Help to Buy is nothing but an election ploy....

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

Iso no you are not making stuff up just mis quoting really.

Thanks for confirming that you have double standards that suit your agenda.

Percy1983

mayonnaise wrote: »

Hello again Percy, and yes, I know this question wasn't aimed at me.

There are several posts (and I quoted a couple earlier in the thread) where you tell the whole community here that you had approx 25K debts while your then GF owed a couple of grand.
So you can dress it up anyway you like, but it's a bailout.
I'm not saying it's wrong. If you and Ms. Percy were/are happy with that, it's all that counts.
But please, give credit where credit is due.

I have never not given credit to her. As said I can honestly say there where 2 cars in the £25k, £6k mine £5k hers, as said if you did a fair adjustment the figures wouldn't look as one sided.

As said I have never denied stage one meant some of my debts wen't into her name, yet again never denied.

Yet stage 2 was her debts going into my name, yet again I have never denied this, yet many on here seem to leave out this truth.

I will say we never counted exactly how much went each way or tracked blances as we wen't for absolute efficiency, so all cards got minimum payments and all spare money from both us went to the highest APR, so at different points it would all go to a card in either of our names, as transfers wen't both way everytime one of us had spare capacity another 0% card appeared.

I will say we didn't keep track of where each penny started or ended up, but using averages etc I will say she would have cleared appox £2k-2.5K of my debt. But even then at best it was a short term loan rather than a bail out. In simple terms the last £4k was on a card in my name and by definition she shouyld have stopped saying at the £2.5k mark and started saving for the deposit and I should have paid the rest, but the last 0% deal was coming to an end so we just carried on, but then I funded most of the house deposit, which would then equate to having paid said loan back.

Going forward here is an interesting one, right now there is one credit card balance and the card is in my name and we are about to do the same again (she is going to try and get a 0% card), wish us luck.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

Thanks for confirming that you have double standards that suit your agenda.

Do you accept the challenge?

N1AK

mayonnaise wrote: »

One is a benefit, the other is a government backed equity loan, so it's a worthless comparison. End of.

No. One is the opinion of someone who benefits from policy A on policy A and the other is the opinion of someone who benefits from policy B on policy B. Fortunately that is a concept I'm confident most people can grip regardless of your opinion.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

Do you accept the challenge?

Why would I accept a challenge from a random stranger on the internet?

I've told you the truth, you can't handle the truth.

I have better things to do, if you need a challenge join a dating site.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

Why would I accept a challenge from a random stranger on the internet?

I've told you the truth, you can't handle the truth.

I have better things to do, if you need a challenge join a dating site.

But I have absolute evidence you have lied (not just a difference in opinion), if you are so sure you why not take the challenge and prove me wrong?

The other option is every time you post something I disagree with I just post "remember this lie" as that seems to be all you do with me with "remember the bailout".

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Drivel.

It wasn't UK lending standards, UK house prices, or UK mortgage defaults that caused the banking crisis in 2008.

And as UK lending wasn't the problem, then restricting UK lending cannot be the cure.

Yes and no.The UK market wasn't the trigger for the banking crisis, that much is undeniably true. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a major problem in the UK mortgage market in the run up to 2008. When you look at the lending market at that time, with 120% lending, liar loans, a mssive over reliance on the wholesale market and a generally far to lax approach to the principles of credit risk, it is clear that it was unsustainable. While we will never know for sure, it's probably fair to say that the only reason there wasn't a "home grown" crisis is because events elsewhere blew up first. I sincerely hope that we never see a mortgage market that lax again.

Now of course, it's important to acknowledge that HTB2 thankfully doesn't take us back to those levels, or anything like them. But I'm firmly of the view that it is bad policy nonentheless.The last thing our policy makers should be doing is doing anything that props up the housing market. It should either just keep out of the way, or try and address the reasons why houses are so expensive in the first place. That would inevitably mean both a large scale publicly funded house building programme, and significant changes to the tax system to make holding property for investment purposes much less attractive.

Instead, government have gone for the easy option of alleviating the short term symptom while doing nothing to address the cause. For all it's problems, the crisis actually created an opportunity to move away from the property led boom and bust of recent years. HTB2 is imho conclusive proof that we have missed that opportunity.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Yes and no.The UK market wasn't the trigger for the banking crisis, that much is undeniably true. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a major problem in the UK mortgage market in the run up to 2008. When you look at the lending market at that time, with 120% lending, liar loans, a mssive over reliance on the wholesale market and a generally far to lax approach to the principles of credit risk, it is clear that it was unsustainable. While we will never know for sure, it's probably fair to say that the only reason there wasn't a "home grown" crisis is because events elsewhere blew up first. I sincerely hope that we never see a mortgage market that lax again.

Now of course, it's important to acknowledge that HTB2 thankfully doesn't take us back to those levels, or anything like them. But I'm firmly of the view that it is bad policy nonentheless.The last thing our policy makers should be doing is doing anything that props up the housing market. It should either just keep out of the way, or try and address the reasons why houses are so expensive in the first place. That would inevitably mean both a large scale publicly funded house building programme, and significant changes to the tax system to make holding property for investment purposes much less attractive.

Instead, government have gone for the easy option of alleviating the short term symptom while doing nothing to address the cause. For all it's problems, the crisis actually created an opportunity to move away from the property led boom and bust of recent years. HTB2 is imho conclusive proof that we have missed that opportunity.

no

we need to build more houses

to do this we need to give planning permission for more houses

and we need to remove the extra taxes and charges on new houses to make them attractive to buyers.

very little cost to the taxpayer

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

no





we need to build more houses





to do this we need to give planning permission for more houses





and we need to remove the extra taxes and charges on new houses to make them
attractive to buyers.





very little cost to the taxpayer

I would just add that we also need to STOP developers from restricting supply which in turn keeps their profit margin high.

If Furgus and Judith Wilson had been repo'd flooding the Ashford housing market with 650 or so houses in one go it would have depressed the market,prices would have dropped.Developers are not going to allow the market to be flooded with newbuilds, just aint gonna happen.

Its blatantly obvious that if supply is restricted the cost of any product rises as we have seen for the past decade but land is a finite commodity and developers won't give away plots cheaply, thats why they landbank.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

I would just add that we also need to STOP developers from restricting supply which in turn keeps their profit margin high.

If Furgus and Judith Wilson had been repo'd flooding the Ashford housing market with 650 or so houses in one go it would have depressed the market,prices would have dropped.Developers are not going to allow the market to be flooded with newbuilds, just aint gonna happen.

Its blatantly obvious that if supply is restricted the cost of any product rises as we have seen for the past decade but land is a finite commodity and developers won't give away plots cheaply, thats why they landbank.

I fully agree that if developers could control the market for their advantage they would do so.


However, there are several thousand builders in the UK and to think that they could all collude in an gigantic illegal cartel without anyone knowing seems unrealistic.

Obviously any builder that breaks the cartel 'rules' would make a killing because he could build as many properties as he likes and benefit from the artificial high prices caused by everyone else limiting their own sales.

A huge win for him.

If supply is truly being restricted thus, then there must be thousands of people with adequate deposits and mortgages arranged who are being refused a new build property.

Surely such a thing would be reported widely in the newspapers and by MPs of all parties.


There is plenty of land if planning permission was available.