Repo's to rise in 2011.

Batchy

treliac wrote: »

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.

Totally agree with you.

The government was talking about doing something about this in the future and its one of the reasons that I decided buying was good. As with an example they give, on retirement you providing the equivalent of £20k potentially out of your tax free allowance, this is insurance against old age care later in life, that will not be means tested.

I woud say to my kids, pay my 20k and when I pop my clogs there is no risk of you not getting the house.

Simples... Down payment on an inheritance lol

chucky

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.

if you think it's a good idea to celebrate repossession i think i'd celebrate you losing your job and for you to find it hard to find work again.

that's only because a job market should work correctly of course

Graham_Devon

Theres two things going on here.

Lots of people wish to make reposession as emotive a subject as they can. However, will cheer on rises in rents regardless as to the knock on effects.

Secondly, repo's have to rise, to get back to a more stable economy without props. The sooner we do this, the better. It's a bit like making 100 job losses uber emotive. However, without those 100 job losses, the other 1,900 workers will lose their jobs in 2 years when the company eventually folds.

With interest rates and stimulus where it is at the moment, repo's are just backing up, and it's pretty much inevitable. The sooner things get sorted, the lower the backlog, the lower the shockwave it will have on the rest of the market.

Repo's are a harsh reality, but you have to remember it's a harsh reality caused by speculation and rising costs, which is often celebrated by those who wish to make repo's uber emotive a subject, so it becomes a taboo you can't talk about as you will simply be pounced on as a nasty individual.

Really2

Sorry GD how can anyone losing their house not be emotive, it is the same for renters being kicked out of your home is most probably one of the most emotional family destabilizing things you could go through?.

Also I am not sure how you work out repos have to happen as it is nothing like jobs.

Banks would rarther get paid interest for 2 years and hopefully someone would find a job in that time than take a very big hit on what could be a tempory situation.

It is like saying renters should be made homeless if they can't pay their rent for the good of the country as they are a drain on resources.

I am sure if you asked banks now would they like to liquidate assets or in two years time not many would chose now judging on current transactions.

Percy1983

It is a shame that people will be kicked out of there homes, but as with everything if you can't afford it you don't get to keep it. I would like to think those who have lost jobs etc will get all the help they can but those who just didn't do the sums and can't afford it I have little sympathy for.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

It is a shame that people will be kicked out of there homes, but as with everything if you can't afford it you don't get to keep it. I would like to think those who have lost jobs etc will get all the help they can but those who just didn't do the sums and can't afford it I have little sympathy for.

percy, percy, percy... the hyperbole is predictable - think about the bigger picture....

why would a bank sell a property as a repo, losing a large % straight away instead of keep the person in the property until they sort their finances out.

it's lovely that you're advising a bank how to run it's mortgage business model btw but it comes across that's not the [STRIKE]bitterness[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]hope[/STRIKE] reasoning behind your post and many posts like yours on here...

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

dont be stupid old boy

Percy1983

So if I go and get a new car on finance I can't really afford, drive it for a few months and then figure I can't afford it they shouldn't take it back because its now worth less?

It is a simple idea if you can't afford payments on something you don't get to keep it, by all measn give them a chance and listen to reasons and help but there has to be a point.

The end of the day if I over stretched myself when I buy my first home I wouldn't expect to stay forever.

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

chucky wrote: »

percy, percy, percy... the hyperbole is predictable - think about the bigger picture....

why would a bank sell a property as a repo, losing a large % straight away instead of keep the person in the property until they sort their finances out.

it's lovely that you're advising a bank how to run it's mortgage business model btw but it comes across that's not the [STRIKE]bitterness[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]hope[/STRIKE] reasoning behind your post and many posts like yours on here...

for how long?

chucky

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP wrote: »

for how long?

not for ever Mr Wallop.

i'd say for as long as it takes you to buy your house. cool?