Home repossession

ultrawomble

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Do you believe support for rent in the event of unemployment should be abolished too?

Most of these people now being supported in a time of hardship were hard working and deserving "taxpayers" for many years.... Not entirely unfair for them to now see a return on the taxes they have paid into the safety net.

Absolute supposition.

You seemingly forget that you're perfectly happy to laugh at the bears who've failed to get on the property ladder, yet you're all bleeding hearts for those actual failures who are on the property ladder (and about to fall off it).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ultrawomble wrote: »

Absolute supposition.

You seemingly forget that you're perfectly happy to laugh at the bears who've failed to get on the property ladder, yet you're all bleeding hearts for those actual failures who are on the property ladder (and about to fall off it).

So you think there should be no safety net at all.....

The taxes we pay for "national insurance" should mean homeowners get no help whilst renters do???

ukcarper

ultrawomble wrote: »

I didn't say it was. In Feb 2010, there were 227,000 mortgages being paid by the tax-payer - I wonder what number that is now?

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSP-05818.pdf

What were the numbers it in the other recessions?

The actually cost is probably less as the rate at which they pay it has been reduced.

ultrawomble

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So you think there should be no safety net at all.....

The taxes we pay for "national insurance" should mean homeowners get no help whilst renters do???

As I understand it, tax-paying renters get to use their savings up before they get help whereas homeowners get to keep the equity in their property and still get help.

ultrawomble

ukcarper wrote: »

What were the numbers it in the other recessions?

The actually cost is probably less as the rate at which they pay it has been reduced.

No idea on either of those.

shortchanged_2

sarah_id1 wrote: »

Hi Guys,


I am bit naive about property law and planning to buy one. Question going on in my mind was what happens if my lender repossess my home (in which I have 40% equity) and sells it at the original price I bough it for! Will it return my equity less any cost incurred to facilitate the sale!


Sarah

Good to see the OP has a lot of confidence in the house buying process.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ultrawomble wrote: »

As I understand it, tax-paying renters get to use their savings up before they get help whereas homeowners get to keep the equity in their property and still get help.

Both homeowners and renters need to use cash savings before becoming eligible.

Neither homeowners nor renters need to sell assets (of any type) before becoming eligible.

If you're concerned about holding cash, convert it to assets before claiming. Gold/Silver bars or a classic car/bike etc..... In short, do what the homeowner has done and convert cash to assets.

Then the playing field remains level.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ultrawomble wrote: »

You seemingly forget that you're perfectly happy to laugh at the bears who've failed to get on the property ladder, yet you're all bleeding hearts for those actual failures who are on the property ladder (and about to fall off it).

I laugh at the speculators and gamblers. Not those genuinely impacted by hardship, whether they own a house or not.

We have many posters here without a house for whom I feel the utmost sympathy.

But the STR crowd who speculated and lost, or the gamblers who p1ssed away their 20's and then woke up one day to find prices had risen and the now needed a crash to come along and save them from themselves, I have no sympathy for at all....

So yes.... If you're from a website like hpc that wishes fervently for the value of other peoples assets to crash, for repossessions, unemployment, bankruptcy and mass misery to take place, that labels all homeowners as "Sheeple", all landlords as "scum" and all old people as "greedy boomers"....

Then when your outlandish fantasies about house prices crashing by 70% don't come true, there will be a fair bit of laughter headed your way..... Much of it from me.

Giggles galore, in fact...... And guilty as charged.

tamrick

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So yes.... If you're from a website like hpc that wishes fervently for the value of other peoples assets to crash, for repossessions, unemployment, bankruptcy and mass misery to take place, that labels all homeowners as "Sheeple", all landlords as "scum" and all old people as "greedy boomers"....

I really don't understand this HPCers-glory-in-social-misery and HPIers-are-the-epitome-of-social-conscience thing, which I've seen you imply a couple of times.

To my mind, HPI is the reason for much of the misery around at the moment: people losing their homes, the dearth of any real industry in the UK, the devaluation of the £ and increase in cost of living, the indebtedness / loss of security for the young and the loss of savings / pensions for the old. Yes, I have a vested interest in prices coming down (STRer) but I realise that I'm basically OK financially, and I know that many, many people are not - largely as a result of HPI.

I really don't see any benefit to society of high house prices. And yes, a crash would devastate a minority (people who first bought after around 2000) - but I'd guess not as many as crazy house prices have devastated. And it would certainly improve life for the next generation(s).

We have a very sick economy which is causing misery to many and, as far as I can see, this is largely down to crazy house price inflation. It needs a significant correction if we're to have any hope of creating a future that involves genuine wealth creation (industry, agriculture, etc).

For the record, I don't take issue with your distaste for people revelling in bankruptcy / unemployment etc (I share it) - but I strongly take issue with the implication that you are any better than them when you revel in high house prices.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tamrick wrote: »

I really don't understand this HPCers-glory-in-social-misery and HPIers-are-the-epitome-of-social-conscience thing, which I've seen you imply a couple of times.

You can't have a crash without a recession, unemployment, repossessions, etc. So to wish for a crash is to wish for all the misery that comes with it. To claim anything else is disengenious.

Whereas those of us who wish for rising asset prices, realise full well that the best and most sustainable way for that to happen is to have social stability, a thriving economy, reducing unemployment, an increase in wealth, etc.

To my mind, HPI is the reason for much of the misery around at the moment: people losing their homes, the dearth of any real industry in the UK, the devaluation of the £ and increase in cost of living, the indebtedness / loss of security for the young and the loss of savings / pensions for the old.

And why don't you add in disease, obesity and the decline of moral values, seeing as how you're wiling to blame HPI for just about everything else!!!! :rotfl:

HPI had little or nothing to do with most of those things.

Asset prices can be neither good nor bad... They're merely the intersection of the supply curve with the demand curve.

If you want cheaper houses, build more of them. There is no other way over the long term.

And the average percentage of after tax income spent by FTB's on mortgage payments is now just 29%, below the long term average of 37% and WAY below the peak in 1990 of 68%....

Yet I don't recall a load of doomers running around in 1990 blaming HPI for the end of the world as we know it....

Yes, I have a vested interest in prices coming down (STRer)

Quite amazing how that always seems to come up eventually....

but I realise that I'm basically OK financially, and I know that many, many people are not - largely as a result of HPI.

Absolute nonsense.....

Even with the HPI of recent years, the percentage of owner occupation reached record levels.

Yet arrears and repossessions, even with the biggest recession in a century, are far lower than in previous times.

I really don't see any benefit to society of high house prices.

Really? You don't see an increase in asset values as positive? Does that apply to other investment assets as well, or are you making an exception for houses.....

And yes, a crash would devastate a minority (people who first bought after around 2000) - but I'd guess not as many as crazy house prices have devastated. And it would certainly improve life for the next generation(s).

A crash would devastate the wider economy... Everyone would feel it, not just homeowners. Have you learned nothing from the last 3 years?

As for crazy house prices and future generations, can you explain the difference between house prices today and house prices in 1952 in terms of price to average income?

Clue: The difference is less than 10%.....;)

We have a very sick economy which is causing misery to many and, as far as I can see, this is largely down to crazy house price inflation. It needs a significant correction if we're to have any hope of creating a future that involves genuine wealth creation (industry, agriculture, etc).

High house prices have absolutely nothing to do with a sick economy.

In fact, the crash has worsened the state of the economy by a significant margin.

The only thing we need to do to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing is to ensure a continued weak pound, and then let exports strengthen over a decade or so.

For the record, I don't take issue with your distaste for people revelling in bankruptcy / unemployment etc (I share it) - but I strongly take issue with the implication that you are any better than them when you revel in high house prices.

Then we agree on one thing, and not on the other.