Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wymondham wrote: »

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.

Seems daft to me.

You want to force the taxpayer to pay more in rent than we do in SMI, just to house people in need. People have all paid into the system via National Insurance, expecting a safety net to be there. Why should homeowners be discriminated against? Particularly when doing so will result in an increase in cost to the taxpayer?

Like I said, seems daft.....

.

wymondham

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Seems daft to me.

You want to force the taxpayer to pay more in rent than we do in SMI, just to house people in need. People that have paid into the system via National Insurance, expecting a safety net to be there.

.

Whats National Insurance got to do with a private house purchase? You are mixing social housing with private purchase again...

Wookster

Ultimately this whole thread comes down to one point: do you believe in a market which allows prices to find a natural equilibrium or not.

If you don't, who subsidises the market?

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Seems daft to me.

You want to force the taxpayer to pay more in rent than we do in SMI, just to house people in need. People that have paid into the system via National Insurance, expecting a safety net to be there.

.

That's only true if people in forbearance have, on average, negative equity. Otherwise, repossession releases equity and so saves the taxpayer money.

National insurance is an anachronism: it doesn't come close to paying the costs of the welfare state and many claim from the welfare state having never paid a single stamp of their own.

Wookster

People that have paid into the system via National Insurance, expectinga safety net to be there.

It seems some folks want the safety net to be equivalent of a well paid job indefinitely.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Wookster wrote: »

It seems some folks want the safety net to be equivalent of a well paid job indefinitely.

Well SMI only pays 3.5% of up to 200K per year, so it's hardly the equivalent of a well paid job.

And as it's time limited, nor is it indefinite.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

That's only true if people in forbearance have, on average, negative equity.

Well it was you that suggested most people approaching repossession would be FTB-s.

And they're the ones most likely to be in negative equity.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Wookster wrote: »

Ultimately this whole thread comes down to one point: do you believe in a market which allows prices to find a natural equilibrium or not.

A natural equilibrium would imply a market which is functioning normally.

But as the mortgage market is dysfunctional, then so too is the housing market.

It is the job of regulators and governments to step in when markets become dysfunctional. And when such dysfunction causes wider economic damage, as the crash has done, then it is also incumbent upon government to seek to minimise the damage to participants who have been penalised through no fault of their own. Such as those who lost their job thanks to the credit crunch causing a recession.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

For every 100K families you evict from O/O and put into rental, some investors will have to provide 100K rental houses to put them in by transferring them from O/O. After all, there is a shortage of rental stock, just like there is a shortage of housing.

Completelty and utterly untrue, not that it matters, as you'll just keep peddling it.

Suggest you look at the figures to see the average mortgage amounts for people on SMI, and do the calculation as to how much HPI they would have which could pay their housing costs.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well it was you that suggested most people approaching repossession would be FTB-s.

And they're the ones most likely to be in negative equity.

Both the above statements are true but it doesn't mean that the average household in forbearance is in negative equity. That's a fallacious argument or if you prefer an irrelevant conclusion.