IMF urges debt forgiveness for indebted mortgagees

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of a person with a paid off mortgage, pension provision, grown up kids and maybe a bit of a rainy day fund.

You'd like to see them, basically bail out others who, in many cases, have simply overextended themselves?

Are we not all responsible for our own actions? Do we not get told when signing on the dotted line that we will lose the house if we do not keep up the repayments? Do we not all take the same gamble when buying our house that we could, at any unknown point, lose our jobs for a variety of reasons?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You'd like to see them, basically bail out others who, in many cases, have simply overextended themselves?

No. I've already said I don't think the evidence is supportive of the proposal.

We keep hearing about the current generation of youngsters who will be the first for centuries (?) not to enjoy an improvement on the standards of living of their parents.

Wealth does exist. It would be interesting to see if there are any methods to try and help them out and whether it would be a boost to the economy at the same time.

As people live older wealth is not being passed down in uniform periods. Instead of deceased to children we're seeing deceased to grandchildren and beyond. Encouraging people to give whilst they are alive means they can help people when they need it.

92203

I wonder if they might extend the scheme so that they give renters £10-15K towards a house deposit.

It'd certainly get some money flowing into the economy

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of a person with a paid off mortgage, pension provision, grown up kids and maybe a bit of a rainy day fund.

I'll fit the criteria in a few years - I'll be trickling cash down through the generations below me. It'll be nice to see the money doing some good rather than hoping it's well spent when I'm dead. I don't want to end up like the frenzied coffin dodgers on the ISA board stressing about the difference between 3.1% and 3.3%

Si it appears that youi believe anyone with more than you should be hammered.

nearlynew

A properly functioning house market needs repossessions in order to work efficiently. It is the only fair way to achieve "price discovery"

Bad investments or poor decisions need to be punished so that the money can then be used more productively.

People who cannot afford to pay for their house should be repossessed.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Wealth does exist. It would be interesting to see if there are any methods to try and help them out and whether it would be a boost to the economy at the same time.

How about handing your BTL properties out at 75% reduced rents?

This would help people. It would give people more to spend elsewhere. it would help the economy.

If this became policy, would you still believe spreading the wealth is a good thing?

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So seems debt forgiveness would be targetted at those with mortgages only.

Lost for words really. Would certainly light the touchpaper with many.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9195844/IMF-urges-authorities-to-consider-debt-forgiveness-to-restore-growth.html

!!!!!!, I've just paid mine off.

I'd better get a bigger one quickly!

heathcote123

92203 wrote: »

I wonder if they might extend the scheme so that they give renters £10-15K towards a house deposit.

It'd certainly get some money flowing into the economy

This might risk setting off another boom.

Probably better they cap it to 2k for rental deposits.

nearlynew

heathcote123 wrote: »

!!!!!!, I've just paid mine off.

I'd better get a bigger one quickly!

Well done.
That is a major step towards financial security.

Ignore the debt-junkies and their financially-savvy plays on interest rates.
You will now have a lot more disposable income and may never need to borrow a penny ever again.

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

Si it appears that youi believe anyone with more than you should be hammered.

I'm sorry it appears that way because it's not the case.

I'm not suggesting anyone should be hammered. I'm just looking for a way for inter-generational wealth to shared out in a way that is more beneficial to the economy.

I'm also practising what I preach. My grandmother died recently and left a reasonable sum of cash, my mother didn't want it so passed it straight down to three siblings, I've given my share straight to my three kids. Effectively it's going to sit on deposit for another 5 years before it gets spent (it's been on deposit since the early '80's).

When people didn't live so long an inheritance would more likely come sooner and therefore land into a family raising children and be spent. Now it's more likley to be richer boomers with grown up children inheriting money and it's of less benefit to the economy.