IMF urges debt forgiveness for indebted mortgagees

nearlynew

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

And if you had your way, all that inheritance won't even buy your kids a garden shed when they're grown up.

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

I wouldn't start a career as a business adviser if I were you.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

I haven't got any BTL properties. I've got a small holiday home which I hand out to friends and familiy for free though and I even pay the leccy - I've never been so popular.

If my kids couldn't afford a house I'd try and help them with a deposit or try and share the costs with them. You'd do the same.

wotsthat

nearlynew wrote: »

And if you had your way, all that inheritance won't even buy your kids a garden shed when they're grown up.

What because I argue that a shortage of housing is going to put upwards pressure on rents and prices?

Don't get too excited about the inheritance. They could only just afford to buy a (very nice) shed with it today.

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

I haven't got any BTL properties. I've got a small holiday home which I hand out to friends and familiy for free though and I even pay the leccy - I've never been so popular.

If my kids couldn't afford a house I'd try and help them with a deposit or try and share the costs with them. You'd do the same.

You said earlier that anyone who had more money than they needed should (in effect) have it taken away. Sounds a bit rich from someone who owns two houses, one just for fun.

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

You said earlier that anyone who had more money than they needed should (in effect) have it taken away. Sounds a bit rich from someone who owns two houses, one just for fun.

I didn't say that people who had more money than they need should have it taken away. I'm discussing the merits of the IMF proposal and have already dismissed it as a poor idea.

What I saying is that people should consider giving away money (to their families) whilst they are alive instead of waiting until death. This intergeneration transfer is already underway - I'd rather give money away now to people I know instead rather than see it transferred by inflation and stealth to people I don't know.

I know the holiday place sounds a bit rich - I'm doing ok - but I'm already making a conscious effort to share with family and friends. I've travelled first class on an A380 too - get that!

homelessskilledworker

NextLegUpIsTheBiggie wrote: »

Homeowners are the economic backbone of Britain. Without them, and a fully functioning housing market, the economy falters and unemployment soars. It is only right and just that for any debt forgiveness to be dealt they they be the first in line, as it takes a certain class of individual prepared to take on a stake in society, settle, knuckle down, and get on with things like career and family building. Renters, due to their very transient nature, are more likely to flit between short-term rental tenancies and employment on a whim, all from which provides society, employers, and landlords little in security of tenure. For example, they could easily build up numerous debts on creditcards and utility bills only for them to do a midnight run one night, leaving everyone else and society in their wake to pick up the pieces. It's high time we encouraged and rewarded the stake-holders in society and rightly discriminate against the !!!!less.

Just read your full post.

Thats one minute I will never get back!

Emy1501

wotsthat wrote: »

I didn't say that people who had more money than they need should have it taken away. I'm discussing the merits of the IMF proposal and have already dismissed it as a poor idea.

What I saying is that people should consider giving away money (to their families) whilst they are alive instead of waiting until death. This intergeneration transfer is already underway - I'd rather give money away now to people I know instead rather than see it transferred by inflation and stealth to people I don't know.

I know the holiday place sounds a bit rich - I'm doing ok - but I'm already making a conscious effort to share with family and friends. I've travelled first class on an A380 too - get that!

Most ordinary people only have wealth in their property they can't afford to splash the cash.

The reality is HPI is a big con and in reality only benefits the banks those with more than one property or those without kids.

With people living longer older people have to watch their kids struggle to take out a huge mortgage whilst their wealth is tied in their house until they die.

At the moment the rich are getting richer and the ordinary person is getting poorer and there is little evidence that the wealthy are spending their wealth to help the poor.

pqrdef

michaels wrote: »

Borrower with zero equity and unable to make repayments:
Option 1: Repossess. Losses from forced sale born by creditors, borrower bankrupt and thus less economically active for 6/12 years, state has to provide accomodation to borrower
Option 2: State and bank share costs of supportng borrower in home. No deadweight loss from erepossession/adverse credit, state saved from cost of housing following repossession.

Option 3: State takes over house and mortgage and rents house to occupant. No reason the State should help people to acquire equity in property.

moneyinmypocket

To be fair the gov allowed housing to get to the stage it's at - you can't blame people for wanting to buy and having to pay prices at the time - the gov should bail out home owners