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

Percy1983

Joeskeppi wrote: »

It's weird how the thread always ends up about Percy when Percy wades in and starts talking about himself.

In every !!!!!!! thread.

Actually, if you look, I do have a problem.

I make a point, some people don't like said point and then go on the attack by posting untrue things about me.

The problem is if I see incorrect things posted about me I then correct them, in the view of if somebody new was reading it would be fair enough and in the hope that the person making such false statements is infact just misinformed by previous false statements.

Essentially trying to close a loop and stop it happening again.

Sorry if it appears to not be working, but I can't help but try and aducated the less fortunate in the errors of their ways.

ukcarper

blinko wrote: »

There is a reason why people need to save an amount it's called risk reduction.

The main reason WHY we had one of the most serious crashes in history was because people were borrowing to much and banks were taking on too much risk.

By requiring people to input more of there own money,
1. this reduces the risk to the banks
2. reduces the risk to the tax payer
3. ensures that people who have the financial discipline to save up 15% of a deposit for a house are less likely to default

Individually people can't borrow more.


Apart from reduces risk to bank and tax payer the rest is debatable.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I have never said I didn't have a higher debt balance, but I have also said I have had a higher income, yet again just take one part of the story highlight it and take it as the whole story.

If you want to split rather big hairs we both drove cars yet the debt for both was in my name.

As said we teamed up, transferred debts BOTH WAYS, made everything interest free and cleared all OUR debts.

If you really want to use a bailout by the end of the debt clearing she would have paid approx £2k of my debt. OMMGGGG BAILOUT.

But then I put £7k into the deposit and she put in £2.3k, OMG I must have bailed her out.

Oh wait she apid some of me debt a few months earlier, best give that back.

So I put £5k intot he deposit and she put in £4.3k, OMG she bailed me out... oh wait... no she didn't

Then we move in.

In April 2012 I paid £400 more into the joint account than her, OMG I bailed her out.

In May 2012 I paid £400 more into the joint account than her, OMG I bailed her out.

In June 2012 I paid £400 more into the joint account than her, OMG I bailed her out.

In July 2012 I paid £1200 more into the joint account than her, OMG I bailed her out.

Need I continue?

So where are the lies? its very well posting things from my journey, but the only people denying parts of it is people like you.

I though you had him on ignore it might be better for you and the rest of us if you did.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

I though you had him on ignore it might be better for you and the rest of us if you did.

Nope just got many turnips on ignore.

Not sure this one is a turnip and they do seem to have some debating skills and different view points.

I am hoping I can bring this one back to reality, dispel the myths and continue.

N1AK

mayonnaise wrote: »

That's a real silly comparison, even for your standards.

It's an entirely accurate comparison and I'm surprised you can't see it.

Asking people who chose to take government money to buy a house whether they think being offered that money is a good idea is completely analogous to asking a benefit claimant if giving them more money would be a good idea.

In both cases they could well be right, but they'll only be right if their own interests align with the wider interests of the country.

mayonnaise

Percy1983 wrote: »

Actually, if you look, I do have a problem.

No it's fine, I got it. You brought the lion share of debt to the table and then you both paid it off.
If you're not happy with the name bailout, we can use the word 'lifeline'.

N1AK wrote: »

It's an entirely accurate comparison and I'm surprised you can't see it.

Asking people who chose to take government money to buy a house whether they think being offered that money is a good idea is completely analogous to asking a benefit claimant if giving them more money would be a good idea.

In both cases they could well be right, but they'll only be right if their own interests align with the wider interests of the country.

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

Percy1983

mayonnaise wrote: »

No it's fine, I got it. You brought the lion share of debt to the table and then you both paid it off.
If you're not happy with the name bailout, we can use the word 'lifeline'.

But I also brought the lions share of income so just... paid my debts.

Lifeline doesn't work as that insinuates I need one, which I clearly didn't as your link from my past proves (ouch, shot yourself in the foot).

In short we both had debts, we pulled off a trick which turned all debts for both us into 0% deals to which we then cleared them quickly.

You see the problem you have is the actual story actually paints me as rather clever, but you can't have that can you.

But hey just stick with phase one why not... Yes I transferred debts into my partners name, yep in isolation that sounds awful.

Who cares if phase 2 was her transfering debts into my name, we will ignore that, that doesn't make me look bad does it.

So have you done?

blinko

ukcarper wrote: »

Individually people can't borrow more.


Apart from reduces risk to bank and tax payer the rest is debatable.

They can now borrow 95% of the value of a property.

The whole point of the new capital rules are so that the kind of reckless lending that caused 2008 can never happen again. Reducing risk for the banks, reducing risk for the tax payer and also reducing the risk of default for the purchaser.

Help to buy increases the risk for all involved

grizzly1911

ukcarper wrote: »

Individually people can't borrow more.

They couldn't afford the earlier deposit requirements. So they can now borrow more than before the schemes.

They are potentially going to be paying a premium, in the case of new build, so the risk of negative equity is higher.

I wonder at what interest level the lending establishments assess affordability?

blinko

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I wonder at what interest level the lending establishments assess affordability?

well considering base rates = 0.5% and current help to buy offers are 5% can we say that there will be a 4.5% premium above base rate on the help to buyers.

Using this can we say that at 2% interest rate on the mortgage would be (2+4.5) = 6.5%