Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Here's an idea.

For every month the geoverment pays the mortgage for someone, it receives equity in the property. Say .25% so at the end of one year the goverment own 3% of the house.

If house is sold money to be taked directly from the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

For every month the geoverment pays the mortgage for someone, it receives equity in the property. Say .25% so at the end of one year the goverment own 3% of the house.

If house is sold money to be taked directly from the deal.

they could call it homebuy, and maybe they could advertise a 3 bed semi for £90K, part ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

For every month the geoverment pays the mortgage for someone, it receives equity in the property. Say .25% so at the end of one year the goverment own 3% of the house.

If house is sold money to be taked directly from the deal.

Seems good to me. I dare say the mortgage agreement has a clause preventing partial selling without the approval of the lender, but given the choice between delinquency or govmt payments, I am sure the banks would approve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems good to me. I dare say the mortgage agreement has a clause preventing partial selling without the approval of the lender, but given the choice between delinquency or govmt payments, I am sure the banks would approve.

It's a shame anyone loses their home for whatever reason, but it's only right the taxpayer gets something back in return.

The scheme could be then extended indefinitley as it is self-financing. Probably a lot of people now coming up to the 2 year limit.

Big problem would be an increase in admin associated with such a scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame anyone loses their home for whatever reason, but it's only right the taxpayer gets something back in return.

The scheme could be then extended indefinitley as it is self-financing. Probably a lot of people now coming up to the 2 year limit.

Big problem would be an increase in admin associated with such a scheme.

Its a shame anyone loses anything...but lose they must...otherwise the whole system would lose confidence...no recourse means no payback...which means no loans and no system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a shame anyone loses anything...but lose they must...otherwise the whole system would lose confidence...no recourse means no payback...which means no loans and no system.

They still lose equity in their house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They still lose equity in their house.

but, they GAIN>...no payments every month...no hassle...spare cash as government pays 6.3ish percent regardless of their interest rate....they keep a house they can no longer afford.

SOCIETY LOSES>..the payments, the innefficiency costs of paying them ( civil service forms and applications, checks, tax collection)...a house on the market...a bank with an impaired asset loses value.....

no....it CLEARLY says on the form when you apply for a mortgage....YOUR HOME IS AT RISK.....they risked it..they lost...kick them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

For every month the geoverment pays the mortgage for someone, it receives equity in the property. Say .25% so at the end of one year the goverment own 3% of the house.

If house is sold money to be taked directly from the deal.

I like the idea of the govt creating council houses. ;-)

Should you have an option to pay the govt back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOCIETY LOSES>..the payments, the innefficiency costs of paying them ( civil service forms and applications, checks, tax collection)...a house on the market...a bank with an impaired asset loses value.....

This happens already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but, they GAIN>...no payments every month...no hassle...spare cash as government pays 6.3ish percent regardless of their interest rate....they keep a house they can no longer afford.

SOCIETY LOSES>..the payments, the innefficiency costs of paying them ( civil service forms and applications, checks, tax collection)...a house on the market...a bank with an impaired asset loses value.....

no....it CLEARLY says on the form when you apply for a mortgage....YOUR HOME IS AT RISK.....they risked it..they lost...kick them out.

Jaw dropping stuff isnt it?

I wonder which saviour of the world dreamt that up <_<

I hope he dies in his own shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happens already.

I know...thats why it must stop. I feel that your idea just kills everything off by making this sort of behaviour part and parcel of the system...if you buy a house privately, then the deal must be kept private.

Im all for a safety net for when people get into trouble, but supporting 200K in mortgage interest is a lot more than B+B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

For every month the geoverment pays the mortgage for someone, it receives equity in the property. Say .25% so at the end of one year the goverment own 3% of the house.

If house is sold money to be taked directly from the deal.

In a falling house price situation, they'll be competing with the bank for that money. Who should get it?

Does the taxpayer cough up?

Or does the bank?

If you say the bank, do you expect the bank to lend anything to anyone given that the government can steal equity from them in this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know...thats why it must stop. I feel that your idea just kills everything off by making this sort of behaviour part and parcel of the system...if you buy a house privately, then the deal must be kept private.

Im all for a safety net for when people get into trouble, but supporting 200K in mortgage interest is a lot more than B+B

Easier for both sides if they stay in the same house.

And with my idea the government gets it's money back.

It's just an idea I had while doing some blue-sky out-of the box thinking while pushing the envelope.

It's got some merit, I think.

Under the current system they can just MEW away again if they get back on their feet having been helped by the taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious or being sarcastic? If you are serious, then you are a ******ing dumbass. Do you know how bubbles work?

..have you been paying any attention to this forum for the last few years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easier for both sides if they stay in the same house.

And with my idea the government gets it's money back.

It's just an idea I had while doing some blue-sky out-of the box thinking while pushing the envelope.

It's got some merit, I think.

Under the current system they can just MEW away again if they get back on their feet having been helped by the taxpayer.

Back burner for you, innovation and creativity more important than extended support for investors...the country has financial "difficulties" my researchers tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back burner for you, innovation and creativity more important than extended support for investors...the country has financial "difficulties" my researchers tell me.

It's better than the present system where the taxpayer gets nothing back and then the "homeowner" can MEW away again having been kept in that very home by the taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious or being sarcastic? If you are serious, then you are a ******ing dumbass. Do you know how bubbles work?

..have you been paying any attention to this forum for the last few years?

No need to be abusive.

This would help prevent a bubble in the future.

Reducing their equity stops them participating so easily in the next bubble. Reduces Bank of Mum and Dad as well.

..have you been paying any attention to this forum for the last few years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.