Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
kjw

Scrapping Help-To-Buy Would Be An Act Of 'intergenerational Theft'

Recommended Posts

George Osborne, the Chancellor, says he wants young families to have the same chance as he did to get on the housing ladder

Scrapping the government's flagship help-to-buy scheme would be an "outrageous act of intergenerational theft", George Osborne has suggested.

Mr Osborne said that he wanted people with "decent jobs and decent incomes" to have the same chance as his generation to own a home.

He admitted that the housing market has the potential to do "real damage" to the economy if it overheats but added that there is no evidence it is doing so.

He told LBC Radio: "I am going to say to people I am lucky enough to own my own home, you are not going to be able to buy your own home. That is not the politician I am.

"I want to give people the same chance to get on the housing ladder. You can promise to people in decent jobs with decent incomes that we can find them a place on the housing ladder.

"The alternative is for this generation, my generation, to literally pull up the ladder and I think that would be outrageous frankly, that would be an act of intergenerational theft, and I'm not prepared to be part of it.

"Help to Buy is not having an impact on house prices. The Bank of England have looked at this and don't identify it as a problem. But we have to be very vigilant about the housing market, particularly in London. The housing market has the potential to do real damage."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10962931/Scrapping-help-to-buy-would-be-an-act-of-intergenerational-theft.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HTB1 has helped me out.

Soaked up a lot of competition who now will be less likely to be competiting with me in the secondary market.

I checked out LBC, but the audio file I just flicked through, and their article concentrates on other things he said.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/george-osborne-calls-public-sector-strike-a-damp-squib-93666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Osborne, the Chancellor, says he wants young families to have the same chance as he did to get on the housing ladder

Scrapping the government's flagship help-to-buy scheme would be an "outrageous act of intergenerational theft", George Osborne has suggested.

Mr Osborne said that he wanted people with "decent jobs and decent incomes" to have the same chance as his generation to own a home.

He admitted that the housing market has the potential to do "real damage" to the economy if it overheats but added that there is no evidence it is doing so.

He told LBC Radio: "I am going to say to people I am lucky enough to own my own home, you are not going to be able to buy your own home. That is not the politician I am.

"I want to give people the same chance to get on the housing ladder. You can promise to people in decent jobs with decent incomes that we can find them a place on the housing ladder.

"The alternative is for this generation, my generation, to literally pull up the ladder and I think that would be outrageous frankly, that would be an act of intergenerational theft, and I'm not prepared to be part of it.

"Help to Buy is not having an impact on house prices. The Bank of England have looked at this and don't identify it as a problem. But we have to be very vigilant about the housing market, particularly in London. The housing market has the potential to do real damage."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10962931/Scrapping-help-to-buy-would-be-an-act-of-intergenerational-theft.html

the majority that purchased their homes were under the right to buy with a massive discount, they also has tax discounts miras the current system offers a loan big different, and not tax discount etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He told LBC Radio: "I am going to say to people I am lucky enough to own my own home, you are not going to be able to buy your own home. That is not the politician I am."

George won't be happy that the Telegraph omitted a 'not' in that quote.

Or maybe it was a Freudian slip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He told LBC Radio: "I am going to say to people I am lucky enough to own my own home, you are not going to be able to buy your own home. That is not the politician I am."

George won't be happy that the Telegraph omitted a 'not' in that quote.

Or maybe it was a Freudian slip?

He told LBC Radio: "I am going to say to people I am lucky enough to own my own home, you are not going to be able to buy your own home. That is not the politician I am." the property developers and foreign investors are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I won't be voting Conservative for a long, long, long time.

Reap what you sow, Tories.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wants to get you into debt slavery and make out he's doing you a favour. Its basically a scam.

I have mixed feelings about it though. If someone can't work out for themselves that:

1) HTB2 is a terrible deal if taken at 95% LTV (because of the effective marginal rate charged between 75% LTV and 95% LTV)

and:

2) George Osborne claiming he cares about the future housing prospects of young people is about as believable as Marie Antoinette announcing that she will won't rest until every citizen is eating fillet steak for dinner.

…then I don't think they should complain if they get taken to the cleaners. Caveat emptor and all that.

Edit: spelling

Edited by FreeTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am going to say to people I am lucky enough to own my own home, you are not going to be able to buy your own home. That is not the politician I am."

Its the word "lucky" that sums it up. Forget getting a decent education, a good career, or saving hard because none of those things beat good old fashioned luck. Luck of when you were born and/or how minted your parents are. Lucky old George.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about it though. If someone can't work out for themselves that:

1) HTB2 is a terrible deal if taken at 95% LTV (because of the effective marginal rate charged between 75% LTV and 95% LTV)

and:

2) George Osborne claiming he cares about the future housing prospects of young people is about as believable as Marie Antoinette announcing that she will won't rest until every citizen is eating fillet steak for dinner.

…then I don't think they should complain if they get taken to the cleaners. Caveat emptor and all that.

Edit: spelling

Half of the population of this country left secondary school with fewer than 5 A*-C GCSEs (or the equivalent of the time). You think they can figure this kind of stuff out and that it's reasonable to expect them to do so?

The bankers and their pals in politics are winning because they are smarter than the median voter. The general public of the UK is not smart enough to defend itself from financial lies. "Caveat emptor" just mean banker victory forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I need people to sign up to enough debt to keep them working until 70 so i can push the pension age back and back and make sure their life is spent paying interest on debt.If house prices fall people might pay them off in their 40s and retire in their late 50s.If that happens how am i supposed to pay benefits to the 25% whol never work?.No benefits and they would go and take back the grouse moors and shooting estates".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of the population of this country left secondary school with fewer than 5 A*-C GCSEs (or the equivalent of the time). You think they can figure this kind of stuff out and that it's reasonable to expect them to do so?

The bankers and their pals in politics are winning because they are smarter than the median voter. The general public of the UK is not smart enough to defend itself from financial lies. "Caveat emptor" just mean banker victory forever.

Prices are ridiculously high; newbuild asking prices under HTB1... they're not that dumb to not know it's a lot of money. Only takes a few moments to get a grasp about total repayments at a range of interest rates. I'm not being sacrificied for dumb people all the time, and not-so-dumb but chosen to believe in forever HPI anyway.

Wouldn't we all like it to fall into place for own home at 25 and 26 years of age - but it has to be at the right price for people I represent - my younger family members, and myself... who you know, actually have saved a deposit whilst waiting for better value.

5877954-large.jpg

5877953-large.jpg

“It’s great,” he said. “I have always begrudgingly paid rent, thinking we might as well be paying towards our own investment.

“And the mortgage repayments are less than I was paying for the little flat I was sharing in Horley.

“That is why Help to Buy (where you only have to come up with a five per cent deposit if buying a new-build home) is such a good scheme.

“It helps people who can afford mortgage payments but can’t afford the deposit.

They needed a five per cent deposit and a mortgage for 75 per cent of the purchase price of £239,950.

http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/residents-new-Crawley-neighbourhood-Kilnwood-Vale/story-20767806-detail/story.html

http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/23/property-one-pilots-leg-up-on-to-the-property-ladder-4736959/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prices are ridiculously high; newbuild asking prices under HTB1... they're not that dumb to not know it's a lot of money. Only takes a few moments to get a grasp about total repayments at a range of interest rates. I'm not being sacrificied for dumb people all the time, and not-so-dumb but chosen to believe in forever HPI anyway.

Wouldn't we all like it to fall into place for own home at 25 and 26 years of age - but it has to be at the right price for people I represent - my younger family members, and myself... who you know, actually have saved a deposit whilst waiting for better value.

http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/residents-new-Crawley-neighbourhood-Kilnwood-Vale/story-20767806-detail/story.html

http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/23/property-one-pilots-leg-up-on-to-the-property-ladder-4736959/

James Cater-Booth and his partner Laura Daly in their new home in Kilnwood Vale (Picture: supplied)

So who is paying for this badly-disguised advertorial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of the population of this country left secondary school with fewer than 5 A*-C GCSEs (or the equivalent of the time). You think they can figure this kind of stuff out and that it's reasonable to expect them to do so?

The bankers and their pals in politics are winning because they are smarter than the median voter. The general public of the UK is not smart enough to defend itself from financial lies. "Caveat emptor" just mean banker victory forever.

Six years ago I very much agreed with your view on this. Since then though I've seen senior bankers emerge from the financial crisis totally unscathed with their pensions and bonuses intact and I've seen no comeback whatsoever on the officials at the Bank of England (and the Fed) who were in positions of responsibility in the years leading up to the crisis (and in fact the BoE has profited enormously from the crisis, as has its employees).

I've also seen those who made very poor decisions bailed out by those who were more cautious (which raises the obvious question: did they actually make poor decisions?).

A couple of years ago there was an interview published with a retired American banker who was breathtakingly forthright in his views on banking excesses and the subsequent bailout (I wish I had a link, but unfortunately I don't). Paraphrasing what he said, he openly expressed the view that the majority of people were there to be exploited by other individuals who were more intelligent. He made no apologies for the fact that he and his team devoted their minds to coming up with ways to enrich themselves at the expense of others. He saw it as a simple extension of the 'law of the jungle' and 'survival of the fittest'.

When I first read this I was taken aback, but on reflection I realised that I'm not so different. As you're probably aware I spend a lot of time analysing data, thinking about investment strategies, working out ways that I can profit from misinformation and mispricing in markets. In doing this I don't consciously seek to gain at the expense of others, but it's a fact of life that people like me who devote a disproportionate amount of their time in formulating strategies to accumulate wealth are going to ultimately take money off those whose priorities lie elsewhere.

In short then, I do think that caveat emptor applies. If the bankers win forever then so be it - the public had its chance to demand justice and recompense in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, but they passively watched as the perpetrators were openly bailed out, allowing them to keep their gains.

I'd also add though that I believe that the majority of the members here CAN figure out why HTB2 is such a crap deal. They're not buying into the dream - and they should be happy that others are doing so, unless they believe the Government can prop up the housing market in perpetuity through subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years ago I very much agreed with your view on this. Since then though I've seen senior bankers emerge from the financial crisis totally unscathed with their pensions and bonuses intact and I've seen no comeback whatsoever on the officials at the Bank of England (and the Fed) who were in positions of responsibility in the years leading up to the crisis (and in fact the BoE has profited enormously from the crisis, as has its employees).

I've also seen those who made very poor decisions bailed out by those who were more cautious (which raises the obvious question: did they actually make poor decisions?).

A couple of years ago there was an interview published with a retired American banker who was breathtakingly forthright in his views on banking excesses and the subsequent bailout (I wish I had a link, but unfortunately I don't). Paraphrasing what he said, he openly expressed the view that the majority of people were there to be exploited by other individuals who were more intelligent. He made no apologies for the fact that he and his team devoted their minds to coming up with ways to enrich themselves at the expense of others. He saw it as a simple extension of the 'law of the jungle' and 'survival of the fittest'.

When I first read this I was taken aback, but on reflection I realised that I'm not so different. As you're probably aware I spend a lot of time analysing data, thinking about investment strategies, working out ways that I can profit from misinformation and mispricing in markets. In doing this I don't consciously seek to gain at the expense of others, but it's a fact of life that people like me who devote a disproportionate amount of their time in formulating strategies to accumulate wealth are going to ultimately take money off those whose priorities lie elsewhere.

In short then, I do think that caveat emptor applies. If the bankers win forever then so be it - the public had its chance to demand justice and recompense in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, but they passively watched as the perpetrators were openly bailed out, allowing them to keep their gains.

I'd also add though that I believe that the majority of the members here CAN figure out why HTB2 is such a crap deal. They're not buying into the dream - and they should be happy that others are doing so, unless they believe the Government can prop up the housing market in perpetuity through subsidy.

I agree with your analysis - but oppose the outcome because what the banker does not realise is that nature red in tooth and claw as applied to human society ends up with violent revolution every few generations. That will impact his children and his childrens children, no matter what clever financial products he thinks up.

A human society that does not protect the stupid ends up eating itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years ago I very much agreed with your view on this. Since then though I've seen senior bankers emerge from the financial crisis totally unscathed with their pensions and bonuses intact and I've seen no comeback whatsoever on the officials at the Bank of England (and the Fed) who were in positions of responsibility in the years leading up to the crisis (and in fact the BoE has profited enormously from the crisis, as has its employees).

I've also seen those who made very poor decisions bailed out by those who were more cautious (which raises the obvious question: did they actually make poor decisions?).

A couple of years ago there was an interview published with a retired American banker who was breathtakingly forthright in his views on banking excesses and the subsequent bailout (I wish I had a link, but unfortunately I don't). Paraphrasing what he said, he openly expressed the view that the majority of people were there to be exploited by other individuals who were more intelligent. He made no apologies for the fact that he and his team devoted their minds to coming up with ways to enrich themselves at the expense of others. He saw it as a simple extension of the 'law of the jungle' and 'survival of the fittest'.

When I first read this I was taken aback, but on reflection I realised that I'm not so different. As you're probably aware I spend a lot of time analysing data, thinking about investment strategies, working out ways that I can profit from misinformation and mispricing in markets. In doing this I don't consciously seek to gain at the expense of others, but it's a fact of life that people like me who devote a disproportionate amount of their time in formulating strategies to accumulate wealth are going to ultimately take money off those whose priorities lie elsewhere.

In short then, I do think that caveat emptor applies. If the bankers win forever then so be it - the public had its chance to demand justice and recompense in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, but they passively watched as the perpetrators were openly bailed out, allowing them to keep their gains.

I'd also add though that I believe that the majority of the members here CAN figure out why HTB2 is such a crap deal. They're not buying into the dream - and they should be happy that others are doing so, unless they believe the Government can prop up the housing market in perpetuity through subsidy.

When even strong suspicions of kiddie fiddling by members of the Palace of Westminster gets an establishment response in the form of appointing discredited relatives of people who are on the record of having opposed prior investigations to examine the issue, it seems like nothing short of serious, direct actions will succeed. I'm not sure lynch mobs make for a stable country in the medium term so it's easy to see why people bedrudgingly tolerate high levels of crime.

The Tories are currently closing ranks around an MP who was cautioned for domestic violence recently. Even the most cynical person would be dismayed by some members talking about the need to support victims of violence while participating in a blanket radio silence on their own party member. No doubt in 30 years they'll say how the coulda/shoulda/woulda done different, while covering up similar in the present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The alternative is for this generation, my generation, to literally pull up the ladder and I think that would be outrageous frankly, that would be an act of intergenerational theft, and I'm not prepared to be part of it.

"Help to Buy is not having an impact on house prices. The Bank of England have looked at this and don't identify it as a problem. But we have to be very vigilant about the housing market, particularly in London. The housing market has the potential to do real damage."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10962931/Scrapping-help-to-buy-would-be-an-act-of-intergenerational-theft.html

stable door....horse...bolted.

same with tuition fees

same with snooping

he has no idea what real damage is, and the economic stuff is superficial.

why is it then, that since the 2001 stock market crash, the DAX has gone up 50%, the dow and S+P have gone up 50%,, AND OURS HAS GONE DOWN?....take inflation (even cpi) into account and you will see just how badly clobbered this country has been.

either keystone cop-style policies or financial repression, take your pick(see below why i suggest the latter)

it stikes me that for AT LEAST the past 15 years, governments of ALL political colours(not that that matters much when they go to all these hoy-polloy meetings like DAVOS and take their orders from their higher ups there)..have either gotten policy criminally incompetently wrong, or this is an act of deliberate treason an economic sabotage.

either way they need to be removed from their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stable door....horse...bolted.

same with tuition fees

same with snooping

he has no idea what real damage is, and the economic stuff is superficial.

why is it then, that since the 2001 stock market crash, the DAX has gone up 50%, the dow and S+P have gone up 50%,, AND OURS HAS GONE DOWN?....take inflation (even cpi) into account and you will see just how badly clobbered this country has been.

either keystone cop-style policies or financial repression, take your pick(see below why i suggest the latter)

it stikes me that for AT LEAST the past 15 years, governments of ALL political colours(not that that matters much when they go to all these hoy-polloy meetings like DAVOS and take their orders from their higher ups there)..have either gotten policy criminally incompetently wrong, or this is an act of deliberate treason an economic sabotage.

either way they need to be removed from their jobs.

Ditto. The damage is deep and wide - this is never even mention by the establishment. It goes far beyond the obvious fraud and imbalances.

As for the bankers, survival if the fittest, err no, they would co-opt the political establishment if it had anything to do with competition ina natural world. Pure theft enabled by the duplicitous political establish and a bent central bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years ago I very much agreed with your view on this. Since then though I've seen senior bankers emerge from the financial crisis totally unscathed with their pensions and bonuses intact and I've seen no comeback whatsoever on the officials at the Bank of England (and the Fed) who were in positions of responsibility in the years leading up to the crisis (and in fact the BoE has profited enormously from the crisis, as has its employees).

I've also seen those who made very poor decisions bailed out by those who were more cautious (which raises the obvious question: did they actually make poor decisions?).

A couple of years ago there was an interview published with a retired American banker who was breathtakingly forthright in his views on banking excesses and the subsequent bailout (I wish I had a link, but unfortunately I don't). Paraphrasing what he said, he openly expressed the view that the majority of people were there to be exploited by other individuals who were more intelligent. He made no apologies for the fact that he and his team devoted their minds to coming up with ways to enrich themselves at the expense of others. He saw it as a simple extension of the 'law of the jungle' and 'survival of the fittest'.

When I first read this I was taken aback, but on reflection I realised that I'm not so different. As you're probably aware I spend a lot of time analysing data, thinking about investment strategies, working out ways that I can profit from misinformation and mispricing in markets. In doing this I don't consciously seek to gain at the expense of others, but it's a fact of life that people like me who devote a disproportionate amount of their time in formulating strategies to accumulate wealth are going to ultimately take money off those whose priorities lie elsewhere.

In short then, I do think that caveat emptor applies. If the bankers win forever then so be it - the public had its chance to demand justice and recompense in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, but they passively watched as the perpetrators were openly bailed out, allowing them to keep their gains.

I'd also add though that I believe that the majority of the members here CAN figure out why HTB2 is such a crap deal. They're not buying into the dream - and they should be happy that others are doing so, unless they believe the Government can prop up the housing market in perpetuity through subsidy.

Nicely put.

I too remember an interview with a banker who said something like......... "We thought we were the masters of the Universe, everything we touched turned to gold, and then the whole thing came crashing down around us and we knew that the game was up and that we would lose everything and be lucky to escape with our liberty. But then the establishment bailed us out and it became obvious that we are indeed the masters of the Universe."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of the population of this country left secondary school with fewer than 5 A*-C GCSEs (or the equivalent of the time). You think they can figure this kind of stuff out and that it's reasonable to expect them to do so?

The bankers and their pals in politics are winning because they are smarter than the median voter. The general public of the UK is not smart enough to defend itself from financial lies. "Caveat emptor" just mean banker victory forever.

I trust that the majority will still be able to ****** it up for the establishment however smart they think they are.

It'll just take time that I haven't got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Mr Osbourne, approximately how much of the equity that the boomer owner of the house the scheme is being used to buy has in the property, was earnt?

10%? 40%?

By the time the HTB buyer has paid off the mortgage and themselves are lucky enough to own the property, approximately how much of their equity will have been earnt?

70%?, 90%?

I must be misunderstanding the concept of intergenerational theft, because I see it right there.

The man should be locked up for what he has done to those not lucky enough to own a house.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 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.