Repo's to rise in 2011.

Pimperne1

There should certainly be a few bargains out there for anyone with the nerve to go for it. If you buy one then it could certainly go down a bit in the next few years but in 25 years its bound to be worth, what, probably 3 or 4 times what you paid for it. Think of it, if you don't release equity then you will be rent free in 25 years time and will have enough equity to either pay for your time in a nice rest home (rather than a !!!!!! council one) or to give to your loved ones.

treliac

Pimperne1 wrote: »

...........then you will be rent free in 25 years time and will have enough equity to either pay for your time in a nice rest home (rather than a !!!!!! council one)

The council/ex council ones are usually the best. They're not in it with the sole purpose of relieving you of all your life's savings.

Pimperne1

treliac wrote: »

The council/ex council ones are usually the best. They're not in it with the sole purpose of relieving you of all your life's savings.

Better still then, you can live in a nice council rest home and give your money away to whomsoever you wish.

IveSeenTheLight

chucky wrote: »

you forgot this bit in your copy and paste from the article(as expected)

that's 4,000 extra homes being repossessed which equals a massive and huge 0.17% of properties... it must be the next leg down... pmsl...

these bad news threads are getting more and more desperate...

But that's up from their revised prediction and down from their original prediciton

IveSeenTheLight

doire wrote: »

Are you celebrating an increase prediction of reposessions?
Do you celebrate an increase in unemployment as well?

treliac

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Better still then, you can live in a nice council rest home and give your money away to whomsoever you wish.

Pity it doesn't work like that.... :rotfl:

Pimperne1

treliac wrote: »

Pity it doesn't work like that.... :rotfl:

Are you naturally contrary like? I posted something that you disagreed with, then I posted something I think your post implies you ought to agree with and you disagreed with it.

treliac

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Are you naturally contrary like? I posted something that you disagreed with, then I posted something I think your post implies you ought to agree with and you disagreed with it.

I'm not in the slightest contrary.

It looked like you think someone could live in a council run old people's home and keep their savings. Unfortunately, whichever type of care home you live in, you have to pay until there is very little of your savings/capital from sale of house left (unless you live in Scotland, that is). The council won't pay for you if you have or have, until recently, had money and they will look closely into your finances to check this.

Your care charges are just going to be more expensive in a privately run home.

abaxas

Of course we should celebrate repossession.

If someone cant afford something, why should they have the 'right' to use it?

Celebrate the market working correctly.

treliac

abaxas wrote: »

Of course we should celebrate repossession.

If someone cant afford something, why should they have the 'right' to use it?

Celebrate the market working correctly.

There are surely other considerations too. Such as whether the unaffordability is likely to be short or long term, how much disruption is going to be caused to the children of such a family and the very fact that, if they are repossessed, they are going to have to be accommodated somewhere else courtesy of the state anyway?

At least if they are kept in the house they were buying, payment of the mortgage interest is not reducing their mortgage, is similar to paying their rent and is saving many costs associated with repossession and rehousing.