Budget 2013 live....

james_toney

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I agree with you Graham,. but it is obvious they will do all they can to make house prices not devalue, and this will get some of the peoples votes, i have had many a conversation with people about high house prices over the years, and all the ones that own could not care less aobut the rises, some even think it is brilliant, makes them feel richer, i remember my old boss saying a few years ago about all the money he made from his house, even though the idiot was still living in it and not selling it . people in this country love high house prices, so after myself waiting for years for the crash i got into BTL too,

[Deleted User]

Couple of quick thoughts - public sector pay limit held at 1% and something about action on public sector incremental salary scales (I think?). I believe that there are 5-6million public sector employees. With inflation in Feb at 2.8%, the comments I made on other threads about a lack of confidence leading to lower spending leading to lower economic activity hold true. The point that I made about increments also may give councils and others a problem in increasing efficiency. Many employers have tied incremental progression to improvements in performance. If the carrot of incremental progression is to be removed, I can see problems. In my former employer, performance related pay had only just been introduced.

I wondered if G.O. might have raised the personal allowance this April to more than the 9440 already announced or to more than the 10k next year as a good news story, but no. No announcement either on ISA limits, although that may be elsewhere.

Some help for employers, but with the Eurozone in trouble and the domestic economy seemingly flat, I'm not sure that significant numbers of small employers will be moved by the budget to take on more staff.

I may have more thought later on (bet you can't wait:rotfl:)

WR

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Yes there's a risk but anyone with a brain knows the risk is minimal. Even during 07 - 2012, repos were vanishingly low, and going forwards that picture will improve still.

Most people see it through and take the long term view so the risk of wholesale losses is pretty much non existent.


Time to get bollok deep in property Devon.:eek::T

Masomnia

ILW wrote: »

Anything on fags?

Fags are being left untouched it seems.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Conrad wrote: »

Time to get bollok deep in property Devon.:eek::T

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

james_toney

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

12bn will support about 500,000 homes deposits (average price) wowww

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Barrat shares up 8%, Taylor Wimpey up 5%.

wymondham

marathonic wrote: »

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.

ok, so it's a sweetener to house builders. I'll be interested to see the fine print on all the announcements, especially what conditions it has to be repaid (the term etc) and what occurs in the event of negative equity when the property is sold.

Masomnia

Glad I bought that property fund last year!

Conrad

james_toney wrote: »

i have had many a conversation with people about high house prices over the years, and all the ones that own could not care less aobut the rises, some even think it is brilliant, makes them feel richer,

What you describe is absolutley central to the British psyche.

Owning a little part of the Earths crust as your territory, the same applies throughout nature, from the clown fish to the trapdoor spider.

Having a steady value increase in your nest makes everyone feel better, and HERE'S WHY;

If the wheels fall off on your life, if you suddenly want to thow in the towell and become an onion grower in Montenegro, a chunk of equity puts you in good stead.

Added to this is the fact many of us will one day downsise so my friend it is not your ex boss that was the idiot:T