'Is Gordon Brown right to help first time buyers?' blog discussion

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's “Is Gordon Brown right to help first time buyers?" blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.


Click reply to discuss below.
«13

Replies

  • Mac_SamiMac_Sami Forumite
    277 Posts
    I'm surprised - an hour's passed already and nobody's replied to this?! Come on guys, I hear you all making big noises in the forums, and now you're all quiet?

    My thought is perhaps cynical; it's in the government's interests to keep house buying and selling moving (of course, there are other reasons too). How else can the government continue to make money via SDLT if the properties stop being bought?

    A house purchase is important - not a must, mind - as it provides some level of security and certainly over the rental market. In a rented property, whilst you have rights, you could end up being moved on, the landlord might decide to sell up, or a whole range of issues could occur.

    However, property ownership needs to come with the disclaimer that the purchase is only right and good if it can be done within a person's affordability, and in a stable market (something which the government have failed to provide on both counts). Borrowers need to take responsibility, too - high levels of borrowing cannot be accepted anymore. The banks were too willing to lend money to non A rated customers (or in some cases, customers who the banks were told were A rated but in fact were not). Lending has to become more difficult, to ensure that those who are on the property ladder have secure finances underneath them.

    Yes, Gordon Brown is right to help first time buyers - but I think it is a little too late. Had steps been taken to ensure borrowing could be done by those who are sensible with money, and had the government met promises on affordable housing, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
  • RMP_2RMP_2 Forumite
    39 Posts
    The distinct lack of replies could mean people are sick to the back teeth of Gordon Brown (& his shoddy government) & have lost all interest in trying to fight the system that clearly keeps hammering them into the ground time & again!
  • BigJonnyBBigJonnyB Forumite
    448 Posts
    Helping any one group of people simply equates to blowing more air into the balloon - eventually there will be a bigger bang. In reality, any method they came up with will have no impact anyway. Boom and bust is simply part of our economic cycle. The longer you delay any corrections, the worse it will be.

    JB
  • dudleyboydudleyboy Forumite
    765 Posts
    RMP wrote: »
    The distinct lack of replies could mean people are sick to the back teeth of Gordon Brown (& his shoddy government) & have lost all interest in trying to fight the system that clearly keeps hammering them into the ground time & again!
    I think that pretty much sums it up.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7355754.stm

    What more can you say?

    Helping first time buyers? How exactly? By building more expensive, shoddy, compact, short-term housing? By encouraging young families to take out yet MORE debt? (10 years on I'm still repaying the student loans I had to take out following Labour's abolishment of student grants.)

    I appreciate and understand "the bigger picture" but trying to convince us that this move is to help first time buyers is quite simply insulting. The only thing that will help us is a house price correction and Brown's (and, indeed, Labour's) removal from office.

    New Labour targeted the younger voters with their "Things can only get better" campaign in the late 90s and I can't say we've been treated particularly well.

    I look forward to the day where I get to vote Brown out... not that anyone voted him in.
  • dudleyboydudleyboy Forumite
    765 Posts
    If anyone wants to know how, by and large, FTBs feel about the housing situation they need to look no further than here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=149

    And if they want to know how Labour's policies and Britain's "boom economy" have "benefited" this great nation of ours then they need look no further than here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=76

    and here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=136

    There's your legacy, Mr Blair and Mr Brown.

    So long and thanks for all the fish.
  • robpw2robpw2 Forumite
    14K Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gordon Brown is the worst prime minister this country has ever had and to make things worse we have no say untill he calls an election so he can contiune to ruin this country and no-one had a say in his election and no-one can get rid


    Slimming world start 28/01/2012 starting weight 21st 2.5lb current weight 17st 9-total loss 3st 7.5lb
    Slimmer of the month February , March ,April
  • JasonLVCJasonLVC Forumite
    16.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think it foolish that a government is actually paying people to obtain a mortgage (debt) and purchase properties at the very start of a housing slump. This will leave those foolish enough to take up the offer, possibly in a negative equity position.

    The government should be kerbing spending both of itself and of the public, not encouraging them to obtain further debts - unless of course, the deal is you can only get a mortgage via Northern Rock!.;)

    A house purchase is not a god given right, it is a luxury. House properties have spiraled due to government insistance on building more and more houses for the millions of extra people that flooded in overnight. This has led to a boom in the buy to let market which has pushed rents up so high that people are better off buying themselves - hence the circle of mortgage debt or massive rent. Rents are so high that they barely cover the costs of the mortgage/running costs of the landlord too - so no-one is winning.

    They need to introduce some emergency laws to stop flipping of properties. Buy a house by all means, but live in it - this means more and more people will actually settle and own something with a value for future generations rather than 1 lanbdlord owning 20 properties....and investment in residential properties should be restricted to investors.

    Oh, and Gordon Brown has not changed. He's done the same since thing being chancellor 10 years ago only now he can't blame Blair.
    Anger ruins joy, it steals the goodness of my mind. Forces me to say terrible things. Overcoming anger brings peace of mind, a mind without regret. If I overcome anger, I will be delightful and loved by everyone.
  • MothballsWalletMothballsWallet Forumite
    15.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm surprised Brown didn't sink another 100 billion of taxpayers' money into Northern Rock... Or is that next week's big announcement?
    Always ask yourself one question: What would Gibbs do?

    I live in the UK City of Culture 2021
  • Ok lets have it.... brown the unelected P.M is ploughing 9 billion into the bank system with yet more to come this week.

    Will this help FTB'S . NO it wont. banks are already unwilling to help existing customers by cutting there basic rate of interest. They are also unwilling to help FTB'S with little or no deposit. So FTB'S have to have 10% min deposit. Most FTB'S are now also being clobbered by Brown and his government by the 50% tax increase (abolishment of the 10% basic rate) so how can they afford the mortgage when what extra they did have has been taken into the coffers.

    Also another thing which seems to be over looked a little is the huge increase in council tax. It has become more to the point of can i afford the ctax not the mortgage.

    so if this doesnt work where hes going to take us next (GENERAL ELECTION WOULD BE NICE) into more debt throwing tax payers money after bad. And lets not forget we own N-ROCK. Is every bank going to go the same way, in the long run.

    Banks dont lend to those who cant pay back, so why are we lending banks that cant lend out.........
  • I have never been a big believer in Gordon Brown competence. I noted when Tony Blair claimed that GB was the best Chancellor ever, with disbelief. Anybody I have meet that repeated Blair’s claim I have always challenged. I merely asked them to give me 10 decisions GB made in his time as chancellor that made the economy boom. He allowed the Bank of England set interest rates; well labour took the power away from the Bank to do this in the 1940s. He sold of our gold reserves for about a quarter of the value they are today. He allowed people to have credit well beyond what was prudent, sparking a consumer boom. This boom allowed him to brag that the UK economy was the best in the EU. A boom based on unlimited credit to those whose budget was modelled of that describe by Mr Micawber income 20 shilling expenditure 20 shilling and sixpence such spending was bound to be unsustainable. Can anybody out there confirm the rumour, that No. 10 Downing St has taken large delivery of Chicken coups for those going there to roost.

    It is my belief that those who can afford to do so, should buy their own house. Owning a house has meant that most people have seen their wealth grow to a size their grandparents would not believe. Most have achieved this without the aid of 100% mortgages. In my case I had to save with a Building Society for up to four years to get enough money for a deposit, even then you may have to queue until your turn came round. This all changed when the law changed and Building Societies were able to go to the money markets for funds. Then the banks started to give mortgages and both began lend in a manner unknown in the past. Some of the lending was reckless in the extreme and would have had some of the old time managers turning in their graves.

    Anybody who has a life style where they choose to spend their earnings in an hedonistic manner rather saving for a deposit, who need a 125 our even 100% mortgage, I would regard as a sub prime borrower.

    However there will always be some who are unable to save enough to get a deposit together, their earning power insufficient . These need the net of social housing to prevent them becoming homeless. This maybe rented or shared ownership, but welfare system will need to foot the bill. Alternatively many in low paid jobs, could be given a 100% mortgage with a 100 to 150 years to pay it off. The mortgage in future years could be taken other family members or sold. This should not be a burden on the lenders since they will collect in interest many more times that what they have lent. Moreover the loan will be secure against a property.

    Finally it would be interesting to know who made money out of the USAs sub prime mortgage market. For myself this market does a smell of skulduggery. Were the banks taken in by the claim that these loans had a triple A rating, when in fact they were nearer a triple X rating. I smell fraud!
This discussion has been closed.
LATEST NEWS AND GUIDES