jp1 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Details on BBC Breakfast: Households in negative equity (ie house bought in 2004 or later) - not eligable for 'rescue' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckmojo Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 well, that makes me slightly less angry about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Another meaningless policy announcement from Ponzi Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benzlife Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7831756.stm Is this 'new'? There was a brief clip of Margaret Becket on the Today programme saying words to the effect of "This will only help households which would be eligible for assisted housing.....households with incomes of less than £60,000". Did I hear that right??? So that'd be most households then. Edited January 16, 2009 by benzlife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliegog2 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 the interviewer on Today asked the burbling Beckett if this was not unfair to the many potential homeowners who cannot afford a home (or words to that effect) Ms Beckett waffled on but did not answer the question. Given they estimate it will only prevent about 6000 or the anticipated 75000 repossessions cannot see it having much impact. yet another futile attempt at 'the right thing to do' :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7831756.stm Is this 'new'? There was a brief clip of Margaret Becket on the Today programme saying words to the effect of "This will only help households which would be eligible for assisted housing.....households with incomes of less than £60,000". Did I hear that right??? So that'd be most households then. Heard that interview with the fish wife. The interviewer rightly said rather than using huge sums of money bailing out the the overmortgaged why not spend the money on building, what of the promise of 2/3 million homes, it would provide housing and keep people employed. The response, well last year 100-200 thousand were built. So what how many are going to be built this year? Mumble, mumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExeC Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I actually think this scheme might help some needy people. You dont have to shoot down every policy you know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Hatred Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Details on BBC Breakfast: Households in negative equity (ie house bought in 2004 or later) - not eligable for 'rescue' The most sensible clause that this government has ever come up with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregG Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Moral hazard. Don't take on debt you cannot afford. Buy a smaller home or don't buy. Then we would not be in this mess. House prices would not inflate that much if the average Briton was more prudent. Bail people out now and the next housing boom will be even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Another meaningless policy announcement from Ponzi Brown. Yep, I don't know why people expected anything different... he has been at this game for 11 years and and is quite accomplished! Release details of some scheme in a blaze of glory, feeding the press headlines and canned articles that give a rosy impression, then hiding the gotchas and the details deep in the small print that follows later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 From the Beeb: Not-for-profit housing associations will buy homes from people struggling to pay their mortgage - who will then be allowed to continue to live there. The government says the £200m scheme could help up to 6,000 households which might otherwise be repossessed. So 6000 households sell their houses for £200,000,000. I make that a valuation of £33,333 per house. That's some crash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I actually think this scheme might help some needy people. Labour MP's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pharm Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Moral hazard.Don't take on debt you cannot afford. Buy a smaller home or don't buy. Fair enough. From the gov point of view though, this sounds a reasonably sensible proposition. If there's equity in the home, then allow the home owner to "rent" from the government (with their housing benefit), which will be far, far cheaper than having to rehouse them. By eliminating those who are over-leveraged, it also won't affect the status of government borrowing all that much either. Sounds like a medium term win to me. Plenty of over leveraged muppets left to go bankrupt for the vultures on here to feast upon. (I mean that in the nicest possible way...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So maggie introduced 'Right to Buy' Gordon has introduced 'Right to Buy back' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozziebear40 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So maggie introduced 'Right to Buy'Gordon has introduced 'Right to Buy back' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Details on BBC Breakfast: Households in negative equity (ie house bought in 2004 or later) - not eligable for 'rescue' Is the assumption that everyone who bought after 2004 is over leveraged and in massive debt? I would think that some people who bought after 2004 will owe similar amounts to whose who had 90%-100% mortgages. Obviously those with 125% should be left to rot for there own stupidity, although having said that no bank should have lent them the money in the first place. In fact those with 125% mortgages get to move in with the banker who authorised the loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0q0 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Moral hazard.Don't take on debt you cannot afford. Buy a smaller home or don't buy. Then we would not be in this mess. House prices would not inflate that much if the average Briton was more prudent. Bail people out now and the next housing boom will be even worse. This is all about getting votes to remain as PM. Or it's great stupidity because it sends the signal you mention. However, what is becoming clearer and clearer daily is the government is pledging sums it has less and less chance of having the pockets for. Perhaps only after a Gen E will they back pedal and admit that. However, I can't see them being voted in again for 20 years+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icantbelieveitsnotbutter Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 the interviewer on Today asked the burbling Beckett if this was not unfair to the many potential homeowners who cannot afford a home (or words to that effect) Ms Beckett waffled on but did not answer the question. Given they estimate it will only prevent about 6000 or the anticipated 75000 repossessions cannot see it having much impact. yet another futile attempt at 'the right thing to do' :angry: This is the whole point of most policies, sounding big and bold, sounding like its action, doing the right thing, but they don't want any of them to cost much - don't let the facts get in the way of sounding impressive - the only meaning of efficiency this Govt understands, maximise the quality of headlines at minimum cost. After all they need to save their money to pay for council workers having boob jobs, according the the Sun. Great quote from the council HR chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Gnome Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 In fact those with 125% mortgages get to move in with the banker who authorised the loan. Excellent idea. Anyone getting mortgage interest paymenmts from the DSS, which I fully support, should also be forced to make any spare rooms available to DSS tenants. For free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deflation Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 On 5 live, Beckett tried to dispute the fact that if the banks postpone repo or defer payments, that's 80 people they can't lend to. "Just look in the Times" said the presenter. Briefings not up to scratch methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slumpmonkey Returns Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 All those muppets after 2004 who took massive unaffordable loans will be left to burn! Crash back on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwick-Watcher Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Is the assumption that everyone who bought after 2004 is over leveraged and in massive debt?I would think that some people who bought after 2004 will owe similar amounts to whose who had 90%-100% mortgages. Obviously those with 125% should be left to rot for there own stupidity, although having said that no bank should have lent them the money in the first place. In fact those with 125% mortgages get to move in with the banker who authorised the loan. So people who bought early and have now MEWed their equity to turn it into a BMW X5 and some holiday photos get bailed out, while the "poor unfortunate victims" who bought after 2004 can rot in hell? Such a caring government we have - NOT ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 That negative equity is building up fast. Latest Halifax figures out today: http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/QuarterlyRegionalComments.asp London has fallen over 20% from peak... with more to come in 2009 quite a few people are going to find themselves in NE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.