Parents want a house price FALL to help their children get on the property ladder

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Sums up my position.

I'm a parent and don't want property prices to fall.
I'm preparing for my childrens future so they can deal with it and am also ensuring they are adequately supported if need be.

Falling prices would mean that my childrens future is less secure

Serious question, wouldn't you prefer it if your children could just deal with it themselves, i.e. go to work, struggle for a bit, and then see the fruits of their labour, rather than merely giving them a leg up?

I can understand how you may have some control in their lives by doing what you are doing, for instance, they wouldn't be allowed to buy any old hovel maybe, but seriously, you'd prefer them to be reliant on you?

I know I wouldn't. I can still help my son even if he does go to work and earn his own way. At least he will have done things for himself rather than relying on daddy to push him above his peers.

I can't see many saying they would like to go in NE now so on the of chance their 3 year old will buy a house at 18 in 15 years time.

Hello. I don't mind NE now if it helps not just my son, but everyone, and a healthy economy, and a nice environment to live in. I dread to think how the country would end up, and how secular society would be when the only people who prosper are those with mummy and daddy handing them cash.

ILW

satchmeister wrote: »

ILW wrote: »

This is excatly what is happpening now.

People borrowed multiple x salaries with 125% mortgages, lost their job and the tax payer is paying their mortgages, 300,000 families according to Gordon Brown were saved from losing their homes.

Yes a proposal such as this is a joke, sadly it has actually happened.

Despite all his talk of fairness etc, old GB never understood the meaning of moral hazard.

silvercar

satchmeister wrote: »

No they are paying a flat rate of 6.08% (soon to be reduced) if someone has 200k equity in a house and no cash they get the money. someone who has 200k cash and no equity in a house gets nothing.

umm no.

if someone has 200k equity in a house and no cash they get the money.They get the interest on their mortgage paid to the lender. They don't get any money themselves directly.

someone who has 200k cash and no equity in a house gets nothing.If you have 200k in the bank you don't need benefits.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Serious question, wouldn't you prefer it if your children could just deal with it themselves, i.e. go to work, struggle for a bit, and then see the fruits of their labour, rather than merely giving them a leg up?

I am quietly confident that they will be able to Graham.
Nothing wrong with me preparing for if they can't though.

In an ideal world, my intention is that they will be able to fend for themselves and I would then like to be able to give them the help after they are married and have children of their own..

My wife and I were married for 8 years before we had children, preparing for our and their future before we started.

If my children follow a similar ethic, I'm sure they will be fine and I'll be then able to give them financial assistance, once they have shown they don;t need it (wouldn't you like to have your mortgage reduced by a significant percentage when you had your children?) This is what I would like to do for my children.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can understand how you may have some control in their lives by doing what you are doing, for instance, they wouldn't be allowed to buy any old hovel maybe, but seriously, you'd prefer them to be reliant on you?

No, I dont want them to be reliant on me.
I'll be installing an ethic that means they need to go out and achieve what they want. Not expect it to be handed to them and not moan if they can't afford something.

There's nothing wrong with providing for your family either.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I know I wouldn't. I can still help my son even if he does go to work and earn his own way. At least he will have done things for himself rather than relying on daddy to push him above his peers.

This is all I am planning to do. What's your beef with my plan?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hello. I don't mind NE now if it helps not just my son, but everyone, and a healthy economy, and a nice environment to live in. I dread to think how the country would end up, and how secular society would be when the only people who prosper are those with mummy and daddy handing them cash.

Then the answer has been provided many times Graham.
Go and campaign for the additional properties required to drive down prices and rental.

Merely wishing and hoping for something to happen doesn;t mean that it is likely

satchmeister

silvercar wrote: »

umm no.

if someone has 200k equity in a house and no cash they get the money.They get the interest on their mortgage paid to the lender. They don't get any money themselves directly.

someone who has 200k cash and no equity in a house gets nothing.If you have 200k in the bank you don't need benefits.

The people have the same net wealth.... one gets money (paid to the bank) one gets nothing. If you are about to lose your job spend the 200k cash on a property, get a mortgage and then you can claim benefits.

CLAPTON

two people
mr flash and mr sensible
both have similar incomes and their family situations are similar
both decide to buy a property

my flash mortages himself to the hilt and buys a nice detached house
my sensible is worried about the financial risk, unemployment etc and so borrows cautiously and only can afford a terrace


sadly a few years later both suffer employment problems

mr flash get his interest paid for by the taxpayer (it's cheaper paying the mortgage than kicking the family out) and so continues to enjoy his detached house
mr sensible can just about afford his smaller mortgage so he little or no support from the tax payer

what lessons can be learned by people considering buying a property?

Graham_Devon

silvercar wrote: »

They are paying the interest only and if they were repossessed and renting the government would be paying their rent.

This is simply not true.

Someones current mortgage payments could be £1000+ a month. This is hardly unusual in todays climate.

They may not be able to afford £1000 a month.

They may be able to afford to rent a place at £600 a month.

They also may have had equity in their home before it was reposessed. Especially considering the age demographics of SMI recipients.

Therefore, it is not a simple case of ending SMI and the government having to therefore pay everyones rent instead, and I do wish this would stop being spouted!!!

Secondly, a flat rate is paid. Yes, it is for the interest, but many many people are getting the repayment part paid too, and this has been pointed out to you several times.

silvercar

Its a blunt instrument to help people at time of need, exactly what benefits are meant to do. Its not fair in that it isn't individually calculated to everyone's personal mortgage deal, but its done to stop people ending on the street.

silvercar

satchmeister wrote: »

The people have the same net wealth.... one gets money (paid to the bank) one gets nothing. If you are about to lose your job spend the 200k cash on a property, get a mortgage and then you can claim benefits.

One has to survive on benefits and one doesn't.

(You can't actually get a mortgage without declaring that yo know you are about to lose your job, so its fictitous.)

satchmeister

silvercar wrote: »

One has to survive on benefits and one doesn't.

(You can't actually get a mortgage without declaring that yo know you are about to lose your job, so its fictitous.)

Really you actually believe that. There are thousands in the public sector today who could get a mortgage as they are not going to lose their jobs - well not OFFICALLY yet, but many will know they are actually in line.

Still don't understand why one has to survive on benefits and one doesn't? please explain.