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!
More QE please....and interest rates...
Comments
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »They let them do what ever they like though, don't they ? Civil servants don't understand business or finance, let alone banking, so they're terrified to intervene. Politicians as always are extremely reluctant to go against the advice of officials.
They appear to like issuing warnings from the sidelines but not actively managing.
The UK's big banks will be broken up if they fail to follow new rules to ring-fence risky investment operations from High Street outlets, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.
Any fines by US authorities on Royal Bank of Scotland over the Libor scandal should be met by bankers not taxpayers, Chancellor George Osborne has insisted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21303939
Why not just tell them to do it directlythen come out and say they have done it? They would get more [STRIKE]brownnie[/STRIKE] points from the electorate if they did."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
real world interest rates bear little resemblance to base rates now anyway,and as said if £375b of QE hasnt worked then more might make no difference
what is needed now is real money put back into the real economy
a three year vat change might work as in 12.5% yr one 15% yr 2 and 17.5% yr three reverting to 20% after that
the total cost being £74 billion0 -
what is needed now is real money put back into the real economy
a three year vat change might work as in 12.5% yr one 15% yr 2 and 17.5% yr three reverting to 20% after that
the total cost being £74 billion
Where's the £74 billion going to end up?
Smartphones, foreign holidays, BMW's, etc. Where's the benefit to the UK economy.0 -
I would agree with some of that, especially the building bit.Graham_Devon wrote: »I actually think theres scope in the government becoming lender.
However, the government should also be the builder of, and owner of, the assets.
Therefore, we don't just become guarntors, we have an asset. Said asset would have been built, creating jobs.
Could be win win all round. Building = some growth and employment. Asset = protection on the loan. Lending = profit on the loans.
Or, could so a bit of both. We could have the radical idea of council housing, alongside owner occupied, bringing in 2 revenue streams, firstly, the rents, and secondly the profit on the loans from those who have bought.
Becomes a self sufficient scheme, with a huge outlay at the start. Would also kick builders into touch through competiton.#
Theres a downside for investors and BTLs, but how long can certain groups keep feeding on the struggles of society?
But, despite the outcry for the past 10 years that more homes are needed, there's always a bigger outcry when plans are submitted to build these homes. Mainly because NIMBY's don't want their houses overlooked, or it will impact on views, or it will eat into greenbelt land.
An elderly friend of ours was talking the other day of an idea that a government had back in the 50's, and to be honest I found it rather intreaguing.
Much like your idea for lending and increasing assets it would ensure the government had something to fall back on.
It went something like this.
The Government, though the BoE, would provide cheap loans/mortgages, well below the average standard rate, but in return the Government would require you hand over a stake in the property, to be relinquished at the time you sold the house, or when you died.
There was also the option to sell the house to the government upon death, who would pay to you the remaining value of the house (after taking into account the remaining value of the loan and the charge on the house)
There would be no evictions or repossessions. if you fell behind with the payments and could not arrange to pay them back, then the house transferred directly to the Government, who would then charge you an annual rent to remain in the property.
Either way it's a win win for the government. They have control of an asset, they also see the value of that control rise/fall with the increase/decrease in the houses value.
It also allows people the opportunity to get into their own homes.[SIZE=-1]To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
[/SIZE]0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Where's the £74 billion going to end up?
Smartphones, foreign holidays, BMW's, etc. Where's the benefit to the UK economy.
Rationing."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
real world interest rates bear little resemblance to base rates now anyway,and as said if £375b of QE hasnt worked then more might make no difference
what is needed now is real money put back into the real economy
a three year vat change might work as in 12.5% yr one 15% yr 2 and 17.5% yr three reverting to 20% after that
the total cost being £74 billion
Proven to do little if nothing at all though.
Cut's are needed in expenditure, not cut's in government income.
We can't cut to 12.5% anyway, the EU see's to that, 15% is the minimum. However, as proven last time, people don't go out and spend loads of money simply because they save £4 per £100. It makes a £1,000 item £40 less expensive, which, to the person splurging £1,000 on an item, means little. Those who can't afford the £1,000 item still won't be able to afford the £1,000 item just because it's now £960, so it's not increased revenue, just decreased income for the government, who will then need to cut even further to allow for the cut in income.
Last time this was done it served to cut government income and increase company profit, but that was about it.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »They appear to like issuing warnings from the sidelines but not actively managing.
The UK's big banks will be broken up if they fail to follow new rules to ring-fence risky investment operations from High Street outlets, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.
Any fines by US authorities on Royal Bank of Scotland over the Libor scandal should be met by bankers not taxpayers, Chancellor George Osborne has insisted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21303939
Why not just tell them to do it directlythen come out and say they have done it? They would get more [STRIKE]brownnie[/STRIKE] points from the electorate if they did.
Correct. The politicians are frightened of them in case one collapses again, frightened to get too tough with them in case they up and go abroad, frightened to go against the civil service who will always go for a risk-free easy life.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
It went something like this.
The Government, though the BoE, would provide cheap loans/mortgages, well below the average standard rate, but in return the Government would require you hand over a stake in the property, to be relinquished at the time you sold the house, or when you died.
There was also the option to sell the house to the government upon death, who would pay to you the remaining value of the house (after taking into account the remaining value of the loan and the charge on the house)
There would be no evictions or repossessions. if you fell behind with the payments and could not arrange to pay them back, then the house transferred directly to the Government, who would then charge you an annual rent to remain in the property.
Either way it's a win win for the government. They have control of an asset, they also see the value of that control rise/fall with the increase/decrease in the houses value.
It also allows people the opportunity to get into their own homes.
We've pretty much got this. Allbeit, it's only on new builds and the taxpayer has absolutely no opportunity of any profits, but every possibility of defaults.
Councils are doing it too. Trouble is, it's cost one set of council tax payers £1m in exposure to benefit 12 people. That's not a good use of pooled council tax (IMO) considering how many that £1m could benefit through other schemes such as road upkeep, libraries etc....and of course, not giving thieves and vilent people the opportunity of darkness at night when they switch all street lighting off instead of just dimming it 60%.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Not our problem, they get paid vast amounts to grapple with it all.
Is our problem. Its our money.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Correct. The politicians are frightened of them in case one collapses again, frightened to get too tough with them in case they up and go abroad, frightened to go against the civil service who will always go for a risk-free easy life.
Banks are hardly in a fit state to divide. The investment banking arms are the profitable parts of the UK majors. Retail banks will require recapitalisation before splitting. .
Banks in general may well be required to raise capital this year to strengthen their balance sheets.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards