More Breaking news Help2Buy II starting now...

ILW

If someone wants to sell after a few years, do they have to pay this money back to the government?

wotsthat

globalds wrote: »

You really should post some evidence on this subsidy the taxpayer gives to council house tenants.

perhaps in the short term if you looked at the cost of building ..But houses last far longer than a normal mortgage ..
Maybe BTL landlords also subsidise there tenants ? ..Philanthropists ...the lot of them .

Council house rents are lower than market rents. Councils take the decision that they won't charge market rents. The difference is a subsidy. If council house tenants paid a market rent the rest of us could pay less tax so although council tenants might not receive a cheque that says 'subsidy' on it they receive an imputed benefit.

It's really irrelevant how old the house is or whether it's paid for. Victorian houses were paid for decades ago - the market doesn't care.

..and then the tenant can buy them on the cheap.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Council house rents are lower than market rents. Councils take the decision that they won't charge market rents. The difference is a subsidy.

Well market rents are higher due to housing benefits. The difference between what a free market rent would be and the market with billions of housing benefit money fed into it could be seen as a subsidy.

It would be hypocritical to focus on only one subsidy while ignoring the other, much larger subsidy enabling the market rent to sit where it is.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

This is the BOE and Govt doing their job to restore at least partial functionality to a mortgage market that has been completely dysfunctional since the global credit crunch hit, and not before time.

In my opinion the current artificial repressing of house prices through mortgage rationing is starting to end, and the lowest house building in a century is about to meet the biggest generational bulge of FTB age people in history.

Soaring population and the existing million house shortage will certainly mean prices continue to rise, a situation worsened dramatically by the last 5 years of mortgage rationing causing house building to fall to the lowest levels in a century, and the next boom will likely be the biggest ever as a result.

Leading to the likeliest outcome by far being a near doubling in house prices in real terms over the next cycle, as the mortgage market and wider economy recover, and millions of ftb age people run into the worst housing shortage in history....



Of course, other opinions may vary.....

But they've mostly been wrong so far

It remains the case that rising prices are a very good thing for most however....

Rising house prices are good for......

-The millions of people who are in or approaching retirement, and who either plan to, or may unexpectedly need to, downsize.

-The millions more people who are in their final property now, but will find themselves in the position above at some point.

-The couple of million people who bought within the last 7 years, who may be in or close to negative equity.

-The owners of the 2 million investment properties.

-The millions of people who may need to re-mortgage as and when rates climb, and want the best possible LTV ratio to get the best rates.

-House builders, construction industry, suppliers, investors, pension funds holding mortgage securities, banks, and all housing related industries, all of their shareholders and employees, whether they own a house or not.

-The family members of anyone who will leave an inheritance, or release equity to help their kids onto the ladder when downsizing, etc.


Rising house prices are bad for......

-A few hundred thousand potential FTB's at any given time...... But only until they get on the ladder, and become one of the groups above.

And as for upsizers......

It used to be commonly believed that falling prices were better for them.

However this crash has proved that to be wrong, in most cases, because the price of their FTB property has fallen by far more than the price of the 2TB properties.

So the gap between rungs on the ladder has widened, not narrowed, with falling prices.

In summary....

Rising prices are better by far for the vast majority of society, and falling prices only benefit a few, and then only temporarily.

wotsthat

gazzabboi wrote: »

The forces loans won't be paid for by the tax payer, it will come from money put aside by pension contributions. If you have the money to additionally help your son/daughter then you should, it saves them paying mortgage interest.

What pension contributions? The army pension is non-contributory.

This is a new scheme starting next year with £200m allocated to it and seems to be light on detail.

I think you're missing the point slightly. I can help my son but instead of having to hand over cash to ensure he can get a 75% mortgage the taxpayer will do that for me.

Therefore, say, I've still got £30k in my bank and much more choice where to put this. Yes, putting in his mortgage would save him interest but if, for example, my mortgage or saving rate is higher it makes more sense to make a higher return.

globalds

wotsthat wrote: »

Council house rents are lower than market rents. Councils take the decision that they won't charge market rents. The difference is a subsidy. If council house tenants paid a market rent the rest of us could pay less tax so although council tenants might not receive a cheque that says 'subsidy' on it they receive an imputed benefit.

It's really irrelevant how old the house is or whether it's paid for. Victorian houses were paid for decades ago - the market doesn't care.

..and then the tenant can buy them on the cheap.

That is not a subsidy ..The high cost of market rents is directly influenced by the lack of council houses. Due to a lack of social competition ..Private landlords are charging too much and consequentially then paying too much for houses also affecting the market.
you are not only putting the cart before the horse ..you are stating the cart pulls the horse ..

Build a million new council homes and tell me if the present rents are at market rate ?

gazzabboi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This is the BOE and Govt doing their job to restore at least partial functionality to a mortgage market that has been completely dysfunctional since the global credit crunch hit, and not before time.

In my opinion the current artificial repressing of house prices through mortgage rationing is starting to end, and the lowest house building in a century is about to meet the biggest generational bulge of FTB age people in history.

Soaring population and the existing million house shortage will certainly mean prices continue to rise, a situation worsened dramatically by the last 5 years of mortgage rationing causing house building to fall to the lowest levels in a century, and the next boom will likely be the biggest ever as a result.

Leading to the likeliest outcome by far being a near doubling in house prices in real terms over the next cycle, as the mortgage market and wider economy recover, and millions of ftb age people run into the worst housing shortage in history....



Of course, other opinions may vary.....

But they've mostly been wrong so far

It remains the case that rising prices are a very good thing for most however....

Rising house prices are good for......

-The millions of people who are in or approaching retirement, and who either plan to, or may unexpectedly need to, downsize.

-The millions more people who are in their final property now, but will find themselves in the position above at some point.

-The couple of million people who bought within the last 7 years, who may be in or close to negative equity.

-The owners of the 2 million investment properties.

-The millions of people who may need to re-mortgage as and when rates climb, and want the best possible LTV ratio to get the best rates.

-House builders, construction industry, suppliers, investors, pension funds holding mortgage securities, banks, and all housing related industries, all of their shareholders and employees, whether they own a house or not.

-The family members of anyone who will leave an inheritance, or release equity to help their kids onto the ladder when downsizing, etc.


Rising house prices are bad for......

-A few hundred thousand potential FTB's at any given time...... But only until they get on the ladder, and become one of the groups above.

And as for upsizers......

It used to be commonly believed that falling prices were better for them.

However this crash has proved that to be wrong, in most cases, because the price of their FTB property has fallen by far more than the price of the 2TB properties.

So the gap between rungs on the ladder has widened, not narrowed, with falling prices.

In summary....

Rising prices are better by far for the vast majority of society, and falling prices only benefit a few, and then only temporarily.

Come on hamish, that's a lazy response. Copy and paste of your same reply at least 5 times now. Let's hear something new

tinkerbell28

wotsthat wrote: »

What pension contributions? The army pension is non-contributory.
This is a new scheme starting next year with £200m allocated to it and seems to be light on detail.

I think you're missing the point slightly. I can help my son but instead of having to hand over cash to ensure he can get a 75% mortgage the taxpayer will do that for me. No they won't. It's called long service advance of pay. The clue is in the name. To be eligible they need 4 years out of basic under their belt, at 18 he won't so may not even qualify. Unless it's right at the end, he'd would have to of had 4 years out of basic. Those that do, it's a benefit in kind,which attracts tax. It will then come from their pay over 10 years. Or their last salaries and termination grants if they leave.

Therefore, say, I've still got £30k in my bank and much more choice where to put this. Yes, putting in his mortgage would save him interest but if, for example, my mortgage or saving rate is higher it makes more sense to make a higher return.

So I don't know where you're getting your ideas from, but it's not correct. It's not coming from pensions.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well market rents are higher due to housing benefits. The difference between what a free market rent would be and the market with billions of housing benefit money fed into it could be seen as a subsidy.

It would be hypocritical to focus on only one subsidy while ignoring the other, much larger subsidy enabling the market rent to sit where it is.

Market rents may well be higher due to housing benefits - that doesn't mean council rents aren't subsidised.

There's an important difference to consider. If you live in a council house then your rent is subsidised irrespective of whether you qualify for benefits. Higher earners living in council housing also receive the subsidy.

I'm ignoring nothing by the way. I'm happy to see housing benefit cut AND council tenants paying market rents. There's so much 'free' money around due to government nannying that it distorts behaviour and people prefer to seek subsidy rather than try and improve productivity.

I don't put myself above all this either - if I can get some free money I will do.

We're turning into a nation of rent seekers.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

gazzabboi wrote: »

Come on hamish, that's a lazy response. Copy and paste of your same reply at least 5 times now. Let's hear something new

No need for anything new.

Graham et all go round and round repeating the same misinformation and spin over and over again.

The reply will always be the same, so no need to keep retyping it.