MSE News: Government house buying scheme launched

RenovationMan

brit1234 wrote: »

Cutting out goings, do a little over time, missing the odd holiday and saving a deposit. That's what I did and that is what generations of people have done before me.

Deposits are so high as the banks believe these over priced houses are going to fall in value. It's there hedge, that why lower deposits have higher costs due to the increased risk.

So that's it? That's your answer? Miss the odd holiday and cutting outgoings to build up a £20k deposit? (i.e. 20% deposit on a £100k house).

Do you not think that young families are doing this already to just make ends meet? Even if they could save enough out of their income to put away £200 per month, it'd take 8 years to save up a £20k deposit. The kids would be well itno their GCSEs by then. Meanwhile they could have been moved 'pillar to post' from various rental properties, impacting their studies.

Do you have kids? I have never heard you mention them before.

horngkai

On the other hand, you should not have kids in the first place if you can't afford to have them.

ILW

RenovationMan wrote: »

So that's it? That's your answer? Miss the odd holiday and cutting outgoings to build up a £20k deposit? (i.e. 20% deposit on a £100k house).

Do you not think that young families are doing this already to just make ends meet? Even if they could save enough out of their income to put away £200 per month, it'd take 8 years to save up a £20k deposit. The kids would be well itno their GCSEs by then. Meanwhile they could have been moved 'pillar to post' from various rental properties, impacting their studies.

Do you have kids? I have never heard you mention them before.

Maybe that is where we are a little skewed.

In the past, many had the idea of buy the house then have the family. Having two or three kids and then moaning that you cannot save for a deposit seems a bit illogical to me.

Two working adults without children should be able to save £500 plus per month. If they cannot do that they should not be considering starting a family yet.

brit1234

RenovationMan wrote: »

So that's it? That's your answer? Miss the odd holiday and cutting outgoings to build up a £20k deposit? (i.e. 20% deposit on a £100k house).

The answer is allow a free market and stop interfering to keep it artificially inflated. All these schemes and loose lending have only led to higher prices and first time buyers taking on huge amounts of debt in new and different ways every year.

Lower prices will benefit all and allow young couple to have children and buy a bigger house when it comes to it. What happens when the current student population come out with £60k of debt instead of about £30k at the moment, how will they buy? This whole debt culture is out of control.

vzbfhr wrote: »

Surely its better to have this option then without?

Not when it penalises the buyer so badly and leaves them out to dry a few years down the road. Are you happy to go into negative equity and overpay for a property?

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

So that's it? That's your answer? Miss the odd holiday and cutting outgoings to build up a £20k deposit? (i.e. 20% deposit on a £100k house).

Do you not think that young families are doing this already to just make ends meet? Even if they could save enough out of their income to put away £200 per month, it'd take 8 years to save up a £20k deposit. The kids would be well itno their GCSEs by then. Meanwhile they could have been moved 'pillar to post' from various rental properties, impacting their studies.

Do you have kids? I have never heard you mention them before.

So what do you think is actually the cause of the current situation RenoMan?

harz99

daska wrote: »

If it were truly for the benefit of first time buyers it wouldn't be limited to newbuilds.

Exactly; it would be far more sensible to extend the FTB stamp duty exemption for a longer period and lean on the banks to ease their lending criteria slightly.

All this scheme does is help the new home builders, some of whom doubtless contribute to the Tory party funds!

The_J

Since renting is probably more expensive than owning at the moment I don't really understand the hate.

I really despise the people who view houses as investments only, obsessed with house prices, what's wrong with you? For most people a house is a home and the value is irrelevant.

neas

Brit your not bothered like some champion of youngsters. your driven solely by greed and your own vested interest.

Just as the bulls are happy when this happens... Everyone is innit for themselves.

You want lower house prices so you can somehow eventually buy your first home.... Probably you could've bought for a couple years now but are getting frustrated at how to prove your point you are going to have to wait 10 years in total (you been waiting since 2007 right?)... 5 years to go...

neas

The ironic thing is brit, the average joe will take advantage of this scheme... will saddle themselves with debt for x amount of years and yes... this will help prop up the property market for yet another 2-3 years. Long wait innit gov?

Im coming up to owning my house for 2 years now.... Houses around my area selling for same amount still and I got a nice low interest mortgage.

If people knew what they knew now.. buying 2 years ago with a tracker mortgage would've been a dream.. as you'd effectively be paying pittance in interest (far less than rent) and paying down any 'falls' we have or going to have...

Face it you made the wrong choice.

RandomGuy

RenovationMan wrote: »

So that's it? That's your answer? Miss the odd holiday and cutting outgoings to build up a £20k deposit? (i.e. 20% deposit on a £100k house).

You can buy a house for £100k ?? :eek: This isn't pre-fraudulent-credit-bubble 2001 you know.

The best option is for the government to stand back and let the housing market find its own solution to this problem. 2008-09 gave a glimpse into what that looks like.

Young people / FTBs wouldn't have any problems if the government stopped bailing out the over-indebted.