£30,000 bribe to leave your council house

whathavewedone

Well hang on a minute. Are you really saying that people should only take on a mortgage that they could afford on the basis that they were out of work indefinitely/with one person looking after the children and the other on a minimum wage job? So someone who has borrowed 2.5 or 3 x their income is irresponsible?

If that were the case most people would be renting forever and not everyone wants to do that. When you have children it's not ideal to have to keep on moving them every 6 months potentially, either travelling miles to their school or continually moving their schools and preventing them from forming long term friendships with neighbours children etc.

I think Graham's idea is a lot better than mine actually. It wouldn't cost any money, it wouldn't involve council's or housing associations purchasing respossessed houses. I don't see what the problem is except that it wouldn't satisfy some people's schadenfraude.

WTF?_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Interesting.

You want people to rent AND save AND live?

Yes. It's not impossible. Mind you it requires a bit of financial discipline and sense plus can require sacrifices in some cases. So not really for the 'have it all now' crowd.

That would of course be fine, in the perfect world. But we haven't been living in that perfect world and some first time buyers have been saving for 10 years or more, every year, their savings becoming worth less and less in terms of a deposit against rising house prices while paying rent to a landlord.

Actually, for the last year those savings have been becoming worth more and more when compared to the price of a house. So anyone who has been saving is now in a very good position which is getting better.

Unless of course their wealth/savings are now going to be taxed/inflated to high heaven in order to bail out those who bid up the market through irresponsible borrowing. The money to support this idiotic scheme is going to have to come from somewhere and it's the positive cashflow/savings crowd who will be tapped.

No one is letting the taxpayer bail them out when they can't make the repayments as there is no scheme to my knowledge at the moment. I think theres some noise about extending the period they don't make repayments, but no hand outs from the taxpayer at present to homeowners faced with losing their home.

The scheme I was referring to (alluded to by whathavewedone) entails councils buying out private housing and renting it back so that the owners get to stay in their own houses.

This most certainly is already in operation but not currently funded to a high level. Brown referred to it a couple of months back and I expect it to be expanded as the General Election gets closer and the need to buy votes gets greater.

WTF?_2

whathavewedone wrote: »

Well hang on a minute. Are you really saying that people should only take on a mortgage that they could afford on the basis that they were out of work indefinitely/with one person looking after the children and the other on a minimum wage job? So someone who has borrowed 2.5 or 3 x their income is irresponsible?

If that were the case most people would be renting forever and not everyone wants to do that. When you have children it's not ideal to have to keep on moving them every 6 months potentially, either travelling miles to their school or continually moving their schools and preventing them from forming long term friendships with neighbours children etc.

I think Graham's idea is a lot better than mine actually. It wouldn't cost any money, it wouldn't involve council's or housing associations purchasing respossessed houses. I don't see what the problem is except that it wouldn't satisfy some people's schadenfraude.

If you take on a mortgage at traditional lending multiples then you should be able to save enough to get you through rough patches - that's the whole reason for traditional lending multiples.

OTOH if you take on a huge loan at a high multiple then you are going to be seriously screwed in the event of an income loss. In which case you have no right to expect to taxpayer to cough up to let you keep living in the house you bought at a price you couldn't really afford.

bo_drinker

Then the values go sky high and up and up and up and they are tempted to mew again and again, no discipline. Loveley holidays and a posh 4 x 4 on the drive. Didn't they do well. Then crash bang wollop the !!!!!! hits the fan and here we are. The real world. Get back down to earth people..... Oh and that 4 x 4 will have to go. Pontins this year for the hols if they can afford it... If the plastic will allow it. Oh no, never mind maybe next year. :rotfl: :rotfl:

whathavewedone

Oh !!!!!! not everyone has mewed at all never mind for posh holidays and expensive cars. I don't know anyone who has done that. How many people do you actually know who have done that?

The only mewers that I know did so to build extensions etc ie taking money out of their home to put back in their home to make their home a better place to live in. Is that really such a sin?

Believe it or not quite a lot of people have only borrowed what they can afford to borrow and bought a house to live in as a home.

It isn't that easy to save money for lean periods when you have your own home. No landlord to fix the boiler, the roof etc. Sometimes these are things your savings have to go on.

Guess you'll find that out when/if you eventually get your own place eh.

vivatifosi

I do wonder if we'll see a new phenomenon, bo. One where those who would previously have been serial mewers, now just pay interest only at ridiculously low rates and continue to maintain the same standard of living without thinking 'rates are low, maybe we should overpay/pay down some capital'. I ask this because I'm concerned that just as the economy does turn the corner, get back on its feet and rates go up again, that there could be another whammy just waiting to happen and more !!!!!! to pick up. When I was buying a bigger house, our mortgage advisor (!?) said that we could borrow much more and get a detached house if we went interest only. Thank goodness we didn't listen!

Graham_Devon

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Yes. It's not impossible. Mind you it requires a bit of financial discipline and sense plus can require sacrifices in some cases. So not really for the 'have it all now' crowd.

Personally I feel thats a somewhat holier than thou view on the world. It's nothing to do with the have it all now crowd, though there is that section of society. It's do do with how we run in the UK, how things are geared towards buying. Why spend £60,000 on a £500 per month rental over 10 years, when that £60,000 could go into buying your own place which you have something at the end of?

And £500 is pretty cheap. A 3 bed rental round here is around 700-800 a month. Thats a mortgage.

Actually, for the last year those savings have been becoming worth more and more when compared to the price of a house. So anyone who has been saving is now in a very good position which is getting better.

Codswallop. They are worse off now than they ever have been. Their 10% deposit they have been striving to save is now absolutely nothing compared to the 25% they now need to get a mortgage. House prices may have come down on average, but the deposit you need has more than doubled on average.

People are going round stating mortgages are cheaper than ever, 3% fixed rates, yadda yadda and omitting the fact that you need a 50% deposit to get it.

leveller2911

mower5 wrote: »

Article from the times about mortgage shock, in the summer for peeps who took out 2 year trackers in '07

Quote: For example, in June 2007 Halifax offered a two-year tracker at 0.51 points below Bank rate — currently £81 a month on a £200,000 interest-only mortgage. Halifax’s standard variable rate (SVR) is 4%, so when the deal expires repayments will rise to £666 — an extra £7,020 a year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article5682104.ece

Lets be honest about this, anyone who took out a 2yr fixed rate tracker in 2007 was gambling.......ANYONE who takes on any form on mortgage that ISN'T a straight forward repayment mortgage is gambling..Some people will lose and some will gain, its no diffrent than price fixing your gas or electric supply , its a gamble.People should just "cut there cloth" and when they come up for re-newal again they may be luckier, or just do the "old fashioned repayment mortgage".

[Deleted User]

Its topsy turvey these days. In my day the general order of doing things was
get engaged
save for a deposit
buy house max 2 1/2 times the main salary
get married
then think about having children, so that they were born into stability

some people won`t like this but that is the way it was, straightforward and by the way no-one was too proud to have second hand furniture and furnishings

itsallagame_2

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes, that is why they do it when they become unemployed, i.e. they pay their mortgage I don't think to many will be struggling with interest rates at 1% unless they lose their job.

Ah, but that’s perhaps part of the Gov plan, a lot of peeps are going to lose their jobs and with interest rates so low the tab won’t be so big.