Budget 2013 live....

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Radio is now implying that u-turns may have to be made on the housing policies.

Not sure what they are, but theres a lot of concern over the looseness of this policy and the effects that may have.

it does have the look of something made up on the hoof.

when a very right wing publication like City AM carries a front cover like this one, you do have to wonder.

pic.twitter.com/YchsKzG3C8

how long until the election - a couple of years? can they really get something as big and far-reaching as this up and running before then? it feels more like something to stick in an election pledge rather than in late mid term.

grizzly1911

the_flying_pig wrote: »

it does have the look of something made up on the hoof.

when a very right wing publication like City AM carries a front cover like this one, you do have to wonder.

pic.twitter.com/YchsKzG3C8

how long until the election - a couple of years? can they really get something as big and far-reaching as this up and running before then? it feels more like something to stick in an election pledge rather than in late mid term.

Better link here?

http://www.cityam.com/article/osborne-s-gambled-wrong-policy

Mindful Money Summarises:-

an Cowie has concerns on his Telegraph blog. “When even estate agents are openly worrying about Government intervention inflating a house price bubble, prospective borrowers should beware of using easy credit to pay too much for properties whose price may fall.”
Simon Lambert on thisismoney concurs.
“The problem with this new property boom plan, of course, is that the life support machine of 0.5 per cent base rate means the last property bubble hasn’t even properly burst yet, with prices still neat historic highs compared to earnings despite the slump in transactions since 2007.”
Simon Rubinsohn, Chief Economist, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors also writing in the Telegraph suspects new build prices may be getting out of kilter.
“If there is a key risk to this strategy, it is that the additional funding from this new vehicle actually has a rather greater impact on pricing rather than transaction levels. It may be a coincidence but it is interesting that housebuilders appear to be pushing up new house prices by around five per cent at the present time while the existing market is showing a flatter trend in prices. This may have something to do with opportunity presented by the current schemes such as FirstBuy and NewBuy.”


I'll leave you to read the Moneyweek summary contained in it if you want.


http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/trending-news/help-to-buy-experts-fear-return-to-same-old-housing-bubble-ways/

John_Pierpoint

chewmylegoff wrote: »

In answer to your questions:

1) taxpayers

2) nothing

3) i imagine the bank gets its money first, government gets what is left, you then owe government for the shortfall

I think it's a stupid idea personally but the govt is clearly getting quite desperate now so it's not surprising.

I think, if I understood the lunch time BBC phone-in correctly, the taxpayer shares the gain and shares the loss. A bit like two beneficiaries of an estate, who discover they share the IHT pro rata to their interest in the estate, unless the will says otherwise.

Obviously if the buyer some years ahead is about to realise a profit, it would make a lot of sense to buy out the tax payer before selling?

The BBC pundits were not absolutely sure as the details have yet to be published.
The same was true if the borrower tried to divert the tax payer's money into some other activity such as BTL, second home etc. (it was thought) - the buyer has to swear a declaration to the conveyancing solicitor, so from those from a congenitally lying culture - bending the truth will be no problem.

blizeH

http://www.planetpropertyblog.co.uk/2013/03/21/7-reasons-why-osbornes-housing-subsidy-is-a-really-bad-idea/

IMO yesterday's budget really was an absolute disaster.

This is what harsh cuts look like by the way:

John_Pierpoint

the_flying_pig wrote: »

it does have the look of something made up on the hoof.

when a very right wing publication like City AM carries a front cover like this one, you do have to wonder.

pic.twitter.com/YchsKzG3C8

how long until the election - a couple of years? can they really get something as big and far-reaching as this up and running before then? it feels more like something to stick in an election pledge rather than in late mid term.

It is chronically obvious that this was the pathfinder budget of two pre election budgets. The Condems cannot afford to be in a position where they are backed up against a final month or two and the opposition knows it.
Their only chance of survival is to cut and run, hopefully when chance throws up events that sees the Labour bandits in disarray (dirty tricks start here). They cannot afford to funk it, as Gordon the saviour of the western world did.

grizzly1911

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Obviously if the buyer some years ahead is about to realise a profit, it would make a lot of sense to buy out the tax payer before selling?

Unless you have to have the property revalued prior to repayment. Good news for the valuers.

Too simple though, they wouldn't think of that.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The same was true if the borrower tried to divert the tax payer's money into some other activity such as BTL, second home etc. (it was thought) - the buyer has to swear a declaration to the conveyancing solicitor, so from those from a congenitally lying culture - bending the truth will be no problem.

Backed up by 5 years fearful of picking up the soap, for both the solicitor and purchaser if they do lie might concentrate minds.

John_Pierpoint

But money is "fungible"

Graham_Devon

It's getting worse and worse. Seemingly a hotch potch of information mashed together to describe something massive.

It's not emerged that lenders will have to pay a fee to the government if they want the government to guarantee the borrower. The problem is, the fee hasn't been disclosed yet and no one knows how much it is. However, it's already being stated this will be passed directly on to the homebuyer, pushing up the cost of the loan.

What lenders are suggesting is that this will result in (possibly) large fees for the buyer attached to the mortgage or a higher interest rate. So in effect, taking on this "easy" route actually makes it more expensive. But at least you'll be able to live the dream.

The government will not rule out the possibility of this helping people buy second homes. You'd think they would, it's easy enough to state they will rule this out and dampen the flames, but they simply will not comment, suggesting they want to keep it open to buying secondary and holiday homes. Lib dems have stated they will not allow this to happen and the lib dems have been quick to distance themselves from the problems and state straight away where they stand.

And after all the number crunching, this may not actually be beneficial to the banks.

The conservative bloggers are calling it "insanity". So they are even losing their own supporters on this.

And finally conservative back benchers are starting to distances themselves too... "My worry is that having a system where you are giving mortgages without increasing the supply will lead to asset price inflation, because obviously if the amount of supply remains the same and you are making credit easier, the tendency would be for the prices to go up."

The telegraph is running a story stating the name should be changed from "Help to buy" to "Help to developers".

wymondham

........... so after all this it may not be such a great scheme, as it seems it's not finished in it's creation yet.

Why don't they just do something radical, and do NOTHING. Let the market decide the price, let the house builder exist in the real world like every other private company. If it's too expensive it wont sell.

Let the banks sit on their hands if they wish, after all they are private businesses and can do what they like? (apart from the few we partly own, but that's another story!)

Those that can afford will buy and those that can't really shouldn't, regardless of the Government telling them they should. Nobody has a right to buy, nobody has a right to purchase a home and certainly the tax payer should keep out of meddling with personal financial affairs.

Until this all occurs then the problem will go on and on and on.

I know I know very little about all this and people will correct me, but this seems so obvious??????????

Graham_Devon

And on the budget in general....

Little hidden gem that the IFS has now calculated.

There will be 18%....yes, thats eighteen percent spending cuts in 2017 to pay for the lack of cuts so far. This budget has increased the cuts required in 2017, and that's not even including the liabilities.

This is a result of calculations being continuously wrong. 3 years ago we were supposed to have 7% growth by now. We've had 0.6% growth over that period, and spending just continues.