Taking on a mortgage going forward...

Prokopton · Post by **Prokopton** » 23 May 2011, 14:38

As I said, never mind.

Silas · Post by **Silas** » 23 May 2011, 15:18

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Silas wrote:We do have to ask is the housing shortage real, by that I mean, we need to factor in all the Holiday homes, I have looked at Holiday cottage Websites in my area, hundreds of fantastic period property with land just sitting there for profit and a long weekend for the rich, owned often by holiday companies, is this going to be sustainable in a post peak and finance shocked economy?

In the fens, I pass several derelict farmhouses and cottages, just a snapshot of the thousands of empty properties across the UK.

Also dont forget about buy to let, another huge number of property in the hands of the currently wealthy,[/b] Property that was snapped from under the noses of first time buyers , Is this also going to be a sustainable situation in a post peak and finance shocked economy? [/b]
Absolutely not. It is a grotesque injustice which has to be fixed. This is not "UE on his high horse." I suspect the debate here is being influenced by people who are either holders of expensive mortgages themselves or have close family who are.

Thank you for the comment UE, My point is primarily with regard to the huge amount of property owned effectively by companies, be they Holiday or buy to let, also the large number of properties that are stuck in probate or who have missing or unknown ownership.

One would imagine that in a post peak economy this situation would be addressed, as it's a fare bet that people will not be able afford to have a holiday in a cottage, many of the companies that own and run them could go bust! Also some of the buy to let crowd will be forced to sell up as they loose their city jobs!

I think Im right in suggesting that the figure when added up of all the property owned by companies is greater than the 500,000 or so new homes that questionably need building!

Perhaps in a post peak oil economy with dwidling resources and little avilable finance to build needed houses, this existing private comapany property holding would be viewed differently by government

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 23 May 2011, 15:39

Whilst I have no opposition to people who rent properties - it is a perfectly respectable thing to do, I do not share any sympathy for people who borrow a huge amount of money for a property and when they can't repay it, succeed to stay in the property!

They take the risk, they shoulder the responsibility!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 May 2011, 15:41

Lord Beria3 wrote:Whilst I have no opposition to people who rent properties - it is a perfectly respectable thing to do, I do not share any sympathy for people who borrow a huge amount of money for a property and when they can't repay it, succeed to stay in the property!

They take the risk, they shoulder the responsibility!

If only that rule applied to all.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 23 May 2011, 19:18

Lord Beria3 wrote:Whilst I have no opposition to people who rent properties - it is a perfectly respectable thing to do, I do not share any sympathy for people who borrow a huge amount of money for a property and when they can't repay it, succeed to stay in the property!

They take the risk, they shoulder the responsibility!

There's no pragmatic justification for it either. For the people who lose their homes it is big upheaval in their lives and they will end up renting, and with a considerably reduced standard of living. Their houses are not going to remain empty for long - somebody who was less reckless with their money will be able to buy it if the price is realistic enough. Those people fully deserve that opportunity to buy a house at a reduced (relatively) cost.

I don't know where this "it's not the poor mortgage-glutton's fault" thing is coming from. For many years, property ownership in the UK became win-win-win for the property owners whilst everybody else got shafted. Now when the time comes for the winning to be replaced by losing we have calls for the rules of the game to be changed???

I don't f*****g think so.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 23 May 2011, 19:50

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:Whilst I have no opposition to people who rent properties - it is a perfectly respectable thing to do, I do not share any sympathy for people who borrow a huge amount of money for a property and when they can't repay it, succeed to stay in the property!

They take the risk, they shoulder the responsibility!
There's no pragmatic justification for it either. For the people who lose their homes it is big upheaval in their lives and they will end up renting, and with a considerably reduced standard of living. Their houses are not going to remain empty for long - somebody who was less reckless with their money will be able to buy it if the price is realistic enough. Those people fully deserve that opportunity to buy a house at a reduced (relatively) cost.

I don't know where this "it's not the poor mortgage-glutton's fault" thing is coming from. For many years, property ownership in the UK became win-win-win for the property owners whilst everybody else got shafted. Now when the time comes for the winning to be replaced by losing we have calls for the rules of the game to be changed???

I don't f*****g think so.

+1

postie · Post by **postie** » 23 May 2011, 20:33

I'm wondering about the title of this thread...

Can you have anything other than a mortgage.. going forward?

So.. it'd be.. erm.. "taking on a mortgage"...

I so hate that term.. going forward to mean things that'll happen past the point of time in which your speaking, but explicitly can't happen in the past... such as mortgages or growth, or seeds you've planted.

If I ever I hear of a farmer using the term " yes, I'm expecting a bumper crop of sprouts... going forward.. " then I think it's time I stopped reading or watching anything ever again

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 May 2011, 20:35

Now that's a very sensible post, postie. I agree entirely.

postie · Post by **postie** » 23 May 2011, 20:40

emordnilap wrote:Now that's a very sensible post, postie. I agree entirely.

Well.. thank you very much Mr emordnilap

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 May 2011, 00:45

Has any one here actually given any thought to what will happen when TSHTF? Most people will lose their jobs and will not be able to pay their mortgage or their rent! If we are to chuck all those nasty, greedy people who can't pay their mortgage out of their homes, are we going to do the same with those poor unfortunates who can't pay their rent. If it is bad to own home for rent, are we going to hang all the local councillors who rent people council houses?

I know a few people who could afford to buy their homes but chose to rent instead because it was cheaper. They had more money to spend on big TVs and cars and STUFF. Surely they have done more damage to the environment by buying all that STUFF. while I have been scrimping and scraping and buying second hand stuff to pay my mortgage off. Shouldn't those renters be penalised for ruining the environment?

Also please remember that before Maggy Thatcher introduced the "right to buy" most people lived in rented accommodation. People were so enamoured with the service that they got from their landlords, mainly local councils, that they leapt at the chance to buy their houses so that they could improve them.

I know that some of the above is a bit silly but only as silly as some of the reaction against buy to let. The problem is not with buy to let per se but with an economic system where some people have been given ludicrous levels of earnings, which have inflated the housing market, and where others have been able to get inordinate amounts of credit, with the same result, and also with a combination of both. Both have been driven by a desire to promote unsustainable levels of growth.

It is the easy credit that has had the greatest effect on the unsustainable increase in house prices and this has been driven by government policy again. Gordon wanted to keep the boom going so he ensured that house prices continued to rise so that continuing enlarging equity meant house owners could borrow more to spend more to keep his growth going. That's how Gordon "abolished boom and bust."

What Gordon didn't give a sh*t about was the young people who he was pricing out of the market. Someone has had to pay for our national "great wealth" and it has unfortunately been the young without a Mummy and Daddy bank to help them onto the housing grindstone.

To those with a hatred of greedy mortgage holders and also the rentier class, I ask "if you're not going to mortgage a house and you're going to get rid of the rentier class, whre are you going to get a house from?" And remember WTSHTF most people will be unable to pay either rent or mortgage.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 24 May 2011, 02:02

kenneal wrote:The problem is not with buy to let per se...

Hmmmm..... Oh yes it [deleted] is.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 24 May 2011, 08:23

How about female equality making houses more expensive? Most FTB's need two incomes to buy.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 24 May 2011, 09:06

If nothing else, I can take the doors, windows, laminate flooring, carpets, wireing, pipe work, kitchen and bathrooms. Kill the gas supply at the meter and I can take the boiler, are floorboards worth anything?

And If I feel I have nothing to live for I could smash through all the walls.

Hell
Try to evict me, and I'll burn my house down.

One wonders how many people would follow that line of thinking.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 24 May 2011, 11:23

stumuzz wrote:How about female equality making houses more expensive? Most FTB's need two incomes to buy.

Really? Then what happens when Mrs FTB gets pregnant and stops working?

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 24 May 2011, 11:42

UndercoverElephant wrote:
stumuzz wrote:How about female equality making houses more expensive? Most FTB's need two incomes to buy.
Really? Then what happens when Mrs FTB gets pregnant and stops working?

Usually, Mrs FTB has no choice but to return to work, to support the big mortgage. Sad really.