case because the loan had been taken out to fund the investment I could claim the interest as an expense

stevetodd

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

Not all BTLers were/are expecting to 'get rich quick'. Many are/were simply looking for an alternative to fund their retirement due to having their pension funds raped through taxation, unscrupulous employers or over ambitious fund projections. People don't trust Pensions as much as they did in the past.

Exactly, when I bought my investment properties back in the 90's I was 100% focused on eventually becoming financially independant through investment income. I never did invest in pensions as I thought they (for me) were a terrible (comparatively speaking) investment