Councils "should help struggling homeowners"
Discussion
Think-tank in article said:
...local authorities should offer entire or part mortgages at below market rate to those struggling to meet mortgage repayments, facing repossession, or first-time buyers unable to get a foothold on the market.
Hasn't the government got enough exposure in this market with NR without this on top? What are the chances of something like this coming in?News article link
Edited to make the link work.
Edited by gingerpaul on Saturday 14th June 22:08
And again.
Edited by gingerpaul on Saturday 14th June 22:10
I hope not at all...why should local authorities use our (taxpayers) money to fund those people !...theres a rental market, if you are genuinely hard up then theres housing benefit...if we carry on like that in this country in 20 years im sure we will have like 1M people working in this country and paying tax and the remainder on some sort of hand-out funded by them 
bogie said:
I hope not at all...why should local authorities use our (taxpayers) money to fund those people !...theres a rental market, if you are genuinely hard up then theres housing benefit...if we carry on like that in this country in 20 years im sure we will have like 1M people working in this country and paying tax and the remainder on some sort of hand-out funded by them
+1 - Exactly what I thought...
Ridiculous legislation. We should spend the money elsewhere:
1)give the FSA more resources to investigate crooked mortgage brokers.
2)focus on legislation that prevents banks from offering 95-125%+ mortgages in the future and puts a cap on borrowing multiples (something sensible like 4).
1)give the FSA more resources to investigate crooked mortgage brokers.
2)focus on legislation that prevents banks from offering 95-125%+ mortgages in the future and puts a cap on borrowing multiples (something sensible like 4).
Ade355 said:
2)focus on legislation that prevents banks from offering 95-125%+ mortgages in the future and puts a cap on borrowing multiples (something sensible like 4).
Salary multiples are meaningless, if you have money to cover the debt.Also, 100% mortgages (often basically strapping a loan on the back of a large mortgage) can work for many people. I had got one when I bought my house - couldn't have bought without it. Knew that repayments weren't a problem (for a mortgage 4 times our JOINT income). The mortgage is, 3 years later, less than twice our joint income, over-paying steadily...and all is well. So I'm glad that your rules aren't in play in this merry game of "Mortgaging" Crescent.
Government should step aside on this one, it's between the banks, their customers and the BoE.
tigger1 said:
Salary multiples are meaningless, if you have money to cover the debt.
Also, 100% mortgages (often basically strapping a loan on the back of a large mortgage) can work for many people. I had got one when I bought my house - couldn't have bought without it. Knew that repayments weren't a problem (for a mortgage 4 times our JOINT income). The mortgage is, 3 years later, less than twice our joint income, over-paying steadily...and all is well. So I'm glad that your rules aren't in play in this merry game of "Mortgaging" Crescent.
If my stated regulations were in play from 10 years ago then house prices would not have artifically inflated as much and therefore 3 years ago you would have been spending a lot less for your home - therefore more affordable generally speaking and possibly a deposit may not have been an issue. New house builds would have been more considered and aiming for the long term as well - not biased towards city centre flats (and they would still be building today).Also, 100% mortgages (often basically strapping a loan on the back of a large mortgage) can work for many people. I had got one when I bought my house - couldn't have bought without it. Knew that repayments weren't a problem (for a mortgage 4 times our JOINT income). The mortgage is, 3 years later, less than twice our joint income, over-paying steadily...and all is well. So I'm glad that your rules aren't in play in this merry game of "Mortgaging" Crescent.
I guess with no regulation its a rollercoaster ride, human nature kicks in. It benefits me personally with an entirely free market, but I dont feel that is benefits the wider population, the poorest most vunerable people are screwed over the most.
It's a bit like seatbelts really. If you let people not wear them, someone's going to get hurt. Maybe most of us are sensible enough, I used to wear a seatbelt before it was illegal, but sometimes we need some rules & regulations.
If you let some people borrow as much as they want, they'll borrow so much that 1) they'll bankrupt themselves if the market turns down. 2) the cost of housing will outpace inflation, guaranteeing a market downturn at some point.
If you let some people borrow as much as they want, they'll borrow so much that 1) they'll bankrupt themselves if the market turns down. 2) the cost of housing will outpace inflation, guaranteeing a market downturn at some point.
Ordinary Bloke said:
It's a bit like seatbelts really. If you let people not wear them, someone's going to get hurt. Maybe most of us are sensible enough, I used to wear a seatbelt before it was illegal, but sometimes we need some rules & regulations.
If you let some people borrow as much as they want, they'll borrow so much that 1) they'll bankrupt themselves if the market turns down. 2) the cost of housing will outpace inflation, guaranteeing a market downturn at some point.
Absolutely, some rules protect the people who are unable to think far enough ahead to realise the risk they are taking.If you let some people borrow as much as they want, they'll borrow so much that 1) they'll bankrupt themselves if the market turns down. 2) the cost of housing will outpace inflation, guaranteeing a market downturn at some point.
Ade355 said:
Ordinary Bloke said:
It's a bit like seatbelts really. If you let people not wear them, someone's going to get hurt. Maybe most of us are sensible enough, I used to wear a seatbelt before it was illegal, but sometimes we need some rules & regulations.
If you let some people borrow as much as they want, they'll borrow so much that 1) they'll bankrupt themselves if the market turns down. 2) the cost of housing will outpace inflation, guaranteeing a market downturn at some point.
Absolutely, some rules protect the people who are unable to think far enough ahead to realise the risk they are taking.If you let some people borrow as much as they want, they'll borrow so much that 1) they'll bankrupt themselves if the market turns down. 2) the cost of housing will outpace inflation, guaranteeing a market downturn at some point.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff