Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

After 20 years there would be hardly anything left unfortunately.

The rates are usually around 6%.

However, it doesn't rely on the taxpayer, and it's a personal choice, so they could certainly do it if they wished to.

£160k house £20k equity release at 6% would leave you owing £64k at the end of 20 years leaving £100k equity if prices stay the same.

Out of interest if house prices rise 2% a year on average of the next 20 years that £160k house would be worth £237k leaving £173k while the £130k house would be worth £193k.

homelessskilledworker

There has been a lot of posts on this thread, and there has been a lot of threads on this subject.
I am just wondering has anyone asked the obvious question(to me anyway) !!!!!! is anyone needing state help and why are people in so much difficulty when interest rates are at historical low levels.

It tells me that too many people borrowed money and purchased properties way out of their league or some made very bad judgements about their future finances.

ukcarper

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

There has been a lot of posts on this thread, and there has been a lot of threads on this subject.
I am just wondering has anyone asked the obvious question(to me anyway) !!!!!! is anyone needing state help and why are people in so much difficulty when interest rates are at historical low levels.

It tells me that too many people borrowed money and purchased properties way out of their league or some made very bad judgements about their future finances.

Nothing to do with people losing thier jobs then I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of the people who over extended themselves are still managing ok and a lot of those who didn't are in trouble.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But in the meantime they'll be costing the state more on housing benefits than they would on SMI.

I just think you've got a blind spot on this one Gen, putting principle before pragmatism.

TBH I think mine is the pragmatic solution. I have met a lot of people who simply can't afford to take on work because if they do the state will stop paying their mortgage.

For example, my old next door neighbour was a single mother who had been abandoned by Dad when she was pregnant with sprog #2. She spent 3(?) years qualifying as a midwife and then realised that she couldn't afford to work because if she did the Government would stop paying her mortgage. This was a woman that wanted to work, who had skills that are in short supply but couldn't afford to work!

If on the other hand she'd been repossessed she'd have been able to claim HB for the time she needed it and then been able to work as soon as her youngest was at school.

RenovationMan

brit1234 wrote: »

Why should tax payers priced out of the housing market fund the mortgages of those who borrowed to much keeping house prices higher and them longer out of home ownership?

If these tax payers are priced out of housing then they probably don't earn very much and so probably pay little or no tax and so aren't really in a position to complain. I pay a lot of tax and I don'#t mind helping people while they get on their feet.

The 'priced out' should perhaps get better paid jobs, maybe do a course to increase their skills?

RenovationMan

Generali wrote: »

TBH I think mine is the pragmatic solution. I have met a lot of people who simply can't afford to take on work because if they do the state will stop paying their mortgage.

For example, my old next door neighbour was a single mother who had been abandoned by Dad when she was pregnant with sprog #2. She spent 3(?) years qualifying as a midwife and then realised that she couldn't afford to work because if she did the Government would stop paying her mortgage. This was a woman that wanted to work, who had skills that are in short supply but couldn't afford to work!

If on the other hand she'd been repossessed she'd have been able to claim HB for the time she needed it and then been able to work as soon as her youngest was at school.

Which means that the rules for SMI should be the same as for housing benefit, then it'd be fairer all around.

abaxas

RenovationMan wrote: »

If these tax payers are priced out of housing then they probably don't earn very much and so probably pay little or no tax and so aren't really in a position to complain. I pay a lot of tax and I don'#t mind helping people while they get on their feet.

The 'priced out' should perhaps get better paid jobs, maybe do a course to increase their skills?

The issue is that lots of the 'priced out' are better paid than those who live in homes they cant pay for.

homelessskilledworker

RenovationMan wrote: »

If these tax payers are priced out of housing then they probably don't earn very much and so probably pay little or no tax and so aren't really in a position to complain. I pay a lot of tax and I don'#t mind helping people while they get on their feet.

The 'priced out' should perhaps get better paid jobs, maybe do a course to increase their skills?

I am sorry RM, I just don't buy it:)

Yet again you come out with something like "I pay a lot of tax", along with statements such as "I was at a meeting" or " I was jetting off to to here or there" or "I am top earner".

You do like to give the impression(and work very hard at it) that you are a man of some importance and substance.

The way you articulate yourself and more to the point the way you carry yourself tells me that you are nothing of the sort:)

What are you really, I would go for ex council house owner who did a RTB who has had various sales jobs over the years mixed in with unskilled work.:)

Generali

RenovationMan wrote: »

Which means that the rules for SMI should be the same as for housing benefit, then it'd be fairer all around.

I'd have no problem with that so long as the value of the equity in the house is taken into account when measuring eligibility for benefits under rules about how much in assets you can have while claiming. It seems perfectly sensible.

The problem I have is people being subsidised to hold one particular sort of asset class and then put into a position where they can't afford to get back on their feet. It may seem harsh forcing people to sell but to my mind, it's harsher to force people to remain on benefits who have something to give in the workplace.

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

The problem I have is people being subsidised to hold one particular sort of asset class and then put into a position where they can't afford to get back on their feet. It may seem harsh forcing people to sell but to my mind, it's harsher to force people to remain on benefits who have something to give in the workplace.

Not to mention the fact that it penalises potential FTBers because there is no functioning housing market and prices cannot be determined with natural market forces.