Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

Not all Tory policy is bad. I'll be benefitting from their First Buy scheme soon,

 

That's a seriously bad policy.  Housing is overpriced, and prices need to fall.  To help that, more should be built, and especially social housing.  Rents should again be controlled, which might put some pressure on all those buy-to-let amateur landlords who are sucking up record levels of housing benefit.  Getting more housing into the market, both new and sold by people getting out of the private rented sector because state handouts for doing nothing are cut back, would drive down prices and increase choice both for renters and buyers.

 

Instead of that, the government is using public funds to keep prices artificially high.  The people who benefit from this are the housebuilders - more money for the same product - and lenders, who get to make bigger loans with more profit.  The people who lose, well, that's everyone else.

 

Someone buying under this scheme may feel better off, thinking they wouldn't have got a house, or not as good a one, without support.  But of course they would be better off with prices falling, because they would have a smaller mortgage.  So the scheme encourages into home ownership people who by definition couldn't buy otherwise, who are therefore by definition the people most at risk when interest rates rise from their lowest-ever level, and who will be saddled with a mortgage which is bigger and costlier than they would have in a market where prices had come down.

 

One article:

 

George Osborne’s Help to Buy is 'moronic’, says respected analyst

The Chancellor’s attempt to help people buy their first home is “a moronic policy” that “stands head and shoulders” above other economic mistakes, a leading analyst has warned....

[Dr_Pangloss]

 

Not all Tory policy is bad. I'll be benefitting from their First Buy scheme soon,

 

That's a seriously bad policy.  Housing is overpriced, and prices need to fall.  To help that, more should be built, and especially social housing.  Rents should again be controlled, which might put some pressure on all those buy-to-let amateur landlords who are sucking up record levels of housing benefit.  Getting more housing into the market, both new and sold by people getting out of the private rented sector because state handouts for doing nothing are cut back, would drive down prices and increase choice both for renters and buyers.

 

Instead of that, the government is using public funds to keep prices artificially high.  The people who benefit from this are the housebuilders - more money for the same product - and lenders, who get to make bigger loans with more profit.  The people who lose, well, that's everyone else.

 

Someone buying under this scheme may feel better off, thinking they wouldn't have got a house, or not as good a one, without support.  But of course they would be better off with prices falling, because they would have a smaller mortgage.  So the scheme encourages into home ownership people who by definition couldn't buy otherwise, who are therefore by definition the people most at risk when interest rates rise from their lowest-ever level, and who will be saddled with a mortgage which is bigger and costlier than they would have in a market where prices had come down.

 

One article:

 

George Osborne’s Help to Buy is 'moronic’, says respected analyst

The Chancellor’s attempt to help people buy their first home is “a moronic policy” that “stands head and shoulders” above other economic mistakes, a leading analyst has warned....

 

This is exactly right, the Tory 'policy' has already caused prices to rise. What needs to happen is a loosening of supply, there's plenty of demand for it and plenty of land to build on.

[peterms]

i have to disagree with this. No one in the labour cabinet had ever been in the armed forces, yet they sent troops into war twice. So should only people involved in education make changes to education, if so should only those who have served in the military be allowed to vote if we are to go to war.

 

If being employed in a field made you qualified to make big decisions about it, we wouldn't have had all sorts of bad things like the slaughter of the Somme, the banking crisis, and so many other things.  Let's face it, first hand experience of something doesn't gift you wisdom, balance, consideration, empathy, or common sense.  Would that it did.

 

I suppose some first hand experience of being at risk of death yourself and seeing your mates killed might make some people less cavalier about starting wars, but even that's not guaranteed.

 

In Gove's case, perhaps a nodding acquaintance with other people's experience of education might have given him a tiny bit of insight.  But probably not.  His views on education seem to be an amalgam of traditional nostrums, coupled with misty-eyed recollections of well-bred boys chanting the declensions of Latin verbs, while through the high windows came the dull thud of willow on leather.  I doubt a couple of years as a teaching assistant in Batley or Bow would have shaken his smug assurance that our kids should all be forced back to some Bunteresque parody of his blue remembered hills.

[StefanAVFC]

Bad example. Just wanted to have some opposition in my post so I wasn't just anti Tory and that was a policy that will benefit me so I presumed it's good.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Not all Tory policy is bad. I'll be benefitting from their First Buy scheme soon,

 

That's a seriously bad policy.  Housing is overpriced, and prices need to fall.  To help that, more should be built, and especially social housing.  Rents should again be controlled, which might put some pressure on all those buy-to-let amateur landlords who are sucking up record levels of housing benefit.  Getting more housing into the market, both new and sold by people getting out of the private rented sector because state handouts for doing nothing are cut back, would drive down prices and increase choice both for renters and buyers.

 

Instead of that, the government is using public funds to keep prices artificially high.  The people who benefit from this are the housebuilders - more money for the same product - and lenders, who get to make bigger loans with more profit.  The people who lose, well, that's everyone else.

 

Someone buying under this scheme may feel better off, thinking they wouldn't have got a house, or not as good a one, without support.  But of course they would be better off with prices falling, because they would have a smaller mortgage.  So the scheme encourages into home ownership people who by definition couldn't buy otherwise, who are therefore by definition the people most at risk when interest rates rise from their lowest-ever level, and who will be saddled with a mortgage which is bigger and costlier than they would have in a market where prices had come down.

 

One article:

 

George Osborne’s Help to Buy is 'moronic’, says respected analyst

The Chancellor’s attempt to help people buy their first home is “a moronic policy” that “stands head and shoulders” above other economic mistakes, a leading analyst has warned....

 

Spot on, anywhere else in the world were such systems have occurred all that has often happened is house builders/sellers have simply increased prices by the subsidy, usually by quoting prices as after any subsidy has been applied or received without actually reducing prices by such an amount, I.e if you can't qualify for a subsidy the price has gone up over the original price by the subsidy amount, nearly every subsidy scheme is usually just exploited by those the government need to implement it to increase their profits.

 

An example of this, Quite a few years back I needed a new boiler, private quotes from reputable companies where coming in at about £1,500 as it included moving the boiler, I discovered I could get a government grant to cover the costs but had to use an approved supplier, IIrc the grant was about £2700, these companies quoted just over £3000 for exactly the same work and equipment (boiler + controls) meaning i would have to cough up £300 on top of the grant which I'm sure you can work out was £1500 more than I could get the work done for privately. but hey £300 is better than £1500, but the company had made an extra £1500 profit from a job they probably could have done for £1500 and still made a profit. Nice little earner if you can get on the treadmill. Now you might ask why didn;t the government just allow grant claimants to have the grant and arrange their own repairs, so did I so I asked.

 

The reason given, "Such a system would be open to abuse" they even said it with a straight face

[chrisp65]

this tory house buying scheme is about as bad an idea as its possible to contrive

 

first time I heard of it I genuinely thought it was a wind up

 

What we have here is a scheme to give people access to credit they can't truly afford at market rates on the hope that when the reckoning comes money will be worth less or their income will have gone up. What could possibly possibly go wrong with that idea. I mean, it's not like that's previously gone so tits up wrong in the last 5 or 6 years that we've had a western world in a state of collapse.

This is a policy dreamt up by a fuktard. I seriously hope that those taking advantage of the scheme fully understand what it is they are buying into. They are buying ito a gamble that, whilst many are now forecasting this whole pile of economic shit will last until at least the year 2020, your house buying needs it all to be better for you personally by 2018. Well, I wish you luck.

 

Then, to top it all, they had 'proof' that reducing interst payments temporarily was working. Yes the proof was.....house prices appear to be going up! Absolutely fracking awesome, who'd have thought subsidising house buying would cause prices to rise and that could somehow be described as a good thing.

 

Supply and demand. Build houses, build towns. That will get people into jobs and earning money and reduce house price pressure. Oh no, I forgot Britain's full isn't it.

[StefanAVFC]

Right, right sorry. I don't really know the ins and outs of the policy, but I know I'll be eligible so I've only really seen the positives, as anyone would.

 

But as I said, it was mentioned purely for balance because I wanted to show I'm not a leftie at all. 

 

EDIT: And I don't want to be in my first house for long. It'll be an investment to get into the property ladder, then I can use that house to get my real first house with a partner.

Edited June 8, 2013 by StefanAVFC

[peterms]

We're not having a go at you, Stefan. 

 

But do remember that the property ladder may look more like snakes and ladders over the next few years.  I don't imagine anyone really knows what will happen, but one possibility is a combination of rising interest rates and falling house prices.  People might end up with negative equity and a mortgage which they could manage at a lower rate of interest, but which becomes unmanageable at higher interest rates.  That's not a great place to be.

[StefanAVFC]

I know, I just to make sure I didn't look like an idiot

 

EDIT: And colhint, still waiting for that reply bud

Edited June 8, 2013 by StefanAVFC

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Sod the property ladder. It is a mugs game that the UK seems obsessed with, more than any other country on earth.

 

Rent, rent and rent again until you have plenty of money and a genuine need for a house.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Sod the property ladder. It is a mugs game that the UK seems obsessed with, more than any other country on earth.

 

Rent, rent and rent again until you have plenty of money and a genuine need for a house.

yes, but if you don't own anything then the threat of taking it away to make you conform and obey is a pretty hollow one. ahhhhhhhhhhhh !!!

[colhint]

Well I don't know what the answer is to the education system is. My point was just because you haven't worked in it, shouldn't exclude you from making the decisions. I think about 50 years ago we had one of the best systems in the world. Now I doubt it would make the top 10. But I'm not sure how to fix it.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Sod the property ladder. It is a mugs game that the UK seems obsessed with, more than any other country on earth.

 

Rent, rent and rent again until you have plenty of money and a genuine need for a house.

Yep, the German attitude to 'home ownership' is much more refreshing and their government does a lot to regulate the parasitic rentiers. It's the direction this country needs to go in for sure.

[StefanAVFC]

Renting is completely dead money. To me anyway.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Renting is completely dead money. To me anyway.

I find it unlikely that house prices in most areas of this country will continue to rise as they have done over the last 20 years when you adjust for inflation. That and the sheer cost of maintaining a house over the years, and all the crap you buy for it, doesn't make exactly make it live money.

 

If you really want to make money you'd be better off putting that deposit to work in other ways, like starting a business or through other good investment opportunities out there.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

There are better things to invest in than a house in a country in decline.

[StefanAVFC]

I'm not trying to make money though. I just don't see the virtue in renting at all. Why pay into a house/flat that you will never be any closer to owning?

 

I'd rather own a house and have something to sell when I want to be a 'first time buyer' with my partner/fiancee/wife, than have wasted all that money renting. This might not be a correct opinion, but it's one I've held for a while.

 

EDIT: Also the actual virtue of saying 'this is my house' is massive for me.

Edited June 8, 2013 by StefanAVFC

[colhint]

I'm not trying to make money though. I just don't see the virtue in renting at all. Why pay into a house/flat that you will never be any closer to owning?

 

I'd rather own a house and have something to sell when I want to be a 'first time buyer' with my partner/fiancee/wife, than have wasted all that money renting. This might not be a correct opinion, but it's one I've held for a while.

 

 

I agree with this. If you just see a property as somewhere to live and not an investment, generally within 30 or 40 years you will have no actual housing costs. This in most cases will far outweigh most pensions. Furthermore nor should your offspring

[Dr_Pangloss]

 

I'm not trying to make money though. I just don't see the virtue in renting at all. Why pay into a house/flat that you will never be any closer to owning?

 

I'd rather own a house and have something to sell when I want to be a 'first time buyer' with my partner/fiancee/wife, than have wasted all that money renting. This might not be a correct opinion, but it's one I've held for a while.

 

 

I agree with this. If you just see a property as somewhere to live and not an investment, generally within 30 or 40 years you will have no actual housing costs. This in most cases will far outweigh most pensions. Furthermore nor should your offspring

 

So no bills or council tax or maintenance?

Edited June 8, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss

[StefanAVFC]

I feel like the financial implications of renting and owning would balance out, but at the end of the day, you'd own the house.

 

I'd much rather buy a house at 20 and sell it at 40, than rent for 20 years.