pipllman Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 who do they think they can kid with this sort of baloney anyone who has any sense at all must surely know that when a government has to subsidise something, it is because the normal market for that product has broken down fair enough if they want to chuck in £5k to buyers of an electric car - where a slight distortion might get the market going but for a 'need' such as housing to require a government subsidy of 20% - surely everyone can see that the market has gone mad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 who do they think they can kid with this sort of baloney anyone who has any sense at all must surely know that when a government has to subsidise something, it is because the normal market for that product has broken down fair enough if they want to chuck in £5k to buyers of an electric car - where a slight distortion might get the market going but for a 'need' such as housing to require a government subsidy of 20% - surely everyone can see that the market has gone mad The sellers just add £5k on the price. All governbankment subsidies of anything overpriced is just misappropriation of taxpayer's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Im still holding out for the free ice cream. Whichever party offers that first, I'll vote for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm Irish, never voted since I came to the UK, but I'll not only vote UKIP, I'll canvass for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 who do they think they can kid with this sort of baloney Agreed, people can see through it pretty easily just by looking at their own circumstances. You're either able to live in a decent house or you aren't. You can't live in a Downing Street press release saying what a great success schemes X, Y and Z have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliegog Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 20% off 'starter homes' for the under 40s. Favourable/higher rate ISA savings products for the over 60s. How can this age based politicking be justified? It should be illegal. I'm not under 40 and I'm not over 60. I wonder what bribes will be targeted at me? Sheer desperation and shameless electioneering from the Tories, I hope enough of the electorate are not that stupid. Although I suspect I would not want to be a 'starter home' even if I could. They are basically acknowledging there is a problem, and then introducing policy to make the problem worse. 'You must be 65 or over to be eligible. The only drawback is that the maximum investment is £10,000 per person, which means there are likely to be only a million accounts offered. But a couple can put in a total of £20,000, with a maximum £10,000 in each of two separate bonds. these over 65s NS and I fixed rate bonds are not available till January 2015 these are not ISAs no interest rate has yet been mooted only allowed £10K in total only limited number available don't feel you have missed out on anything..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederico Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Haha I'll give you this I'll give you that, honest guy, however once I'm in no 10... But even if they did ever do it, it would be a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirdeye Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 "The starter homes plan would apply only to England, whereas Help to Buy is UK-wide." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29387866 Not obviously worried about losing their only Conservative MP in Scotland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Its probably all worked out based on voting statistics, most of the older generations are going to vote tory anyway, so they don't need an election bribe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 The young and poor can have a brownfield township/ghetto, and leave the countryside intact for the better off. This is a form of economic apartheid. The laugh is at one time, the Council would have provided the subsided housing, now you need to £160k + and a lifetime of debt slavery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 It won't actually be cheaper, in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Who's going to buy mine then (for 20% more), only people over 40? If I'm say 60 can I get one if my wife is 20? I saw the piece on SKY just now, they want build houses and sell them at 20% under "market value" The lengths they are going to to pretend that the price is the price is the price is laughable. I noticed that he walked over the couple`s grass as he greeted them, that says a lot to me, bet he doesn`t do that when he visits his old Eton chums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olde guto Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, call me Dave. Looking at the popular readers comments on the BBC, Daily Mail (and the rest probably) all seem to be saying the same things - house prices are the real problem, this discriminates against the over 40's, build more houses or fewer people. Every party probably knows what needs to be done, none will do it, especially if they rely on the baby boomer / home owner vote. As a quick reality check a photo from the UKIP (aka Baby Boomer Party) conference, how many of these core supporters will be happy to see the value of their house, 2nd/holiday home, or BTLs fall by 20/30/40% I wonder? http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77864000/jpg/_77864776_024086699-1.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I agree with the comments on this thread. The only thing I can see positive is that the new houses being built will go to FTB and not be bought by BTL. FTB can out bid BTL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederico Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I think Dave's making a right twit of himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederico Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Your house price only matters relative to the size of the loan you have. Most boomers will by now have virtually no loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallingAwake Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, call me Dave. Looking at the popular readers comments on the BBC, Daily Mail (and the rest probably) all seem to be saying the same things - house prices are the real problem, this discriminates against the over 40's, build more houses or fewer people. Every party probably knows what needs to be done, none will do it, especially if they rely on the baby boomer / home owner vote. As a quick reality check a photo from the UKIP (aka Baby Boomer Party) conference, how many of these core supporters will be happy to see the value of their house, 2nd/holiday home, or BTLs fall by 20/30/40% I wonder? http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77864000/jpg/_77864776_024086699-1.jpg Just goes to show you how out of touch with reality politicians are. As if youngsters are getting 20% off, anyway. It's going to cause the builders to nudge their prices up, and increase their profit margins. As for the UKIP comment, that's perhaps true, but it's not UKIP that proposed what we're discussing here. It's the Conservatives, who are actively propping up house prices. If they were really that concerned about their house price, they'd be voting Conservative, surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) I got this email to-day. I regret responding to a poll that got me on their email list. I am incredibly frustrated that they cannot see that QE / easy money and the planning regime are the root causes of the house price bubble and that both main parties are complicit. Having your own home means security, independence, and being able to get on in life. But under Labour, the average cost of a first home more than tripled - and house-building fell to levels not seen since the 1920s. People who worked hard and did the right thing couldn't get on the housing ladder - and couldn't get on in life. So we're taking action to help hardworking taxpayers secure their first homes. Help to Buy has already helped 50,000 people into new homes - and over 80% of them are first-time buyers. But we're going even further: 100,000 new Starter Homes will be built and sold to first-time buyers at a 20% discount 10,000 new Rent to Buy homes will be available at lower rents so tenants can save up for their first home This is important news - and we need to share it. Edited September 27, 2014 by LuckyOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallingAwake Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 But under Labour, the average cost of a first home more than tripled - and house-building fell to levels not seen since the 1920s.People who worked hard and did the right thing couldn't get on the housing ladder - and couldn't get on in life. So we're taking action to help hardworking taxpayers secure their first homes. "...We're going to let prices drop, naturally, and without any interference." And then I woke up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) To get perspective on the relative numbers: Apparently the majority of London's population (about 8 million) is aged 25 to 45. Apparently in the UK there's 3.3 million people aged 20 to 34 still living with their parent/parents (2013 figures). http:// www.stylist.co.uk/life/are-you-part-of-the-peter-pan-generation “The majority of the population of the capital is now aged 25-45,” explains Ricky Burdett, professor of urban studies at LSE. http:// www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/young-adults-living-with-parents/2013/sty-young-adults.html In 2013, over 3.3 million adults in the UK aged between 20 and 34 were living with a parent or parents. That is 26% of this age group. According to the newspapers today the 20% Off is going to be offered to 100,000 people below the age of 40. 100,000 compared to all the millions in that age group. How is the 20% Off Your First Home Scheme not just yet another publicity stunt and shameful scam - and designed purely to shift houses off builders' books. Edited September 27, 2014 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shindigger Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 20% off your first home. Which we hiked by 30% when we were trying to help last time. Filth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I get those emails too. It's good to keep an close eye on your enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 This wacky scheme gets even more interesting when you find out what taxes the developers will be exempt from paying - its the section 106 and community infrastructure levies they pay to local government rather than central Government. So local taxpayers will bear much of the cost - not national ones. Now you might say so what - well its s106 agreements and CIL that are sums paid by developers to support amenities around the development needed to support the new homes e.g. affordable housing either in the development or nearby local schools needed due to new housing developments the roads to and in the development - and local buses green spaces and play areas additional parking provision community projects doctors surgeries etc So enjoy your nice new discounted home - a pity it won't have road access, or a bus, a local school, a play area or a doctors surgery as your local council won't have any money to pay for these anymore! Enjoy! Its just a bribe to big developers - and lets them off their wider responsibilities. Vested Interests - its so obvious. "Hey mister developer why can't you build cheaper houses" "Its all that red tape and costs that the state impose on us" "What do you mean?" "Well, all that green nonsense, and Building Regs, and the S106 and the CIL, it just puts prices up and stops the free market from delivering" "Ah! So we 're helping FTB, the free market, cutting red tape shrinking the state and getting votes ! Whats not to like....?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RentingForever Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Shelter in favour of it, according to BBC News, though they think the 'discount' should be higher. With friends like these... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maynardgravy Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 On the plus side, this news must causing Fergus some chest twinges. 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.