Labour plans for FTB ISAs

PeacefulWaters

colsten wrote: »

He says he will fund them from the FTB ISAs. As we know, the max such an ISA can hold is £15,000 (of which £3,000 comes from the government) and it takes 5 years to get to £15,000. As one user has pointed out, £15,000 x 125,000 = £1.88bn. So there are £3.12bn still missing, and the £1.88bn will only be available after year 5. Is he going to wait that long before he starts the building?

And what happens when the savers who provided the £1.88bn need to withdraw their savings to ... pay their deposits?

It sounds like a poor quality Ponzi scheme.

ffacoffipawb

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

You forget one thing OP. Minibrand does not like the idea of a free market economy.

Every time labour come to power the state expands, they would like everyone in their thrawl, and their ideal populace would be a whole load of ants following the leader.

Labour can only be bad for the economy, and the idea of using the FTB ISAs to fund this would mean that the banks simply would not offer them, or they would offer a very low interest rate because it would be costing them so much.

They're not known as the Benefits Party for nothing.

Should get a nice increase in interest rates if this numpty becomes PM as a run on the pound is almost guaranteed.

He screwed his brother and he will screw us all.

le_loup

What an incredible set of postings from a subset of the most prolific posters on this board who are supposed to know something about money!

Unbelievable nonsense straight from the annuls of the Telegraph and Mail.

If it was the 1st of April, I would be laughing along with you. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Archi_Bald

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Labour can only be bad for the economy, and the idea of using the FTB ISAs to fund this would mean that the banks simply would not offer them, or they would offer a very low interest rate because it would be costing them so much.

I agree, the banks would just not be interested. This whole idea seems incredibly ill-conceived. If they screw up so badly on something so relatively simple, God help us with the economy

Archi_Bald

le_loup wrote: »

What an incredible set of postings from a subset of the most prolific posters on this board who are supposed to know something about money!

Unbelievable nonsense straight from the annuls of the Telegraph and Mail.

If it was the 1st of April, I would be laughing along with you. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Can you elaborate?

ColdIron

le_loup wrote: »

What an incredible set of postings from a subset of the most prolific posters on this board who are supposed to know something about money!

But do you agree or disagree with the premise that the FTB ISA cannot fund the building of 125,000 homes?

PeacefulWaters

le_loup wrote: »

What an incredible set of postings from a subset of the most prolific posters on this board who are supposed to know something about money!

Unbelievable nonsense straight from the annuls of the Telegraph and Mail.

If it was the 1st of April, I would be laughing along with you. Unfortunately, it isn't.

I've no objection to a modest policy of house building.

The sums don't seem to add up though. And the threat of land grab is like something from the third world.

lawriejones1

gadgetmind wrote: »

And what if they are flats of the not awful type, which most are?

There's nothing wrong with high density housing and it's the norm in most countries. It reduces the demand for land and often enables people to be car free, so a double win.

The first thing is that flats in this country are very small, and often poorly built. They're also not particularly desirable, not set up for families and are often purchased (and built as) investment properties.

Lastly, the service charges can be awful.

Having lived in a number of flats (70s one which was great, and a new build which was awful), and an old Council house and a Victorian terrace I know where I'm happiest investing my money, and the majority of the UK agrees.

lawriejones1

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

You forget one thing OP. Minibrand does not like the idea of a free market economy.

Every time labour come to power the state expands, they would like everyone in their thrawl, and their ideal populace would be a whole load of ants following the leader.

Labour can only be bad for the economy, and the idea of using the FTB ISAs to fund this would mean that the banks simply would not offer them, or they would offer a very low interest rate because it would be costing them so much.

We have also seen an incredible amount of bureaucracy being created by the Tories too, which is surprising and disappointing for a party dedicated to local decision making and the supposed cutting of red tape.

redux

It is laughable to complain about Labour interfering in the free market with respect to the banks.

If government money hadn't been used to rescue the banks from their ludicrous excesses a few years ago, many of them would not exist, their shareholders still wouldn't have stopped whingeing, and we'd all be worse off.

Now, borrowing is harder because of more stringent rules.

No prospective government has sensible policy on housing. But this certainly isn't a new phenomenon.

Miliband's rhetoric doesn't seem to make sense, but neither does Cameron's. Cameron wants more affordable houses, while relaxing planning rules about how much affordable housing developers are obliged to build.