Finally seeing house prices drop?

HotPantsCruiser

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

Agreed, it will be harder for both, the difference being that every month that goes by the home-owner is still paying off their own mortgage while the renter is still paying off their landlord's mortgage.

people were using credit to pay their mortgages. Renting is probably cheaper in those circumstances. ... And then possibly losing 'your' (the lender's) house.

As @jimbog pointed out, renters will be hit with rising costs the same as home-owners are. Renters already pay more of their wages towards rent than home-owners pay towards their mortgage so it stands to reason that in fact renters are more likely to need to use credit cards to pay their monthly housing costs.

Even in the worst times the number of home-owners who lost their home was tiny. New policies and rules introduced in the last decade or so mean that the number who lose their home in the future will be even smaller.

Or they could apply for housing benefit, you can`t walk away from a large mortgage debt though, even if the market crashes.

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Sure, but they have to pay it back at some point, you don`t pay back HB as far as I am aware? The number of people who have had their entire mortgage paid off as a deferred debt though will be miniscule compared to the amount of people getting their rent paid by HB.

[Deleted User]

It's just storing up problems for later. If people are forced to rent their entire lives, some future government will end up subsiding them in retirement.

Also means when they go into care there won't be any assets to pay for that.

SuseOrm

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

Agreed, it will be harder for both, the difference being that every month that goes by the home-owner is still paying off their own mortgage while the renter is still paying off their landlord's mortgage.

people were using credit to pay their mortgages. Renting is probably cheaper in those circumstances. ... And then possibly losing 'your' (the lender's) house.

As @jimbog pointed out, renters will be hit with rising costs the same as home-owners are. Renters already pay more of their wages towards rent than home-owners pay towards their mortgage so it stands to reason that in fact renters are more likely to need to use credit cards to pay their monthly housing costs.

Even in the worst times the number of home-owners who lost their home was tiny. New policies and rules introduced in the last decade or so mean that the number who lose their home in the future will be even smaller.

Or they could apply for housing benefit, you can`t walk away from a large mortgage debt though, even if the market crashes.

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Sure, but they have to pay it back at some point, you don`t pay back HB as far as I am aware? The number of people who have had their entire mortgage paid off as a deferred debt though will be miniscule compared to the amount of people getting their rent paid by HB.

Wrong back in the day it did not have to be paid back. 

Whether the numbers are in the renters favour or not in terms of who is getting what from the government is utterly irrelevant,  the facts are that you actually would be able to stay in your home for a lot longer with the government paying your mortgage than at the potential landlords whim because the housing benefit may not actually cover the full cost of your rent.  And you may not be able to make up the shortfall.  

robatwork

SuseOrm said

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Is that one of them MacMortgages?

SuseOrm

robatwork said:

SuseOrm said

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Is that one of them MacMortgages?

I dont know what that is 

nicknameless

MobileSaver said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

it is the idea that you should take on decades of mortgage debt for relatively unexceptional property that is the problem,

Er, so you think it's better to pay the landlord's mortgage plus their extra profit on top instead?!?! lookstraightahead's assertion is simply incorrect, paying your landlord's mortgage is not cheaper than paying your own mortgage.

How else can you get to live in a "relatively unexceptional property" unless you pay for it one way or the other for decades? And if mortgage debt payments are less than rent payments then where exactly is the problem?

HotPantsCruiser said:

Many landlords don`t have a mortgage

That's because lovely people like you have paid their mortgage off for them! LOL

HotPantsCruiser said:

Or they could apply for housing benefit,

Unless things have changed, housing benefit is only paid if you are unemployed or on a very low wage, it is not paid just because your monthly costs have gone up...

Why are people debating Crashy under his new username?  Don't feed the troll - he lives for it.

HotPantsCruiser

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

Agreed, it will be harder for both, the difference being that every month that goes by the home-owner is still paying off their own mortgage while the renter is still paying off their landlord's mortgage.

people were using credit to pay their mortgages. Renting is probably cheaper in those circumstances. ... And then possibly losing 'your' (the lender's) house.

As @jimbog pointed out, renters will be hit with rising costs the same as home-owners are. Renters already pay more of their wages towards rent than home-owners pay towards their mortgage so it stands to reason that in fact renters are more likely to need to use credit cards to pay their monthly housing costs.

Even in the worst times the number of home-owners who lost their home was tiny. New policies and rules introduced in the last decade or so mean that the number who lose their home in the future will be even smaller.

Or they could apply for housing benefit, you can`t walk away from a large mortgage debt though, even if the market crashes.

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Sure, but they have to pay it back at some point, you don`t pay back HB as far as I am aware? The number of people who have had their entire mortgage paid off as a deferred debt though will be miniscule compared to the amount of people getting their rent paid by HB.

Wrong back in the day it did not have to be paid back. 

Whether the numbers are in the renters favour or not in terms of who is getting what from the government is utterly irrelevant,  the facts are that you actually would be able to stay in your home for a lot longer with the government paying your mortgage than at the potential landlords whim because the housing benefit may not actually cover the full cost of your rent.  And you may not be able to make up the shortfall.  

It will have to be paid back now though, the government won`t be paying your mortgage now as we enter a potential economic crisis?

SuseOrm

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

Agreed, it will be harder for both, the difference being that every month that goes by the home-owner is still paying off their own mortgage while the renter is still paying off their landlord's mortgage.

people were using credit to pay their mortgages. Renting is probably cheaper in those circumstances. ... And then possibly losing 'your' (the lender's) house.

As @jimbog pointed out, renters will be hit with rising costs the same as home-owners are. Renters already pay more of their wages towards rent than home-owners pay towards their mortgage so it stands to reason that in fact renters are more likely to need to use credit cards to pay their monthly housing costs.

Even in the worst times the number of home-owners who lost their home was tiny. New policies and rules introduced in the last decade or so mean that the number who lose their home in the future will be even smaller.

Or they could apply for housing benefit, you can`t walk away from a large mortgage debt though, even if the market crashes.

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Sure, but they have to pay it back at some point, you don`t pay back HB as far as I am aware? The number of people who have had their entire mortgage paid off as a deferred debt though will be miniscule compared to the amount of people getting their rent paid by HB.

Wrong back in the day it did not have to be paid back. 

Whether the numbers are in the renters favour or not in terms of who is getting what from the government is utterly irrelevant,  the facts are that you actually would be able to stay in your home for a lot longer with the government paying your mortgage than at the potential landlords whim because the housing benefit may not actually cover the full cost of your rent.  And you may not be able to make up the shortfall.  

It will have to be paid back now though, the government won`t be paying your mortgage now as we enter a potential economic crisis?

Yes it is repayable now,  but the point is, if someone looses their job they wont loose their house 

HotPantsCruiser

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

Agreed, it will be harder for both, the difference being that every month that goes by the home-owner is still paying off their own mortgage while the renter is still paying off their landlord's mortgage.

people were using credit to pay their mortgages. Renting is probably cheaper in those circumstances. ... And then possibly losing 'your' (the lender's) house.

As @jimbog pointed out, renters will be hit with rising costs the same as home-owners are. Renters already pay more of their wages towards rent than home-owners pay towards their mortgage so it stands to reason that in fact renters are more likely to need to use credit cards to pay their monthly housing costs.

Even in the worst times the number of home-owners who lost their home was tiny. New policies and rules introduced in the last decade or so mean that the number who lose their home in the future will be even smaller.

Or they could apply for housing benefit, you can`t walk away from a large mortgage debt though, even if the market crashes.

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Sure, but they have to pay it back at some point, you don`t pay back HB as far as I am aware? The number of people who have had their entire mortgage paid off as a deferred debt though will be miniscule compared to the amount of people getting their rent paid by HB.

Wrong back in the day it did not have to be paid back. 

Whether the numbers are in the renters favour or not in terms of who is getting what from the government is utterly irrelevant,  the facts are that you actually would be able to stay in your home for a lot longer with the government paying your mortgage than at the potential landlords whim because the housing benefit may not actually cover the full cost of your rent.  And you may not be able to make up the shortfall.  

It will have to be paid back now though, the government won`t be paying your mortgage now as we enter a potential economic crisis?

Yes it is repayable now,  but the point is, if someone looses their job they wont loose their house 

Not sure that anyone is claiming there is much risk of losing a house, just that prices could fall and someone who borrowed a lot could end up in NE or just regret borrowing too much.

SuseOrm

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

SuseOrm said:

HotPantsCruiser said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

Agreed, it will be harder for both, the difference being that every month that goes by the home-owner is still paying off their own mortgage while the renter is still paying off their landlord's mortgage.

people were using credit to pay their mortgages. Renting is probably cheaper in those circumstances. ... And then possibly losing 'your' (the lender's) house.

As @jimbog pointed out, renters will be hit with rising costs the same as home-owners are. Renters already pay more of their wages towards rent than home-owners pay towards their mortgage so it stands to reason that in fact renters are more likely to need to use credit cards to pay their monthly housing costs.

Even in the worst times the number of home-owners who lost their home was tiny. New policies and rules introduced in the last decade or so mean that the number who lose their home in the future will be even smaller.

Or they could apply for housing benefit, you can`t walk away from a large mortgage debt though, even if the market crashes.

I actually know with people who have their Intyre mortgage paid off for them by the equivalent of housing benefits for homeowners.  

I believe the scheme has changed now to mean that the government steps in and takes over the loan for the duration of unemployment which is repayable but it does keep people in their homes.  

Sure, but they have to pay it back at some point, you don`t pay back HB as far as I am aware? The number of people who have had their entire mortgage paid off as a deferred debt though will be miniscule compared to the amount of people getting their rent paid by HB.

Wrong back in the day it did not have to be paid back. 

Whether the numbers are in the renters favour or not in terms of who is getting what from the government is utterly irrelevant,  the facts are that you actually would be able to stay in your home for a lot longer with the government paying your mortgage than at the potential landlords whim because the housing benefit may not actually cover the full cost of your rent.  And you may not be able to make up the shortfall.  

It will have to be paid back now though, the government won`t be paying your mortgage now as we enter a potential economic crisis?

Yes it is repayable now,  but the point is, if someone looses their job they wont loose their house 

Not sure that anyone is claiming there is much risk of losing a house, just that prices could fall and someone who borrowed a lot could end up in NE or just regret borrowing too much.

In order for house prices to fall and people to end up in negative equity you would need re-possessions otherwise what you end up with is a Mexican stand-off where there’s just no houses for sale and the ones that are for sale have an ever increasing price.