5k+ homes bought with HTB1 in 6 months

mayonnaise

wotsthat wrote: »

It's why I don't like the idea of council housing as a solution. Think how you've used 'those who don't have the means' - and this is just an internet forum - think of the fun and games a politician could have with that.

I know people in council housing who have much more means than I do. Somehow I ended up in private rental and buying shortly after. It's a strange world.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It means just that. Everyone who doesn't have the means.

It would include the vulnerable (if they don't have the finances).

But it would also incorporate loads of others. Basically, all those on housing benefits - afterall, they receive housing benefits as they cannot afford to house themselves, for a whole host of reasons.

It's the loads of others I have an issue with.

Building free houses for people who can't afford to buy or rent them is the wrong policy response. The unforeseen consequences are entirely foreseeable I'm afraid.

I'd rather HB was cut (if it's that big an issue), more houses were built and those 'without the means' encouraged to find them rather than running into the arms of nanny as first resort.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Firstly, we shouldn't need taxpayer guarentees to enable people to buy a home. This is, remember, a response to a problem.

You change your viewpoint depending on the argument so much that I'm surprised you're not spinning like a top. One minute you're insisting on 'Big Government' when it suits your VI, the next you're shouting for 'small government' when it doesn't.

Interesting how you we're given a helping hand onto the property ladder via a shared ownership scheme and yet you hate other people getting help. Double standards?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know anyone who does want to stop someone making a decision on buying a house?

That's great news.

I see plenty of people on this forum who don't are anti-HTB.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

That's great news.

I see plenty of people on this forum who don't are anti-HTB.

Being anti Help to Buy isn't "trying to stop someone choosing to buy a house".

I don't really know what your point was, and neither it seems, do you.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Being anti Help to Buy isn't "trying to stop someone choosing to buy a house".

I don't really know what your point was, and neither it seems, do you.

I know exactly my point but you seem to be confused.

How many anti-HTB threads have you started?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Being anti Help to Buy isn't "trying to stop someone choosing to buy a house".
.

Being anti-HTB is trying to stop someone being able to buy a house.

You want to try and keep house prices down by preventing loads of people from buying houses.

Which is frankly a bonkers proposition.

vivatifosi

I heard an interesting aside re HTB yesterday. It stated that since October, the interest rates on cash ISAs has dropped dramatically. AIUI the reason is that the banks no longer need the cash from cash ISAs as HTB is the "new big thing" and being underwritten, they don't need all those little ISAs. Result was that pretty cr*p returns of 1.7% have fallen to 1%. And if any of this is wrong, please don't shoot the messenger, blame R4 instead.

Loughton_Monkey

vivatifosi wrote: »

I heard an interesting aside re HTB yesterday. It stated that since October, the interest rates on cash ISAs has dropped dramatically. AIUI the reason is that the banks no longer need the cash from cash ISAs as HTB is the "new big thing" and being underwritten, they don't need all those little ISAs. Result was that pretty cr*p returns of 1.7% have fallen to 1%. And if any of this is wrong, please don't shoot the messenger, blame R4 instead.

As I recall, it was 'funding for lending' that caused that. The government pumped in oodles of cash in the [misguided] hope that banks would lend it to business and mortgagors.

OK, HTB1 has exacerbated the problem, but HTB2 technically doesn't, because the bank still has to find the cash to lend.

As a saver, therefore, part of me hopes that banks soon run out of cash and need to raise it from savers.

[As an aside, I don't think 'ISA' has anything to do with it. In theory, whether a savings account is within the ISA wrapper or not is of no consequence whatsoever to a bank. It 'costs' more or less the same in or out. Any difference between a bank's ISA rate, and an equivalent savings account will be down to 'marketing' reasons. If you want new customers, why not give a 'generous' rate? Give it to an 'ordinary' account and people like me will bung in £85K. Restrict it to an ISA, then it can only 'cost' them more on £5,640.]

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.......

This average appears to have increased markedly since HTB1 was first launched. Builders all appear to have seen their average prices rise by 20-30k since the introduction of help to buy. So the question would be, are they now just more expensive, even though more are getting built?

Where have you been? Have you missed the several threads that refer to new houses being more expensive owing to much more onerous building regs, much more aggressive local authority demands for section X (whatever it is making builders pay for new roads/schools....), and general inflation/shortage of materials?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with HTB. Just reinforces how much it costs to build a house these days, confirming that house values are 'fundamentally' not massively overpriced.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not sure you can compare it to council housing as council housing is designed for a completely different purpose and aimed at a completely different set of people.

This is designed to help people buy.

Council and HA housing is designed to support those who don't have the means to buy.

Talking of FTB generally, where on earth do you think they are living now? The above implies that none of these FTB could possibly come from a HA/Council house. Surely a lot of them do. And within the tiny fraction who have actually used HTB1, many of them will as well.

People who "don't have the means to buy" can mean (a) those who would qualify for a mortgage, but don't have the deposit, or (b) those who neither have the deposit, nor the hope of raising/paying a mortgage to buy.

It may surprise you, but many HA/Council tenants have good incomes, and yet continue to be subsidised by the taxpayer. Isn't it rather condescending to assume that all of them don't have the means to buy?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....

Secondly, this will not do anything for those who don't have the means to buy and therefore require "supported" housing described here as council housing....

Re-read my paragraph above showing (a) and (b). HTB1 was specifically aimed at category (a) and specifically not intended to apply to category (b) so why criticise it for that?

Child tax credits were intended to alleviate the cost of bringing up children. Why criticise this initiative for doing nothing to help pensioners get onto the Internet?