We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”
Comments
-
@HAMISH_MCTAVISH
I think you're getting a little carried away here.
In reality, it is mostly FTBs that get repossessed: they tend to have little equity in their homes, are younger so they perhaps don't have much in the way of working skills to sell or savings to back themselves up and they have a habit of getting pregnant and so losing an income, occasionally at an inconvenient time.
So they will be the ones that move straight onto housing benefit?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
In reality, it is mostly FTBs that get repossessed: .
Possibly so, although I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the stats on that..
But I'd be surprised if it's mostly young FTB-s on SMI?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Possibly so, although I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the stats on that..
But I'd be surprised if it's mostly young FTB-s on SMI?
Those figures used to be available from the CML but most of their stats are now for subscribers only. I would also be interested to see any figures you can drag up. Data like this has value so is generally unavailable to plebians such as you and I.
I think you miss my main point, one I think I haven't made explicit: young borrowers that are repossessed are likely to lose everything but should be able to put it behind them. The reason? They are likely to have little equity.
Older borrowers will find it hard or impossible to start again however they are likely to have plenty of equity in their home. Forcing them to trade down isn't the end of the world. In many cases they will have decent pensions (being of the defined benefit generation) so equity will need to carry them through to retirement.0 -
If we try to remove every single element of risk from everything we do, then most things would take a lot longer or not even get done. .
Yes, that's exactly our point..... :money:
The vast majority, over 90%, of homeowners will never get into arrears at all let alone get so far into arrears they get repossessed.
The tiny percentage that do get into trouble will mostly get some short term help like forbearance or SMI until they can get back on their feet or change their circumstances voluntarily. And somewhere less than 1% will not be able to do so and end up getting repossessed.
The risks are well managed and at acceptable levels.
To get them any lower would result in harming vastly more people than you helped.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »The risks are well managed and at acceptable levels.
I think they are now, but not so much 7 years ago.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Why should the taxpayer be forced to spend more for housing benefit than they would for SMI? (on average)
As a taxpayer, I'd be furious if the government decided to waste money by spending more on paying these families rent than they would have had to spend on SMI to keep them in their own home.
I see and appreciate your point, but i still think it is inherently wrong for the tax payer to pay for somebody's PRIVATE investment, that they CHOSE to have. The recipient should never make financial gain out of their benefit.0 -
Yes, most likely.
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.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
I see and appreciate your point, but i still think it is inherently wrong for the tax payer to pay for somebody's PRIVATE investment, that they CHOSE to have. The recipient should never make financial gain out of their benefit.
So instead you'd rather see a BTL investor make the gain, and then some.
You want to increase the cost to the taxpayer, and still allow private gain from benefits, just as long as it goes to a different private person.
Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »So instead you'd rather see a BTL investor make the gain, and then some.
You want to increase the cost to the taxpayer, and still allow private gain from benefits, just as long as it goes to a different private person.
Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face....
The recipient does not gain. The landlord still gets paid. Result?
This whole question comes up as we are thinking 'social housing' when looking at peoples private investments. Whenever somebody buys a house, that should be it from the states point of view, they are now outside of any assistance as you now have an asset. If you want assistance then you should rent.
Years ago we didn't have this issue so much as we had council houses!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards