Budget 2013 live....

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thankfully, the BBC seem to have gone straight to the liability concern for the taxpayer. They are stating theres no real reason now for the banks to be careful of who they lend to, which puts us all at risk.

I thought your theory was that lenders were currently forcing mortgages onto potential borrowers but their advances were being refused by savvy risk averse potential buyers.

Looks like that theory might be tested.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wymondham wrote: »

Help with buying (20% assistance)..... as long as you're buying NEW. If this was really to help the purchaser then this would be for any property.

The £600k cap on this shared equity is outrageous. This should be £100-200k max. I don't feel the need to help rich people buy houses.

This will inflate house prices still further.

Mortgage guarantee is for ANY property though, allowing 95% mortgages on old houses as well as new ones.

That's the biggy here.

james_toney

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Mortgage guarantee is for ANY property though, allowing 95% mortgages on old houses as well as new ones.

That's the biggy here.

trueee this is the biggy, it is for any property, boooom time again

Xiderpunk

I was bullish on house prices before the budget, now even the most hardened bear will have to get a bull mindset.

Incidentally, Graham_Devon makes some very good points. This government and I expect the next also, are not prepared to allow the housing market to devalue. I foresee some years of boom ahead. I just wonder if it will trigger a similar mortgage equity release rash like in 2004-2007.

marathonic

wymondham wrote: »

Help with buying (20% assistance)..... as long as you're buying NEW. If this was really to help the purchaser then this would be for any property.

The £600k cap on this shared equity is outrageous. This should be £100-200k max. I don't feel the need to help rich people buy houses.

This will inflate house prices still further.

The two advantages for the government of making it apply to new builds only are:

• New houses increase the supply and, in the longer term, will put a very slight downward pressure on house prices;
• New houses result in employment to build those houses resulting in increased income taxes and tax on company profits - as well as reductions in numbers of people to whom benefits are to be paid

The result of the above is that the 20% interest free loan will probably cost the government nothing and is likely to actually be a profitable move.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Everyone worries about their kids but, seriously, worrying about how much he'll have to pay for a house (or a tank of petrol, or gas bill) in 20 years is just pointless.

No it's not.

It's perfectly concieveable that nay house price falls put the taxpayer at massive risk.

The commentators are describing this as "insanity". Listen to the news. It's putting massive risks to taxpayers of the future.

It's not about whether he can buy a house, it's the liabilites being built.

I don't expect you to understand and I don't expect you to agree.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Rubbish.

Total liability is only 12 bn, and that's if 100% of people default.

If the default rate remains at 1%, then total liability over the two years of the programme is just £12 million.

Which is just a few minutes of total government spending......

Err sorry?

£130bn of mortgage guarentees?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The commentators are describing this as "insanity".

Link?

I'm watching BBC now and they're being positive about it.

Very well received as a whole. :T

ILW

Anything on fags?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Err sorry?

£130bn of mortgage guarentees?

Do your research Graham....

It's 12 bn in guarantees, to support 130bn in new high LTV lending, by effectively bypassing the capital withholding requirements for higher LTV mortgages.

By comparison, high LTV lending last year was around 2 bn.