What's wrong with letting people get repossesed ?

SingleSue

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

If I were in that situation I would make sure I got a another job to prevent that from happening. Any old job I wouldn't care. Its about time people took responsibilty for themselves - but all the while we have the welfare state as a safety net and this government in power this won't happen. Nobody will ever be taught anything except 'if you are irresponsible - you are bailed out'

As it should be.

In an ideal world.....I have been there, I took on several extra jobs but all to no avail as all were against medical advice and eventually I had to stop and we lost the house.

neas

LillyJ wrote: »

Yeah just like if people can't pay their mortgages they should all be turfed out on the streets along with their children.....

Capitalism for ya

LillyJ

neas wrote: »

Capitalism for ya

Neas I think putting people who eat too much in a pen and letting them get thin and institutionalising people who are old is exactly the opposite of capitalism!

smk77

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

If I were in that situation I would make sure I got a another job to prevent that from happening. Any old job I wouldn't care.

I don't know about you but "Any old job" wouldn't pay my mortgage. Since I took out a fixed rate mortgage 3 years ago that was an affordable 18% of household income a number of things have happened to affect my financial situation. Firstly, the rate ended last summer (4.49% became 6.28%) and secondly my wife and I had a baby. As a result of a drop in my wifes income (on maternity leave and will return part time) and the rate increase my mortage is now 30% of household income. We can afford it but certainly haven't been financial reckless when taking out a mortgage. But should I need to find a new job I would have to earn at least what I earn now. So, for me "Any old job" would not be enough to pay my mortgage.

ianmr65

LillyJ wrote: »

It is pretty arbitary agreed but whilst I would like to be on the right side of the J shaped curve, I for one wouldn't take the risk with excess drinking, as it is a spectrum. So the cut offs don't mean you are safe at 21 units and unsafe at 22, it is a continuum. It is amazing how many people in their early 20s are getting cirrhosis now days, and women are getting it younger and younger.

I also can't afford to drink to excess, if I did drink more than 14 units a week I would be skint!

well i don't drink at all. :cool: and i applaud your restraint. i know people who drink twice what you drink in a week in one night.:eek:

dudleyboy

Ephemera wrote: »

Unfortunately, children are already, and nearly always will be punished for and by bad parenting.

Anyone who is able can have kids, and there seem to be plenty of parents that have child after child simply in order to live off benefits or avoid jail, and the kids are almost feral.

Yet those of us that would love to have kids, be socially responsible and feed, clothe and home these children at the bare minimum of taxpayer's expense, are penalised so the !!!!less can breed more. I have no children because I cannot afford to. I could have children, but that would mean living off benefits to do so. I do not want the taxpayer funding my life! But then that means I have to give up my chance of being a mother just because I am socially responsible.

Give it a generation or two and this socially-responsible streak will have been eradicated, and we will all look to Mother Government England for our sustenance...

Unfortunately the movie turns out to be as dumb as the members of society that it lampoons but the premise is great and the satire spot-on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10yygRQghzo

(Please note: video contains some swearing)

Ephemera, we appear to be in similar boats. Hopefully this will raise a smile... well, it might if it wasn't so prophetic...

LillyJ

ianmr65 wrote: »

well i don't drink at all. :cool: and i applaud your restraint. i know people who drink twice what you drink in a week in one night.:eek:

I don't drink 14 units a week! I was just using that as a cut off point cos that's what it is for women. I drink about 2 glasses of wine every fortnight!

dudleyboy

"Homeowners will have enough support to ensure that their homes are not repossessed, the government says."

This desperate government seems intent on keeping this housing bubble inflated at any cost. Words cannot describe just how angry I am over this entire fiasco. Every day there's another news story to throw into the melting pot. 5 fkn years and it's still going! When will it ever end??

Who exactly (besides the government) will benefit from this ridiculous, face-saving intervention? I'm guessing it will be those individuals who were stupid enough to take out 100% and 125% mortgages. Well, if they can't afford their repayments, why shouldn't they be repossessed? And even if you have a 95% or 90% mortgage, etc, and can't meet repayments, why shouldn't you be repossessed?

Like many others waiting for the house price correction, my partner and I rent from a private landlord. Anyone with 100%+ mortgage rents from the bank. If we do not keep up with our rent we get evicted. If they cannot afford to make their mortgage repayments they should get repossessed.

Anyone with a 100%+ mortgage quite clearly cannot afford to buy a home and, like us, should be renting too!!! I do not see why these people should be treated any more favourably than anyone else!

My sister and BIL have 2 children and rent because they've been priced out of the market. Neither have ever owned their own home but are saving for a deposit with whatever money they have left at the end of the month - which nowadays isn't a fat lot! - in the hope of one day owning their own home in which to raise their family. If they cannot pay their rent they WILL get evicted. Why should they not be offered the same protection as these so-called "homeowners" since they are victims of the same problem?!

Here's my advice: let them get repossessed, let the repossessed properties flood back onto the market, let this huge supply of housing drive down prices, and give responsible, frugal, hard working, deposit saving people the chance to buy their first home at a reasonable price so that they can just get on with their lives!

"Demand for housing from first-time buyers and young families is high and the fundamentals of the economy are sound." - bullsh!t they are!!!! The economy is built on huge amounts of personal debt, widespread fraud, greed and wishful thinking.
True, demand for housing from FTBs and young families is high - but the answer to this problem seems to be bleeding obvious to everyone but the government!

I'd say "rant over" but I think I've only just got started... :mad:

Pobby

Great post dudleyboy.Keep `um coming!Imho I think a reat deal of this hpi mess would have been adverted if the same principals applied to when we got our first mortgage,over 30 years ago.Into the building society office.

``Well Mr. Pobby and Mrs. Pobby to be.You want a house?How much deposit have you saved with us?I will need your employees address as a reference and to confirm your earnings.Then if we approve we will let you know when funds are available``.

A far cry from the La La Land Building Society``Yes step right up.How much do you earn?60 grand a year each is it?Fine.No,no we want bother contacting your employers.No deposit,Great then you qualify for our Special Super Starter Ezi Move mortgage.It`s very easy.we lend you 150%,ltv,capped at .009% for 10 minutes then it reverts to 4% above bank of england rate.It`s easy to service as it runs over 50 years.It also has £20,000 cash back for you to fritter away on a BMW and a good(you know you deserve it)holiday on the Maldives.And to top it all you have the choice of a free cd player,a Parker pen or £20 M and S vouchers``.

smk77

dudleyboy wrote: »

Anyone with a 100%+ mortgage quite clearly cannot afford to buy a home and, like us, should be renting too!!! I do not see why these people should be treated any more favourably than anyone else!

Here's my advice: let them get repossessed, let the repossessed properties flood back onto the market, let this huge supply of housing drive down prices, and give responsible, frugal, hard working, deposit saving people the chance to buy their first home at a reasonable price so that they can just get on with their lives!

And what about those that can afford a house with, say, an 80% morgage? A flood of properties on the market would push down the prices of houses and may result in those who could afford their property to end up in negative equity. These "responsible, frugal, hard working, deposit saving people" would end up with the deposit they had saved up wiped out.

Surely a static market would be best for all. Those that saved hard and bought a house that they could afford wouldn't loose and those that can't afford at current rates would in the future see pay rises that would enable them to afford a property.

Hoping for house prices to drop at the expense of people who, like you, have worked hard and saved is rather unfair.