Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
loginandtonic

Cable On Radio 4 Calling For Extension Of Rescue Scheme & Our Tax Money

Recommended Posts

not impressed really, i dont want my tax money to bail out the feckless ovver-mortgaged.

cable himself acknowledges mortgages were given to people who cant afford them, so why do i need to come to their rescue with my cash? would those rescued borrowers even p on me if i was on fire, no probably not.

i think on R4 it was the CML who now want near zirp to continue for a long time - i bet they do - to (I paraphrase) reduce repossessions and enable people to have enough equity in their homes to spend on the high street again.

thats it, more debt, more retail therapy as our only industry, more ponzi property, more bailouts, more qe and near zirp to pay for it.

whata bunch of morons who never learn, they couldn't run a bath.

Meanwhile Cable warns of a timebomb of repos next year or 2011 unless public subsidy of mortgagors (feckless borrowers) continues. Gasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one thing having a mortgage that you should never have got in the first place and can't realistically pay and another thing having a relatively manageable mortgage but being made redundent and not being able to pay it surely? I don't know how you could direct help at those that deserve it though. I have no sympathy for someone with a 100% I.O. mortgage getting repossessed. People should find sustainable housing situations, and the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for someone to have something they don't deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's one thing having a mortgage that you should never have got in the first place and can't realistically pay and another thing having a relatively manageable mortgage but being made redundent and not being able to pay it surely? I don't know how you could direct help at those that deserve it though. I have no sympathy for someone with a 100% I.O. mortgage getting repossessed. People should find sustainable housing situations, and the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for someone to have something they don't deserve.

Isnt the problem that if people are repossessed they will depend on the state sector to provide accomodation for them, especially in cases where they have made redundant and are on benefits.

Yes, moral hazard and all that, I agree, but to do otherwise would burden the taxpayer even further? Just the way I read it. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle ground - state pays the mortgage til the mortgagee is back in work then reclaims that money? I don't know really more one for the policy wonks. Moral hazard needs to be in their somewhere but children shouldn't be homeless because their parents were naive enough to believe the 'only ever goes up' argument.

Edited by murpaul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's one thing having a mortgage that you should never have got in the first place and can't realistically pay and another thing having a relatively manageable mortgage but being made redundent and not being able to pay it surely? I don't know how you could direct help at those that deserve it though. I have no sympathy for someone with a 100% I.O. mortgage getting repossessed. People should find sustainable housing situations, and the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for someone to have something they don't deserve.

the danger is that people take on way too much with the notion State will bail me if i get into trouble, thats something we cant afford. its already happening anyway, Govt changed the rules to pay interest on lots of mortgages for people who before would have been declined help, wheres the money coming from? just cant afford it, oh sorry i forgot they just print what they want nowadays, silly me i'm so out of touch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not impressed really, i dont want my tax money to bail out the feckless ovver-mortgaged.

cable himself acknowledges mortgages were given to people who cant afford them, so why do i need to come to their rescue with my cash? would those rescued borrowers even p on me if i was on fire, no probably not.

i think on R4 it was the CML who now want near zirp to continue for a long time - i bet they do - to (I paraphrase) reduce repossessions and enable people to have enough equity in their homes to spend on the high street again.

thats it, more debt, more retail therapy as our only industry, more ponzi property, more bailouts, more qe and near zirp to pay for it.

whata bunch of morons who never learn, they couldn't run a bath.

Meanwhile Cable warns of a timebomb of repos next year or 2011 unless public subsidy of mortgagors (feckless borrowers) continues. Gasp.

Exactly, my signature block says it all as far as I am concerned.

Be prudent and enjoy the benefits of paying someone else’s mortgage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isnt the problem that if people are repossessed they will depend on the state sector to provide accomodation for them, especially in cases where they have made redundant and are on benefits.

Yes, moral hazard and all that, I agree, but to do otherwise would burden the taxpayer even further? Just the way I read it. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle ground - state pays the mortgage til the mortgagee is back in work then reclaims that money? I don't know really more one for the policy wonks. Moral hazard needs to be in their somewhere but children shouldn't be homeless because their parents were naive enough to believe the 'only ever goes up' argument.

The situation would be tolerable if the Government invested an equal amount of effort / commitment into making houses truly affordable and not just bailing out the feckless.

OK help people but not at the expense of those that want to buy.

Withdraw all the Government funded props that keep house prices high, and use that money to house / help those that overstretched themselves.

By continuing to support house prices, the Government are incentivising the wrong type of behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The situation would be tolerable if the Government invested an equal amount of effort / commitment into making houses truly affordable and not just bailing out the feckless.

OK help people but not at the expense of those that want to buy.

Withdraw all the Government funded props that keep house prices high, and use that money to house / help those that overstretched themselves.

By continuing to support house prices, the Government are incentivising the wrong type of behaviour.

Cant but agree with you. I'm just looking at the bottom line of the welfare budget.

As I said, bad for kids and society, and expensive too, if we allow people to lose their homes (you'll notice I said homes not houses).

Just as an aside, I was made redundant back in Feb, was unemployed for 6 weeks, claimed housing benefit (renting) and council tax benefit for that period, just got a letter from the council the other day (5 months later) - basically, f' off murpaul! I assume its because I'm working now. I will be appealing.

Would they have been so slow if I was mortgaged up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, my signature block says it all as far as I am concerned.

Be prudent and enjoy the benefits of paying someone else’s mortgage!

yes your signature are my thoughts, and most of us seem to share the same view, and perhaps theres the additional peril of the over aspiring and the secret speculators who will defraud us of our bail out money when their prop developing projects go pear shaped, again silly me they probably already are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes your signature are my thoughts, and most of us seem to share the same view, and perhaps theres the additional peril of the over aspiring and the secret speculators who will defraud us of our bail out money when their prop developing projects go pear shaped, again silly me they probably already are

Yes.

Time to decouple, really decouple, home buying from 'investment speculation'. Tax breaks for the first house, additional tax for BTL and holiday homes.

Consideration should also be give to seperating mortgage lending rates from business rates. You need to be able to influence one without impacting upon the other. The current system cannot do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isnt the problem that if people are repossessed they will depend on the state sector to provide accomodation for them, especially in cases where they have made redundant and are on benefits.

Yes, moral hazard and all that, I agree, but to do otherwise would burden the taxpayer even further? Just the way I read it. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle ground - state pays the mortgage til the mortgagee is back in work then reclaims that money? I don't know really more one for the policy wonks. Moral hazard needs to be in their somewhere but children shouldn't be homeless because their parents were naive enough to believe the 'only ever goes up' argument.

The Repossessed wont necessarily rely on state benefits. They may simply have not had enough income in the first place. If they still have work, they will probably have to rent something smaller instead.

Those who do lose their jobs, and go on benefits, can hardly expect to keep ownership of their homes anyway. As a taxpayer without a home, it just seems wrong that those on benefits get to keep their property, paid for by those who are working who cannot buy a home because prices are too high. And prices will remain high if those who cannot repay what they owe are bailed out by the taxpayer. What would be the point of working at all?

You have to let repossessions happen, and you must not stiff the taxpayer to stop them from happening. Then house prices will come down, and those who have saved diligently will be able to acquire their homes where they are currently renting, or living in digs or with their parents of whatever, and those who stretched too far before will have to move out and downsize.

I dont see anything wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with moral hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep coming out with that sort of sh1te Cable and you'll lose my support PDQ

There's something about tax money paying someone's mortgage interest on their home when they lose their job, that just sticks in my throat. However, then I play devil's advocate and remind myself that if they were renting the place, they'd be enjoying a rather generous benefit called LHA instead. This could be even more than their current mortgage interest!

What's it to be people????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's something about tax money paying someone's mortgage interest on their home when they lose their job, that just sticks in my throat. However, then I play devil's advocate and remind myself that if they were renting the place, they'd be enjoying a rather generous benefit called LHA instead. This could be even more than their current mortgage interest!

What's it to be people????

Help people but regulate / control lending to allow house prices to fall.

That way they keep there home, but do not profit from rising property prices. Furthermore, they cannot re-mortgage in X yrs time to release the equity we paid for. Also the prudent saver isn't shafted when he / she wants to buy a home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK help people but not at the expense of those that want to buy.

Withdraw all the Government funded props that keep house prices high, and use that money to house / help those that overstretched themselves.

Helping the overstretched = keeping houses high.

Helping them stay in their over-leveraged homes with your tax money = using your labour to keep you priced out.

"Fair" doesn't always mean "nice".

Edit: unless you mean simply continuing with the post-repo help that's already available, which I think would be a council flat/house if they're lucky, B&B if they're not.

Edited by huw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helping the overstretched = keeping houses high.

Helping them stay in their over-leveraged homes with your tax money = using your labour to keep you priced out.

"Fair" doesn't always mean "nice".

Edit: unless you mean simply continuing with the post-repo help that's already available, which I think would be a council flat/house if they're lucky, B&B if they're not.

"Helping the overstretched = keeping houses high."

I don't agree. I see 'help' as keeping them in their current home. Keeping the prices high isn't 'help', it's free money (to them, not us).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helping the overstretched = keeping houses high.

Helping them stay in their over-leveraged homes with your tax money = using your labour to keep you priced out.

"Fair" doesn't always mean "nice".

Edit: unless you mean simply continuing with the post-repo help that's already available, which I think would be a council flat/house if they're lucky, B&B if they're not.

"Fair", lifes not fair and often not nice. This isn't about fair or nice. It's about recognising the root cause of this mess and implementing solutions that let us move forward not repeat history.

Like I say help people to stay in their current home - fine. However, look at the causes of this problem - one being easy & cheap money, and control the amount available.

If this sort of action is against the 'free market principle' then OK. Withdraw all the financial props / support and see where the 'free market' will truly take us.

Everything is one-sided at the moment, and it will end in tears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Helping the overstretched = keeping houses high."

I don't agree. I see 'help' as keeping them in their current home. Keeping the prices high isn't 'help', it's free money (to them, not us).

I am not sure I understand your argument. Here is mine.

Assuming person A and person B wanting to buy a home. There is one home for sale. Both on the same wage, same savings. Person A bids price X for the home, higher than person B. Person B has to stay with his parents.

Then we find that person A has got into mortgage trouble and is going to be repossessed. He bid too high, and in so doing, stopped person B from enjoying the freedom of a house, at least for a while.

The right thing is to allow Person A to move out, and Person B to move in, person A enjoying the consequences of his poor decisions. Person B can now buy at an affordable lower price given to him by the distressed sale.

Vince Cable now wants to tax Person B, giving the extra tax to person A, to help keep person B out of that house, when it was person B who had acted prudently, didnt lie on his loan application, and didnt overstretch himself. Person B now feels a bit of a fool for not having told an even bigger lie that person A when applying for a mortgage. Person A is going to lie again next time too, as it served him well this time. The lending bank is going to continue to turn a blind eye to obvious liars when it comes to mortages, after all, VC is going to bail everyone out if it all goes wrong.

Yuck.

Vince, what happened? Where did it all go wrong mate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

Time to decouple, really decouple, home buying from 'investment speculation'. Tax breaks for the first house, additional tax for BTL and holiday homes.

Consideration should also be give to seperating mortgage lending rates from business rates. You need to be able to influence one without impacting upon the other. The current system cannot do this.

Time to decouple the prudent tax paying majority from the feckless wasters too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The politicians, who have built up property portfolios at taxpayers expense, are one of the biggest VI groups wanting to maintain mental prices that have created wealth for them on the backs of the mug rump losers.

If they could just create enough of a dead cat bounce to dispose of some of it whilst their 'voluntary CGT' rate is at 18%!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure I understand your argument. Here is mine.

Assuming person A and person B wanting to buy a home. There is one home for sale. Both on the same wage, same savings. Person A bids price X for the home, higher than person B. Person B has to stay with his parents.

Then we find that person A has got into mortgage trouble and is going to be repossessed. He bid too high, and in so doing, stopped person B from enjoying the freedom of a house, at least for a while.

The right thing is to allow Person A to move out, and Person B to move in, person A enjoying the consequences of his poor decisions. Person B can now buy at an affordable lower price given to him by the distressed sale.

Vince Cable now wants to tax Person B, giving the extra tax to person A, to help keep person B out of that house, when it was person B who had acted prudently, didnt lie on his loan application, and didnt overstretch himself. Person B now feels a bit of a fool for not having told an even bigger lie that person A when applying for a mortgage. Person A is going to lie again next time too, as it served him well this time. The lending bank is going to continue to turn a blind eye to obvious liars when it comes to mortages, after all, VC is going to bail everyone out if it all goes wrong.

Yuck.

Vince, what happened? Where did it all go wrong mate?

I agree with you totally.

This said I also concede that Person A is not always to blame (completely anyway). So, if we treat all Person A's the same, we end up with a lot of social tension. However, we must look after Person B. In fact Person B should be the priority. So Person B might have missed his first choice of home but if the cost of houses is controlled, then he benefits in that the cost of the next house is cheaper. Also Person A still has to pay his over the top mortgage.

This does not work if house prices are allowed to keep on rising.

So we need to take away all the shared equity schemes and key worker schemes, make homes truly affordable. Stop people from taking on too much debt.

Take away the support from Person A and lessons would be learnt for sure. This said, some of the lessons need to be learnt else where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Fair", lifes not fair and often not nice. This isn't about fair or nice. It's about recognising the root cause of this mess and implementing solutions that let us move forward not repeat history.

Like I say help people to stay in their current home - fine. However, look at the causes of this problem - one being easy & cheap money, and control the amount available.

If this sort of action is against the 'free market principle' then OK. Withdraw all the financial props / support and see where the 'free market' will truly take us.

Everything is one-sided at the moment, and it will end in tears.

Sounds like NuLab-speak to me.

You do realise that MRI goes straight in to the bank's pocket? The homeowner is not the one being bailed out!

People can move in to rented accomodation. Happens all the time. Just get the gubmint to stop overspending on housing benefit, and rents will come down to an affordable level.

If a person has no income, there is no earthly reason why they should expect their mortgage to be paid.

Now, that's total injustice. And it's also where your "social tension" is going to arise - the people in the middle, getting squeezed by welfare recipients in the banking industry and in the job centres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have savings, then the debt repayments of the imprudent are your money.

If you don't keep them in their debts, your money is gone.

Simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not impressed really, i dont want my tax money to bail out the feckless ovver-mortgaged.

cable himself acknowledges mortgages were given to people who cant afford them, so why do i need to come to their rescue with my cash? would those rescued borrowers even p on me if i was on fire, no probably not.

i think on R4 it was the CML who now want near zirp to continue for a long time - i bet they do - to (I paraphrase) reduce repossessions and enable people to have enough equity in their homes to spend on the high street again.

thats it, more debt, more retail therapy as our only industry, more ponzi property, more bailouts, more qe and near zirp to pay for it.

whata bunch of morons who never learn, they couldn't run a bath.

Meanwhile Cable warns of a timebomb of repos next year or 2011 unless public subsidy of mortgagors (feckless borrowers) continues. Gasp.

Fear not. It's all attention grabbing bullshyte. There just isn't enough money to rescue overmortgaged negatively equitised (hmm. Is that a new word?) home owners. Just as there isn't enough money to rescue the car industry, or any other fcukin industry you can think of. And any spare cash has been, and will continue to be, snorted up by hogshyte (hmm. Is that another new word?) bankers. There 'will' be a correction. Vince and all his buddies in that political cesspit can spout off until they're blue in the face and it won't change a damned thing.

PS: I think I'd like to change equitised to equitative-ised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.