May promises to help first time buyers

padington

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There must be a floor for Sterling at which point the BOE will increase rates. To stabilise the currency.

Why not let the currency devalue lots more ? It would put us in a positive balance of trade and hey presto, we can start to paying down the debt. When the market feels assured that the treasury is looking better, the pound will find its own way back up. All the same time keeping rates low to fuel as much borrowing as possibly to help keep the economic engine running

Obviously do it whilst insisting that exactly the opposite is just about to happen any time soon so you can keep rates as low as possible without the currency becoming too worthless ...

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Why not let the currency devalue lots more ? It would put us in a positive balance of trade and hey presto, we can start to paying down the debt. When the market feels assured that the treasury is looking better, the pound will find its own way back up. All the same time keeping rates low to fuel as much borrowing as possibly to help keep the economic engine running

Obviously do it whilst insisting that exactly the opposite is just about to happen any time soon so you can keep rates as low as possible without the currency becoming too worthless ...

an economic argument would be that if the pound looks like dropping too much then we would not be able to borrow to buy essential imports.

Of course 'remainers' have never been concerned about the huge balance of trade deficit but these things come back to bite us eventually.

MARTYM8`

cells wrote: »

I'm not sure there is a huge problem even in London

Last time I checked if I am not mistaken London had an occupancy rate of 2.45 vs 2.30 for the rest of the uk (rounded to the nearest 0.05)

A solution would be to reduce London over supply of social homes. inner east London is >60% social homes. Islington/Tower-Hamelets/Hackney/Southwark are all >40%. If overall the London social stock was sold down to the UK average and those people moved out to rUK then London occupancy rate would be lower than rUK. There is no need for 40-60% of inner London to be social homes especially when some 60% of those homes have not a single tenant works yet are within walking distance of the three big London employment hubs of westminster city docklands. That is my solution

Averages are very misleading.

How many single pensioners in London are rattling around on their own in 3 or 4 bed houses bought decades ago for next to nothing while some houses have several families living in them.

cells

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Averages are very misleading.

How many single pensioners in London are rattling around on their own in 3 or 4 bed houses bought decades ago for next to nothing while some houses have several families living in them.

why do you think there would be more single occupancy homes in London than rUK? If anything I would expect the reverse

I was not saying 2.45 persons per home is high or low, I was saying its close to the 2.30 of the rest of the UK indicating that people in London are not that much more crammed than rUK.

If you emptied 20 average homes in London and 20 elsewhere in the country you would find the 20 in London have just 3 more people in it than the 20 homes not in London. That is not all that bad especially when you consider London has more students and more young people and more workers and fewer pensions and old people which means the people of London probably dont mind all that much in having an additional 3 people per 20 homes than the rUK average

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

why do you think there would be more single occupancy homes in London than rUK? If anything I would expect the reverse

I was not saying 2.45 persons per home is high or low, I was saying its close to the 2.30 of the rest of the UK indicating that people in London are not that much more crammed than rUK.

If you emptied 20 average homes in London and 20 elsewhere in the country you would find the 20 in London have just 3 more people in it than the 20 homes not in London. That is not all that bad especially when you consider London has more students and more young people and more workers and fewer pensions and old people which means the people of London probably dont mind all that much in having an additional 3 people per 20 homes than the rUK average

and the proof is in the result
supply and demand determine price and prices in Lodnon are .....................guess is it high or low?
is the percent of OOs rising or falling in London

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

and the proof is in the result
supply and demand determine price and prices in Lodnon are .....................guess is it high or low?
is the percent of OOs rising or falling in London

over the last ten years the proportion of owner homes has fallen even in Stoke-on-Trent probably one of the cheapest town in England and not far off 1x joint full time income for the locals

HornetSaver

cells wrote: »

100% LTV mortgages
Self Cert

Job Done. Ownership goes to 70%

Both home ownership, and state ownership of banks.

Personally I'd go towards a minimum deposit requirement of 10% - to ensure that there is sufficient equity in the property for the bank to have peace of mind, and to ensure that the borrower is disciplined enough to be able to squirrel away that sort of money. And yes, if you can come up with 10% deposit without government help, allow self cert for residential mortgages up to a defined upper limit (I believe £250,000 is the fashionable number right now).

cells

HornetSaver wrote: »

Both home ownership, and state ownership of banks.

Personally I'd go towards a minimum deposit requirement of 10% - to ensure that there is sufficient equity in the property for the bank to have peace of mind, and to ensure that the borrower is disciplined enough to be able to squirrel away that sort of money. And yes, if you can come up with 10% deposit without government help, allow self cert for residential mortgages up to a defined upper limit (I believe £250,000 is the fashionable number right now).

yes it would have to be 10-20% down for self cert and by self cert I dont mean fake pay slip mortgages I mean simply ticking a box saying I am happy with all the risks and happy to take this mortgage.

100% should be permitted too but for 'normal' mortgages on a repayment basis. After three years its effectively down to almost 90% from the repayment side of things.

ruperts

I'll give May the benefit of the doubt but I fully expect this to be more empty rhetoric.

One easy way to cool the housing market, especially in London would be to ban non-British citizens from buying property. Even just banning people who don't live here and don't need property here would be a good start. But realistically the baby boomers can't stand to see their properties devalued even if it means screwing over their kids, so as per usual nothing will actually be done to address the serious problems in housing. Young professionals will respond by leaving the country especially now they can earn so much more abroad. To plug the gap the floodgates will open to even more immigrants with even fewer skills from countries even less culturally compatible.

MARTYM8`

ruperts wrote: »

I'll give May the benefit of the doubt but I fully expect this to be more empty rhetoric.

One easy way to cool the housing market, especially in London would be to ban non-British citizens from buying property. Even just banning people who don't live here and don't need property here would be a good start. But realistically the baby boomers can't stand to see their properties devalued even if it means screwing over their kids, so as per usual nothing will actually be done to address the serious problems in housing. Young professionals will respond by leaving the country especially now they can earn so much more abroad. To plug the gap the floodgates will open to even more immigrants with even fewer skills from countries even less culturally compatible.

More shared ownership and more help to buy - 80% interest free loans for 5 years probably - to shift those new builds at ever higher prices and keep the developers building (and making lots of profits).

All these first time buyer schemes just make affordability worse - and price more first time buyers out.

How about good old fashioned council housing - it rather worked in the 50s!