Vote on 3x salary mortgage cap

VfM4meplse

Cat695 wrote: »

And we're paying for it now....everyone is paying for it....including those that don't even have a mortgage are paying (or will do when they hike the taxes) for the excessive lending/borrowing

Whilst I have every sympathy with those affected by the credit crunch I made no contribution to this and I don't wish to suffer for it either. I did not spent my twenties working 70+ hrs a week to be told now what I can and cannot afford based on the nations collective circumstances. I did it to secure a future so I could enjoy the life I aspired to, a sound strategy uptil now it seems. I'm better of blowing it all on booze and fags so the govt can pay for my care home costs because I have no assets.

Nanny state indeed.

stevetodd

Cat695 wrote: »

and if they actually did this I think there would be real riots on the streets

I've got my dustbin ready to hurl through my neighbours window, he thinks I am being unreasonable, could I ask you to explain to him why its logical that I should riot and throw a bin through his window. He doesn't seem to understand. Come to think of it I think I was getting carried away could you also explain it to me.

Cat695

stevetodd wrote: »

I've got my dustbin ready to hurl through my neighbours window, he thinks I am being unreasonable, could I ask you to explain to him why its logical that I should riot and through a bin through his window. He doesn't seem to understand. Come to think of it I think I was getting carried away could you also explain it to me.

NI had riots on the streets because known terriosts were arrested for the murder (though not found guilty) of soldiers...riots AGAINST the arrests

yep we have logic in this country

Ingsy

triggerrabbit wrote: »

Why on earth should people be allowed to borrow beyond their means then get into debt and have to be bailed out? People who have saved or have been sensible are the ones who are suffering as their interest rates fall. If you cant afford it then live without it

Who says that if you borrow more than 3x then it's beyond your means?

Honestly, who has decided this? If you don't smoke or maybe you have a company car that pays you petrol, or have no loans or debts, and you chose to allocate a larger amount of your take home salary to paying your mortgage then what's the problem?

Sensible people should be allowed to borrow sensible amounts, and I don't necessarily think that 3.5 or 4 or maybe even 4.5 x salary is not sensible, providing the borrower can show that they can pay it back. I.e. eveidence of bank statements & other outgoings etc at time of application.

To put a blanket statement out that anyone borrowing over 3x their salary is not sensible and will need to be bailed out is, quite frankly, a load of !!!!.

Gorgeous_George

It's not just about being able to pay it back. It's about being able to pay it back when things go wrong such as redundancy, illness, divorce etc.

GG

Graham_Devon

Most definately 3x income.

It will benefit so many in so many different ways in the long run, and will only annoy a few of those who feel they should be given more and don't want to save up a larger deposit.

Ingsy

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

It's not just about being able to pay it back. It's about being able to pay it back when things go wrong such as redundancy, illness, divorce etc.

GG

If you get made redundant you're not going to be able to pay it back no matter how little you have borrowed.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Most definately 3x income.

It will benefit so many in so many different ways in the long run, and will only annoy a few of those who feel they should be given more and don't want to save up a larger deposit.

How does 3x Income mean you have to save a larger deposit (minimum 5% is 5%).
Are you suggesting peoples deposits will drive up house prices.;)

nickmason

A season travelcard from where I am in Dorset to London - and lots of people do that commute - costs about £450pm. Not surprisingly, houses here cost a little less than they do in London.

There are many side effects of this idea - just one of them would be to further price out the local people as more London workers used their income more efficiently to buy bigger houses (keeping the cost of travel "hidden" or "off income sheet").

I take such an effect to be a bad thing - but in any event, I use it to illustrate how the law of unintended consequences will rear its ugly head.

This idea sucks in reality. It sounds good, but in practice it's absolutely riddled with flaws.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

How does 3x Income mean you have to save a larger deposit (minimum 5% is 5%).
Are you suggesting peoples deposits will drive up house prices.;)

Thats twitsted what I said so much, it doesnt even make sense.