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

DervProf

des_cartes wrote: »

Lower house prices = lower risk for lenders = more mortgages. The reason mortgages are difficult to get is because lenders want large deposits. Why do lenders want large deposits. Because they know house prices must fall. Once house prices have corrected (fallen) this risk diminishes.

:T

Absolutely spot on. Of course, this logic will be rejected by the bulls, as it doesn`t suit their wants/needs/predictions.

DervProf

Sibley wrote: »

Same here. The more prices rise the happier I feel. I don't want prices to drop 1 pence. Our houses are our future.

Basket, one, eggs, in.

Our houses keep us sheltered. Our jobs pay for our houses.

Our jobs are our future.

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

Depends how much help they need and how much prices fall.

Well, logically, the further they fall, the less help the children will need.

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

Well, logically, the further they fall, the less help the children will need.

What do you think is the main thing stopping people who want to buy from buying?

Is it the deposit required or the salary to price ratio.

satchmeister

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you think is the main thing stopping people who want to buy from buying?

Is it the deposit required or the salary to price ratio.

Not being able to borrow enough money. The banks need to lend much more money to allow people to buy property. If they can't afford the payments in the future then the taxpayer should pay to prevent these people losing their homes.

ILW

satchmeister wrote: »

Not being able to borrow enough money. The banks need to lend much more money to allow people to buy property. If they can't afford the payments in the future then the taxpayer should pay to prevent these people losing their homes.[/QUOTE]

I assume you are joking.

satchmeister

ILW wrote: »

satchmeister wrote: »

Not being able to borrow enough money. The banks need to lend much more money to allow people to buy property. If they can't afford the payments in the future then the taxpayer should pay to prevent these people losing their homes.[/QUOTE]

I assume you are joking.

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.

silvercar

satchmeister 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.

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

ukcarper

satchmeister wrote: »

Not being able to borrow enough money. The banks need to lend much more money to allow people to buy property. If they can't afford the payments in the future then the taxpayer should pay to prevent these people losing their homes.

In my example the repayments would be about £1000 per month their take home pay would be about £2600 I would think they could afford it.

If they did lose job the interest is bout £650 per month if they were slung out and put in rented accomdation the rents on 2 beds are £750 so it wouuld cost take payer more

satchmeister

silvercar wrote: »

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

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.