Madness? What that I am almost a home owner in the south-East who has saved hard for two years and built up a good credit rating?
Cameron's housing plans
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Madness? What that I am almost a home owner in the south-East who has saved hard for two years and built up a good credit rating?
At home? Paying £800 (don't know what partner pays) a month keep. Any more questions?
Inb4 'I have it easy.'
Not my fault people decide to move out from home to rent then find it difficult when they actually want to become home owners.
Life planning.
Also, 'that sort of money' what a £1000 a month. £500 each a month. (Except December as we like to spoil family and friends at Xmas ) then 4 bonus' over 2 years. Hardly ball breaking stuff.
Last edited:
You are not a home owner imo, You own it when you pay off that £300k. By that time they will be coming for the money it costs to wipe you down in the nursing home. As i said 300k is madness, And only serves to prop up the out of reach prices. Note the imo before you go off on one at me please.
Last edited:
LOL wat? he is a home owner when he completes on the purchase
Be paid of by the time I'm early 50s. Unless I overpay.
Either way I'll enjoy my home thanks.
If in your opinion people who have mortgages aren't even home owners then what right do people who rent have when they argue 'I've lived here all my life, it's unfair I can't afford the rent now!?'
The prices aren't out of reach. Seeing as I, and plenty more like me have reached them.
Last edited:
IMO sigh... If he misses a payment, What happens? The bank take back the home? Obviously the money is secured against the property hence the name mortgage?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Agreed, although maybe not as extreme as what you're advocating
When it comes to matrial goods, I'm all for the free market (safety standards aside of course) but when it comes to stuff that is a basic human need and the free market isn't driving down prices and standards up I do think should be heavily controlled and people should be 'discouraged' from making a profit at the expensive of the majority. Housing, IMO, is definitely one of those areas.
But there's a simple way of destroying the BTL market (one of the biggest factors in the unavailability of affordable homes) with one simple law......
* Cap rents to a maximum of 75% of the what the mortgage payments would be.
That's all you need to do, that way no one can buy a house and rent it out so that not only is the tenant paying off their mortgage but they're making a profit as well.
Lots of people work hard, the idea that that is somehow the gateway to a better life is questionable.
Yes the money is secured against the home... which he owns!
If the home doubles in value then who stands to gain? Oh that would be the person who owns the home...
What if it falls in value below the value of the mortgage... well that is the owner's problem
It isn't a matter of opinion it is a simple fact.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
If they stopped all help to buy and forced developers to build houses at the upper end of the average , for london 600k+ rest of england 300k +. That would work to reduce demand and increase supply. Eventually resulting in high prices coming down and what you get as a new buyer for 200k would be more and better not less and worse as the trend is going.
I do wonder why people can't build and design their own homes and why all houses are built all looking the same by developers. Especially at the 600k range. Maybe there is just not space for it.
I do wonder why people can't build and design their own homes and why all houses are built all looking the same by developers. Especially at the 600k range. Maybe there is just not space for it.
well yes, if there weren't buyers at that price then the price wouldn't be at that level... tis set by the market after all
He only owns the home because they paid for it though lol. Legally he is the home owner for various legal reasons, But when it comes to the nitty gritty the bank own the home to the tune of 300k.
Experiment, Stop paying the bank money and see if you own the home after a year. The bank will take it back, Sell it to regain the 300k. Or if you prefer we could say he does own the house, But is in debt to the tune of £300k. Either way this is a bad situation for people who want to get on the ladder.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Well no, the bank practically owns it until he's paid off the mortgage just like any higher purchase.
If he doesn't pay his mortgage, the bank just have to give him 2 months notice before kicking him out and repossessing the house.
If I read this correctly, you don't have a problem with the concept of a mortgage - a loan secured on a property in order to buy it. Rather, you have a problem with the amount required to pay for the property and therefore the amount needed to be borrowed.
That's fine, and that's your opinion. But it doesn't change the fact that the buyer owns it and is a home owner.
yes he is the owner
no they don't - they have a loan secured on it. Again what happens if the home doubles in value?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Just reading up more on Cameron plans. This is not a good solution because once again he is trying to push down prices artificially and new buyer have restrictions on speculating. Once again my generation gets shafted. Even if we can afford a home, no chance of making money on it unless you wait 5 years. Mean while people 10 years ago bought and sold their wayup the ladder, making money along the way. Cameron plans will result in low quality small housing being priced higher than they would be if there was no mandates. I don't want a crappy flat for £250 starter home nonsense. I what a house with a garden for 200k not 350k. Problem is those 350k houses will end up costing 600k by the time these starter homes are selling for 250k. Once again helping the previous generation make tons of money. OK enough moaning about property for one night.
Indeed note that the bank take a profit as well, So we have the original land owner, The builder, The estate agent and the bank all taking a nice profit. The more people in the chain the more the housing market is unfair and bloated.
You simply cannot do it in a fair society.
no they practically don't - if it doubles in value then he benefits not the bank
well they tend to require a court ruling first... but yes they have a loan secured on it
No, the bank doesn't own the property. It owns the debt secured against the property.
Two months is extreme, but the lender does have the right to the debt which is secured against the property. Equally, as the debtor, the property owner can also choose to repay the debt - remortgage elsewhere, raise other funds or sell the property.
It sounds like you have a problem with the concept of lending.