Interest rates to hit 1.25% by year end

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

Get a grip.

No-one is going to suffer "unemployment, hardship, homelessness and starvation" because they can't afford to buy a house.

Maybe a slight contradiction...

Anyway, should peoples mortgages returning back to rates they where a few years ago really cause a problem?

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

Maybe a slight contradiction...

So if you can't afford to buy a house you're automatically homeless? If there were only some other way people could house themselves.....

Anyway, should peoples mortgages returning back to rates they where a few years ago really cause a problem?

I expect not.

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

So if you can't afford to buy a house you're automatically homeless? If there were only some other way people could house themselves.....

Is there any way which doesn't involve paying the mortgage of a money grabbing BTL landlord?

Personally I have vowed to never pay a BTL landlords mortgage, to which I rather would be homeless than feed the monster.

Graham_Devon

LOL at all this.

Firstly, a rate rise, even to say 1.5%, won't, or at least shouldn't, make any difference to most mortgage holders. Most mortgage holders currently on SVR have found a collar applied anyway. Could take base rates hitting 2.5% for any rise in mortgages, as rates should have to rise back above the collar before a change in the monthly mortgage payment happens. I say should, because I can't see how mortgage companies could ignore the collar on the way up, but use it on the way down.

Fixed rate mortgage holders will be on their fixed rate.

Only tracker mortgages will be effected.

Yet the whole thread is still overtaken with "you want people chucked out of their houses, you nasty nasty person". Now, if people get chucked out of their houses because of a 1% rise on a BOE tracker, then that person has some serious debt problems. I'm not suggesting this will happen, so why do we have to continually suggest that anyone pro rate rises wants families chucked out on the streets, or just suffering per se?

Going forward, the biggest problem with rising rates and mortgages, is all those who will not be able to remortgage, who assumed they always would be able to.

CloudCuckooLand

Percy1983 wrote: »

ps, has anybody else been clicking the spam buttons on the ghouls?

the report button works better than the spam button...

Vincenzo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL at all this.

Firstly, a rate rise, even to say 1.5%, won't, or at least shouldn't, make any difference to most mortgage holders. Most mortgage holders currently on SVR have found a collar applied anyway. Could take base rates hitting 2.5% for any rise in mortgages, as rates should have to rise back above the collar before a change in the monthly mortgage payment happens. I say should, because I can't see how mortgage companies could ignore the collar on the way up, but use it on the way down.

I am not aware of a collar on SVRs? These are usually arbitrarily set by the lender. Some have a promise of a maximum % above base, if that is what you refer to?

EG C&G's is 2% above base so their SVR is currently 2.5%. If the base rate rises by 1.5%, so will their SVR.

Many people are sitting on SVRs for varying reasons.

pwllbwdr

A lot of it depends on whether someone is on repayment or interest only. For me, the interest is about a quarter of my overall payment each month, so a bit of a rise in interest rates won't make a large percentage difference in my monthly payment.

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

Is there any way which doesn't involve paying the mortgage of a money grabbing BTL landlord?

Personally I have vowed to never pay a BTL landlords mortgage, to which I rather would be homeless than feed the monster.

OK so what's your alternative? Everyone buys?

Even 70% owner occupancy as it is now is historically very high. The historical norm is to have very low levels of owner occupancy with most properties having private landlords.

B_Blank

FTBFun wrote: »

OK so what's your alternative? Everyone buys?

Even 70% owner occupancy as it is now is historically very high. The historical norm is to have very low levels of owner occupancy with most properties having private landlords.

Yes it is historically very high because it has been a long struggle in this country to take power, property and wealth away from the landed class.

So the "norm" is basically the aftermath of a dictatorship (the monarchy). This only really started to lose its power after world war 1, when the monarchy no longer held much real power.

Property was a racket, and the wealthy landed classes simply exploited normal people by charging them extreme rents. We need to do everything we can to ensure that buy-to-let people (with 100's of houses) dont reestablish a monopoly on property (which they already do in London), and artificially drive up property prices and rents.

They basically all agree to charge high rates and we have no alternative but to pay it, we have to live somewhere right?

Buy to let people are the lowest of the low as far as I am concerned. And by that I mean people with 5+ properties and not people who inherited a house.

Batchy

lvader wrote: »

All things being equal (which I know they never are) this years VAT increase keeps inflation level with last year. It doesn't increase inflation.

Another option to a rate rise is to unwind QE.

I understand what your saying, however, if there was NO VAT RISE this year, Inflation probably would be about 2.5% and no one would be flapping at all.

If you then took out the two lots of Fuel Duty, then Inflation could be lower than 2%...

What merv is trying to say is in 2012 when there is NO VAT RISE, and NO FUEL DUTY RISES inflation will probably be around 2%, ie its Target or below it.

If during this time CPIY jumps higher then I imagine that he and others will raise rates. however, its unlikely. Demand is not hotting up, its simmering and slowing down... raising rates now would be the wrong thing to do... irrespective of current inflation. It would have a very detrimental effect on the economy. And wouldn't help any situation at all... it would only change inflationary concerns to deflationary ones, and let just NOT go down that path!