Taxpayer support

[999tigger]

It is used and should be used for rent by vulnerable people. But it shouldnt be to subsidise private landlords and inflate the housing market bubble.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 06:30 ----------

 

All that nonsense with social cleansing and million pound council houses. A consequence of decades of mismanagement and failure to build adequate affordable housing.

 

What a nonsense reply from you.

Not everyone lives in council housing nor wants to.

Not everyone rents.

 

People need somewhere to live for themselves and their family.

Your explanation would have them homeless unless they can get a council house. or making themselves homeless if they have a mortgage.

Whether theres less council housing than you would like avoids the reality that they need somewhere to live.

 

Completely unrealistic answer by you again.

[RonJeremy]

So if you cant use benefits for rent and you cant use them to pay a landlord rent, then where are you and your kids meant to live?

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 00:26 ----------

 

 

Why they were wrong? Its pretty meaningless without more detail, but if I was doing a financial calculation hen id want to take into account all their income as that would influence my decision.

 

Still waiting for some data or research from a credible source that explain what they think the size of tax credit funded mortgages are in terms of the market and the risk they pose.

I'm open minded, but have asked 3 times for some credible research/ articles on this subject. I'm interested to see if theres a financial aramageddon thats being touted.

 

With the way tax credits work, then i doubt youd get a massive mortgage. They may in fact have an existing mortgage, but I see no problem using tax credits to pay that as they will need somewhere to live. They are only going to get near the top end of tax credits if they have kids 3+. Renting is probably going to be more expensive.

 

When I say wrong - I mean the lender should not be taking benefits into account when lending to sub-primes. Nor should they have been lending to sub primes at all. The borrowers should not have taken out loans they could not afford, without taxpayer subsidy.

 

I'm no expert in mortgages, but when the bank was offering me an endowment mortgage, it didn't seem to add up to me - too good to be true. So I had a repayment mortgage (and still do).When the endowment shortfall became apparent to one and all, I felt rather smug about having made the right choice, up until it then became apparent that people were suing the banks for misbuying their mortgage and that those who had made the right decision, were in effect subsidising those who had not.

 

I wonder if the endowment had outperformed and they had made a profit, rather than a loss. they would have given that back to the bank to subsidise the repayment mortgage buyers?

[Cyclone]

I'm pretty sure that someone claiming WTC does not automatically mean that they are in the sub-prime market.

 

You've ignored my question at least twice now about if WTC were swapped for personal tax allowance.

Would you be saying that banks shouldn't take the personal tax allowance into account?

Because WTC is money that is taxed from the person, being given back. It's just the same as if it were not taken in the first place.

 

The problem with endowment mortgages was the way banks mislead people into buying them. If they'd not actually lied to people, then there would have been no liability when the endowments fell short.

[RonJeremy]

I'm pretty sure that someone claiming WTC does not automatically mean that they are in the sub-prime market.

 

You've ignored my question at least twice now about if WTC were swapped for personal tax allowance.

Would you be saying that banks shouldn't take the personal tax allowance into account?

Because WTC is money that is taxed from the person, being given back. It's just the same as if it were not taken in the first place.

 

The problem with endowment mortgages was the way banks mislead people into buying them. If they'd not actually lied to people, then there would have been no liability when the endowments fell short.

 

It was apparent to me they weren't right. And the look on my manager's face when I told him I wasn't interested in an endowment said it all.

 

Your question - it's a long time since I took out my mortgage, but I believe they asked my gross salary and didn't enquire into my tax code. So no it's not the same thing. I haven't taken out a mortgage recently, but it certainly was the case. I do accept your point to some extent though.

[Bob Arctor]

Benefits shouldn't be used for mortgages and shouldn't be used to subsidise private business or landlords either.

 

It was far worse in the US. There lenders made mortgages to people whose only income was benefits. They gave them "teaser" rates that were affordable but the lender knew that once the teaser rate expired it would be unaffordable. But since they'd planned on selling the debt to be collateralized and resold before that happened they didn't care. That was a significant aspect of the subprime scandal that led to the financial crash of 2008.

[TJC1]

So are you saying that private lets shouldn't be possible?

 

Of course private lets should be possible.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 13:10 ----------

 

What a nonsense reply from you.

Not everyone lives in council housing nor wants to.

Not everyone rents.

 

People need somewhere to live for themselves and their family.

Your explanation would have them homeless unless they can get a council house. or making themselves homeless if they have a mortgage.

Whether theres less council housing than you would like avoids the reality that they need somewhere to live.

 

Completely unrealistic answer by you again.

 

So you believe the tax payer should subsidise and inflate private housing for everyone then.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 13:14 ----------

 

It was far worse in the US. There lenders made mortgages to people whose only income was benefits. They gave them "teaser" rates that were affordable but the lender knew that once the teaser rate expired it would be unaffordable. But since they'd planned on selling the debt to be collateralized and resold before that happened they didn't care. That was a significant aspect of the subprime scandal that led to the financial crash of 2008.

 

The sub prime mortgage scandal was partly responsible for the crash.

I don't think anyone has it worse than London folk at the minute though. But its bad all over.

 

Just in Blackpool, the other day, was an expose of landlords renting out guest houses per room in sub human condition. 80 per week, subsidised almost entirely by the tax payer.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 13:27 ----------

 

4 things will help the housing crisis:

 

1) a cap on private sector housing and much greater punishments for those who don't comply. In areas like London, there needs to be rent controlled ringfenced social housing estates for families.

2) regulate banks and stimulate lending. More incentives for buyers. Less subsidy and leniency for banks.

3) an acceleration of living wage increase, and a slowing down of removal of benefits like tax credits. Although eventually the welfare system should be reformed.

4) an extensive house building program both social and private. 250k per year+

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2015 at 13:33 ----------

 

When I say wrong - I mean the lender should not be taking benefits into account when lending to sub-primes. Nor should they have been lending to sub primes at all. The borrowers should not have taken out loans they could not afford, without taxpayer subsidy.

 

I blame banks 100%. It's all greed motivated. The public is going to get the best housing they can and don't control the conditions.

[Cyclone]

It was apparent to me they weren't right. And the look on my manager's face when I told him I wasn't interested in an endowment said it all.

 

Your question - it's a long time since I took out my mortgage, but I believe they asked my gross salary and didn't enquire into my tax code. So no it's not the same thing. I haven't taken out a mortgage recently, but it certainly was the case. I do accept your point to some extent though.

 

It's totally changed today.

As well as your gross salary, they'll want to know your net salary, existing commitments and outgoings and from that they'll work out what you can afford.

More thorough than just asking your gross salary (and probably assuming a basic tax code).

[unbeliever]

No amount of government tinkering with mortgages and renting rules will address the high price of UK housing. It can only be addressed by building more houses. Doesn't really matter what kind of houses, exactly where they are built, or who builds them.

Increase supply faster than demand and the rest will take care of itself.

[Cyclone]

Taxing land banking organisations might help to release land for development...

[unbeliever]

Taxing land banking organisations might help to release land for development...

 

Still tinkering in my view.

Is that daft rule that all new houses have to be supposedly "carbon neutron" still knocking about? That can't be helping.

 

Planning rules must be at the source of all this.

I know this is a crowded country, but there's still an awful lot of land knocking about.