Vote on 3x salary mortgage cap

Graham_Devon

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It speaks volumes to me that people have been brainwashed into thinking that central government legislation on the precise amount people can borrow is a good thing.

Can we have a centralised prices and incomes policy as well please - and while we are at it, how about re-introducing controls on how much spending money you can take out of the country when you go on holiday.

Please Nanny state, "can I have some more, I'm incapble of making a decision for myself".

Perhaps we get the Government we deserve.

It's a slippery slope when people really are so dim that they think state intervention in free markets is a good thing.

Right.

What is it with this attitude? I simply do not, and can not get it.

Why is it a case of saying "please nanny state can I have some more"?

You get the same as everyone else. If YOU want more, i..e because personally YOU want to have a bigger house, then save. No one is taking your choices away from you. Your choice to save a deposit, pay down your mortgage, so you have bigger choices next time, is just that, YOUR choice.

Your talking as if everyone will only be allowed a house valued at 3x their income. Which is total balls, and you know it.

Really2

By the rattling I here it is not going to happen.

They aren't even going to ban 100% mortgages.

FSA "Be Scared" = My @ss.:D

whathavewedone

AAGGGHHH

You cannot apply a one size fits all rule to everyone regardless of what their outgoings are, regardless of how much debt they have or don't have, regardless of how much deposit they have put down to protect the lender against risk and regardless of whether they earn 20k (will struggle to pay bills and live with 3 x salary cap) or 60k plus (will have far more disposable income).

The banks charge enough flipping fees. It surely can't be that difficult for them to look through bank statements, speak to employers etc etc etc so that they can judge each case on it's own merits.

The reason people are saying it's nannying is because it prevents people who are sensible and earning well from spending their money how they wish.

As for what you say about saving for a big deposit if you want a big house well when people have children they don't necessarily want to wait until they're ten before they've saved enough money to move to the right size house near the right school - not least because their children wouldn't be able to get into said school by then.

How absurd to tie everyone in to these multiples on the basis that those who have lots of spare money floating around should be forced to save that money rather than pay a mortgage with it.

Meanwhile Mr and Mrs Low Wage who are on the breadline and have just a few quid left over after their mortgage plus bills and only have a 5% deposit can get the mortgage they want no problem. The "rule" says they can.

Common sense is what's needed, not restrictions like this.

It makes me laugh that some of the people who are in favour of this consider themselves to be right wing.

Tell you what, why not ban mortgages altogether and while we're at it home ownership? Let the government compulsorily purchase every property and we'll all rent from them?

beecher

I find it odd that people think it is a sign of the nanny state. Ultimately it is banks being reminded that they should be aware of risk. Lending more than 3x salary is risky, and it is only because we've become brainwashed into thinking houses are a money making commodity that we fail to realise this.

I realise a lot of the anger is due to people realising that their property isn't worth what they believe it should be worth, but again that's brainwashing. My one bed flat was £140,000 at the peak but was never truly worth any more than £60,000. For many that'll be a mindbender, but that's where we're ending up.

Graham_Devon

whathavewedone wrote: »

AAGGGHHH

You cannot apply a one size fits all rule to everyone regardless of what their outgoings are, regardless of how much debt they have or don't have, regardless of how much deposit they have put down to protect the lender against risk and regardless of whether they earn 20k (will struggle to pay bills and live with 3 x salary cap) or 60k plus (will have far more disposable income).

And you wouldnt be!!

If it was 3x income, and they had 20k debt, that 20k debt would, as it always has been, be taken into consideration!!!

They wouldn't just lend 3x to anyone without looking into their credit records!

Pointless debate though isn't it. People are against it, so will use stupid analogies such as the above to prove their point. No one has ever said they would just give anyone and anyone 3x income regardless of their sitaution and it would be pathetic to suggest they would.

You talk about common sense....why that post then?!

stevetodd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And you wouldnt be!!

If it was 3x income, and they had 20k debt, that 20k debt would, as it always has been, be taken into consideration!!!

They wouldn't just lend 3x to anyone without looking into their credit records!

Pointless debate though isn't it. People are against it, so will use stupid analogies such as the above to prove their point. No one has ever said they would just give anyone and anyone 3x income regardless of their sitaution and it would be pathetic to suggest they would.

Exactly, so why a 3x salary cap, as you say look at individual cases and what they can afford

Graham_Devon

stevetodd wrote: »

Exactly, so why a 3x salary cap, as you say look at individual cases and what they can afford

Yawn.

What you have just said "exactly" to is a completely different way of looking at what they can afford. You know this. I know this.

I don't see why this discussion has had to boil down to this?

I'll leave you lot to it

stevetodd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yawn.

What you have just said "exactly" to is a completely different way of looking at what they can afford. You know this. I know this.

I don't see why this discussion has had to boil down to this?

I'll leave you lot to it

Sorry I misunderstood I thought that you were in favour of a 3x salary cap, my mistake

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yawn.

What you have just said "exactly" to is a completely different way of looking at what they can afford. You know this. I know this.

I don't see why this discussion has had to boil down to this?

I'll leave you lot to it

The whole point of this discussion is about the 3x salary regulation! Obvioulsy it is going to centre around that

Dan:_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And you wouldnt be!!

If it was 3x income, and they had 20k debt, that 20k debt would, as it always has been, be taken into consideration!!!

They wouldn't just lend 3x to anyone without looking into their credit records!

Pointless debate though isn't it. People are against it, so will use stupid analogies such as the above to prove their point. No one has ever said they would just give anyone and anyone 3x income regardless of their sitaution and it would be pathetic to suggest they would.

You talk about common sense....why that post then?!

So if someone has 20K debt, you are suggesting, maybe 2 x salary?

What about someone who has no debt, good steady job, execllent credit history, decent depoist and wants a nice long fixed term - why can't they have 4 x