Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

brit1234 wrote: »

those who borrowed to much

Most did not borrow too much.

But when you lose your job, through no fault of your own in a recession, then it's inevitable that some will need help temporarily until they can get back on their feet.

wymondham

If you can't pay your bills then you can't have the item - whatever it is!

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Most did not borrow too much.

But when you lose your job, through no fault of your own in a recession, then it's inevitable that some will need help temporarily until they can get back on their feet.

In the past, most people saved a few quid in the good times to carry themselves over the dodgy periods. Many now have just borrowed as much as they could leaving no spare for saving and are now (in many cases) being bailed out with taxpayers money in the name of forebearance. I believe a market which involves the true moral hazard of "do not make the payments = lose the house" works much better overall.

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH Most did not borrow too much.

But when you lose your job, through no fault of your own in a recession, then it's inevitable that some will need help temporarily until they can get back on their feet.

If income is committed to repaying debt with no ability to save. Then that is borrowing too much. Saving is a basic financial skill.

StevieJ

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?

I am confused here, if a mortgager loses their job and can't afford to pay the mortgage, does kicking them (and their family) out of the property save the govt (i.e. me and you) cash or do we have to pay rent instead on some other property?

ess0two

StevieJ wrote: »

I am confused here, if a mortgager loses their job and can't afford to pay the mortgage, does kicking them (and their family) out of the property save the govt (i.e. me and you) cash or do we have to pay rent instead on some other property?

Yeah,seems the frothers miss this point,also Graham reckons the majority are over 60 and should be forced to sell up.

Interestingly whos gonna buy these properties?

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

I am confused here, if a mortgager loses their job and can't afford to pay the mortgage, does kicking them (and their family) out of the property save the govt (i.e. me and you) cash or do we have to pay rent instead on some other property?

Depends if they have equity when the property is sold.

From what you are saying. Perhaps there should be a levy on all monies borrowed on mortgages to fund SMI.

As we return to the eternal problem of who should pay for welfare benefits? As there isn't enough money to go round.

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

I am confused here, if a mortgager loses their job and can't afford to pay the mortgage, does kicking them (and their family) out of the property save the govt (i.e. me and you) cash or do we have to pay rent instead on some other property?

If people knew they would lose their property if they could not make payments, they would take measures to ensure it did not happen, such as savings, insurance etc. If they expect they will be bailed out there is no reason to take personal responsibilty.

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

If people knew they would lose their property if they could not make payments, they would take measures to ensure it did not happen, such as savings, insurance etc. If they expect they will be bailed out there is no reason to take personal responsibilty.

I guess you are right, they may as well rent until retirement and let the govt (you and me) pay after that

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

I guess you are right, they may as well rent until retirement and let the govt (you and me) pay after that

Or arrange their finances to cover mortgage payments if things do not go to plan. There are ways to do it.