What's wrong with letting people get repossesed ?

ianmr65

Ephemera wrote: »

Yes, pay their mortgage but put a charge on the property...that way, they keep their home, are not getting 'charity' and the taxpayer is not financing someone else's investment.
I think it is wrong to expect non-homeowning taxpayers, or those who already own their homes to pay the mortgages of those who cannot, or will not, sell up.
And yes, it is politically motivated...!

Call me a cynic, but here is my take on this latest nugget from HMG.

During the last HPC, banks were not in the appaling financial straits they are now, sitting on worthless mortage backed securities, they can't sell.

the liquidity boost yesterday was just that. It will do nothing to help the banks solvency.

Today in america, many banks are not bothering to reposses all their foreclousures
a) they can't sell the stock.
b) maintianing unsold empty stock is expensive.
c)letting the occupants live there rent free gives a degree of security over the asset, they would otherwise not have.
d) They don't have to write down the asset if they don't sell it.

However this is the UK... and as the UK mortage banks asset books are so perilous, selling off repos at a massive loss puting more holes in their balance sheets may finally force these banks under. And we don't do rent-free living here. With the benfits system and all.

If the goverment were to buy up fire sale repo UK stock, homes, and BTL at current market rates, but well below mortage value, and charge rent / give them to housing assciations to manage it would

a) boost house prices.
b) prevent a housing / repo crisis,
c) Prevent the banks from sitting on empty assets they can't sell, and would cost them to maintain.
d) prevent banks from falling over, by having to write down these assets, but at a cost.
f) bring back badly needed cheap social housing, much cheaper than they could build it themselves
g) re-value all the crap BTL shoebox housing once and for all.
f) Kill buy to let. Stick it to the banks, and the builders once again.
G)and they'll think it might just might win them the next election.

Gordon is quite a socialist at heart, and this would have great appeal, to him. If not the wider non repo's population

MiserlyMartin

Your plan is interesting Ian. Some good benefits there, like killing BTL and boosting council house stock. But I don't see how boosting house prices will help. All that will do is put off the inevitable crash making it even bigger later.

JanCee

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

what the point i am making, shouldnt things be allowed to take their natural course to restore some social justice. if we dont, we are making a rod for our own backs in that we are teaching future generations that selfishness and greed pay off.

This post has to be the biggest joke on this thread. BB calling for the restoration of social justice, while sponging off society like a leech. Pretending to be concerned about the selfishness and greed of future generations while selfishly and greedily taking benefits and brazenly bragging about it in other posts. I hardly think the moral high ground is a position you can afford to take, because you haven't earned it.

BTLNEWbie_3

Benefits_Blagger wrote: »

I dont have kids and I dont work, but have substantial savings and if it wasn't for this stupid HPI we have had over the last decade I would be able to buy my own place, anyway it's only a matter of time before I do :beer:

So what you are saying if I read this correctly, is that the hard earned tax payer will be buying your own place.What a Joke.

BTLNEWbie_3

JanCee wrote: »

This post has to be the biggest joke on this thread. BB calling for the restoration of social justice, while sponging off society like a leech. Pretending to be concerned about the selfishness and greed of future generations while selfishly and greedily taking benefits and brazenly bragging about it in other posts. I hardly think the moral high ground is a position you can afford to take, because you haven't earned it.

JanCee go back and read some of his other posts, people like BB do not deserve social payment help when all they wish for is misery heeped on others who are just trying to get through life in a law abiding way.

ianmr65

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Your plan is interesting Ian. Some good benefits there, like killing BTL and boosting council house stock. But I don't see how boosting house prices will help. All that will do is put off the inevitable crash making it even bigger later.

Well 'boost' is relative.... lets just say that i think the effect that this would have, if they did it, (and i think they will) would be to cut the rate of fall, and maybe take 5% of the total. So rather than a 30% fall, we would see a 25% fall, and keep the crash to under two years.
You would have the physcolgical factor, of people knowing they have a safety net,
and the market factor.

ianmr65

LillyJ wrote: »

Maybe but I just think that that is like letting smokers kill themselves without trying to help them or letting obese people die just to show other people how bad smoking and obesity are.

It's a free country. Smokers pay through the nose in tax, (literally) and die younger. So they are massive net contributors to the exchequer. Ditto obese people who clearly eat lots of vat added food - fast food, and drink lots of alcohol. Again paing through the nose in taxes.

In a just system, non smoking thin tee-totalers who don't contributte any of these taxes should be forced to pay a health tax, on the basis they will live longer leech more of the country in health benefits and old age pensions, and die a lot more slowly!!

ianmr65

JanCee wrote: »

This post has to be the biggest joke on this thread. BB calling for the restoration of social justice, while sponging off society like a leech. Pretending to be concerned about the selfishness and greed of future generations while selfishly and greedily taking benefits and brazenly bragging about it in other posts. I hardly think the moral high ground is a position you can afford to take, because you haven't earned it.

Whatever the rights of wrongs of BB's personal circumstances here are a few harsh facts about benefits.

80% of the health, and benfits pot of £120bn is spent on OAP's
Illigal immigrants and benefit cheats take about 1/4 of one percent of the benefits pot (call it £300m)
Tax evasion & avoidance. by companies, and individuals, acounts for something like £20bn in lost revenue to the exchequer.
Goverment & Public Sector Index linked penisons (for life) account for £20bn today!!
The budget defecit is running at about £100bn,

Now which of these numbers do you think we as a nation should really be really worried about, and why?

LittleMissAspie

Ephemera wrote: »

Would you, if you were a renting taxpayer, be happy to pay the mortgage of someone sitting on a 1/4 million pound asset for six to twelve months while they look for a job?

I am a renting taxpayer and yes. If you are genuinely in need through unforeseen circumstances then you should get the same amount whether owning or renting.

LillyJ

ianmr65 wrote: »

It's a free country. Smokers pay through the nose in tax, (literally) and die younger. So they are massive net contributors to the exchequer. Ditto obese people who clearly eat lots of vat added food - fast food, and drink lots of alcohol. Again paing through the nose in taxes.

In a just system, non smoking thin tee-totalers who don't contributte any of these taxes should be forced to pay a health tax, on the basis they will live longer leech more of the country in health benefits and old age pensions, and die a lot more slowly!!

Yes it is a free country but if you look at research in to the amount of smokers at any given point in time who want to give up, you will find it is rather large. THerefore what I am saying is, it is like not allowing these people help and encouraging them to smoke in order to teach the rest of us that smoking is bad. It doesn't make any sense.
I am not saying smokers and obese people do not pay their dues, but I for one would not want them all to die to teach a lesson to the younger generation! Which is what letting people become homeless to "educate" young people on money matters is similar to.

PS PLEASE read up on the amount of NHS budget used on smoking and obesity related conditions, if you genuinely think thin smokers use more health benefits then I suggest you go away and look in to it again! (THis is my pet subject, public health so don't get me started!)