geared   268 #157 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Er, this very thing did happen to the UK banks, which is why we had to bail them out.  Which is why creating a policy which would in effect create exactly the same mess is completely stupid.  Please keep up dear :hihi:  ---------- Post added 28-07-2014 at 15:49 ----------  Why would a drop in the value of property cause people to default? if they can afford their mortgage now they will still afford it if prices fall.  The suggested law change:  They are being forced to sell extra homes The homes are worth significantly less than when purchased They cannot cover the short fall.  You thought that policy was completely flawless.  I can't see any downsides.  Nor can I, but I'm sure the greedy will see a down side. Edited July 28, 2014 by geared Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Womerry2   10 #158 Posted July 28, 2014 Which is why creating a policy which would in effect create exactly the same mess is completely stupid. Please keep up dear :hihi:  ---------- Post added 28-07-2014 at 15:49 ----------   The suggested law change:  They are being forced to sell extra homes The homes are worth significantly less than when purchased They cannot cover the short fall.  You thought that policy was completely flawless.  No, you misunderstood, see my post above. This law is intended to stabilise the housing market. Spiralling house prices are caused by a chronic undersupply. This enables existing investors to leverage existing poperties to expand their portfolio without any need to maintain or enhance the real value of the housing stock they hold, and to drive up rents. I am looking for a system that rewards good management rather than greed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2   13 #159 Posted July 28, 2014 Which is why creating a policy which would in effect create exactly the same mess is completely stupid. Please keep up dear .   The recession was nothing to with the BTL market but by bankers who got into massive debt by giving out many subprime mortgages, which debt they then bundled onto other countries. Why do you think it was the bankers who were targeted as the enemy?  Do keep up dear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared   268 #160 Posted July 28, 2014 No, you misunderstood, see my post above. This law is intended to stabilise the housing market. Spiralling house prices are caused by a chronic undersupply. This enables existing investors to leverage existing poperties to expand their portfolio without any need to maintain or enhance the real value of the housing stock they hold, and to drive up rents. I am looking for a system that rewards good management rather than greed  Why not just force local councils to start building housing again??  We wouldn't have anything like the situation we currently do if there was sufficient social housing.  The BTL landlords (for all their evils) are just filling a (large) gap in the market, if there was more people in social housing there'd be less of a private renting market. There'd be less housing bought up by BTL landlords, and rent prices would drop across the board. Current BTL landlords would probably sell up, making housing available for those who wish to buy and live in it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   83 #161 Posted July 28, 2014 Q: why should public money (= borrowed at taxpayers' cost) be used at all? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #162 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Q: why should public money (= borrowed at taxpayers' cost) be used at all? Â Either way the tax payer loses. If there is only private renting to depend on, people apply for housing benefit to cover the shortfall of rent that landlords demand. Â How can key workers and cleaners, and ambulance drivers afford to live in some cities, when renting privately? Rail fares also drive people out. Â When the LA build houses, at least they are left long term with an asset. Edited July 28, 2014 by poppet2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tzijlstra   11 #163 Posted July 28, 2014 Why not just force local councils to start building housing again?? We wouldn't have anything like the situation we currently do if there was sufficient social housing.  The BTL landlords (for all their evils) are just filling a (large) gap in the market, if there was more people in social housing there'd be less of a private renting market. There'd be less housing bought up by BTL landlords, and rent prices would drop across the board. Current BTL landlords would probably sell up, making housing available for those who wish to buy and live in it.  Q: why should public money (= borrowed at taxpayers' cost) be used at all?  Either way the tax payer loses. If there is only private renting to depend on, people apply for housing benefit to cover the shortfall of rent that landlords demand.  How can key workers and cleaners, and ambulance drivers afford to live in some cities, when renting privately? Rail fares also drive people out.  When the LA build houses, at least they are left long term with an asset.  Again that ugly beast that is social housing. Councils should treat developing housing as a profitable part of their task portfolio. They have the power and authority to kick-start projects, there is nothing stopping them being the instigator and employing developers to build more housing on land they own/bought and prepared. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared   268 #164 Posted July 28, 2014 That would require some kind of efficiency and forward thinking our councils could only dream of :hihi: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tzijlstra   11 #165 Posted July 28, 2014 That would require some kind of efficiency and forward thinking our councils could only dream of :hihi:  Unfortunately it seems so I have brought this issue up several times before as it really strikes me as odd that Sheffield does not do this. It is not like there is a shortage of brown-field sites that could be developed but need the council to step up as risk-taker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
firemanbob   10 #166 Posted July 28, 2014 Which is why creating a policy which would in effect create exactly the same mess is completely stupid. Please keep up dear :hihi:  ---------- Post added 28-07-2014 at 15:49 ----------   The suggested law change:  They are being forced to sell extra homes The homes are worth significantly less than when purchased They cannot cover the short fall.  You thought that policy was completely flawless.  You haven't explained why an home owner with a mortgage would default just because the price of their house falls. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #167 Posted July 28, 2014 You haven't explained why an home owner with a mortgage would default just because the price of their house falls. Â Yes, I was waiting for 'geared' to explain that one as well. It all seems to have gone Very quiet! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tzijlstra   11 #168 Posted July 28, 2014 Yes, god forbid that people actually eat  The home owner might not forfeit, but having negative equity on a mortgage is a serious problem that thousands of Dutch homeowners face at the problem (through their own fault). It basically means there is no way you can move. Fine if you have a job for life or are retired, not so fine if you lose your job and need to move due to that. Of course if you lose your job whilst in negative equity you very rapidly become a defaulter on your mortgage because you won't be able to keep up payments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...