NewBuy mortgage scheme for first-time buyers to expand to 'second-steppers'

[mertle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013...cheme-expanded

Are the government Mental. Surely about time Homes Treat as living not investment. So you lost money tough thats the risks you buy. They not trapped in homes they just sell it at current market move on.

Why the government propping up bad investments. All this going do is cause sublime Crash as home will again inflate beyond there value more.

I don't like homes as an investment anyway. It favours people who were around when there were plenty of houses around and many more being built. It was worked out that it is a finite resource and would likely go up in value as the supply dwindles and people started buying more homes as investments because they can afford to do so. This just makes the prices go up further and young people cannot afford to get onto the ladder and increasingly struggle to even afford the rental prices. We could build a lot more homes but this appears to be quite difficult despite the demand being there, a lot of people have quite a lot of interest in maintaining the status-quo. Can't have the precious house price's falling can we?

It's just an older generation that lucked out at being born when they were then pulling up the ladder after them.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't like homes as an investment anyway. It favours people who were around when there were plenty of houses around and many more being built. It was worked out that it is a finite resource and would likely go up in value as the supply dwindles and people started buying more homes as investments because they can afford to do so. This just makes the prices go up further and young people cannot afford to get onto the ladder and increasingly struggle to even afford the rental prices. We could build a lot more homes but this appears to be quite difficult despite the demand being there, a lot of people have quite a lot of interest in maintaining the status-quo. Can't have the precious house price's falling can we?

It's just an older generation that lucked out at being born when they were then pulling up the ladder after them.

perfectly put.

[BenMcr]

I may have misread the article, but I thought the plan was to help free up lower value first time homes e.g. if people have kids or other reasons to move to a new home they would be helped.

Originally Posted by Damien

We could build a lot more homes but this appears to be quite difficult despite the demand being there, a lot of people have quite a lot of interest in maintaining the status-quo. Can't have the precious house price's falling can we?

It's just an older generation that lucked out at being born when they were then pulling up the ladder after them.

Not all of us.I've only ever owned one home.It's the one I finished paying the mortgage on after 35 years.The one I presently live in.I was therefore able to afford to pay the mortgage even when interest rates shot up to 17% because I did not spend my time upgrading to a larger and bigger house and mortgage like so many of my peers who forgot that one's home should never be regarded as an investment.Many people across the years got trapped in negative equity because they forgot that rule.As it was getting the deposit together in the 70s was extremely hard on us.No holidays abroad and no gratuitous gadget buying and mostly second hand furniture in my home.

I reckon that suggesting that the high price being paid for by first time buyers is down to every past home owner in the last 30+ years is a bit of a sweeping statement.

Blame those who are property developers for the ridiculous rise in property prices and the bankers for not being circumspect in loaning out mortgages in the past to those who just couldn't repay them when interest rates soared because they over extended their resources to obtain a mortgage in the first place.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Not all of us.I've only ever owned one home.It's the one I finished paying the mortgage on after 35 years.The one I presently live in.I was therefore able to afford to pay the mortgage even when interest rates shot up to 17% because I did not spend my time upgrading to a larger and bigger house and mortgage like so many of my peers who forgot that one's home should never be regarded as an investment.Many people across the years got trapped in negative equity because they forgot that rule.As it was getting the deposit together in the 70s was extremely hard on us.No holidays abroad and no gratuitous gadget buying and mostly second hand furniture in my home.

I reckon that suggesting that the high price being paid for by first time buyers is down to every past home owner in the last 30+ years is a bit of a sweeping statement.

Blame those who are property developers for the ridiculous rise in property prices and the bankers for not being circumspect in loaning out mortgages in the past to those who just couldn't repay them when interest rates soared because they over extended their resources to obtain a mortgage in the first place.

Yeah we sure 'lucked out' with those double digit mortgage interest rates didn't we eh? Ironically it's often parents with homes and therefore assets who are helping their children to get mortgages by downsizing for example so it's not all bad news.

Now anyone who's managed to save a few quid by, for example, not having new cars, foreign holidays etc. etc. is being penalised with pathetic savings rates. What are people supposed to do to provide for their retirements if savings and property yield less?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Blame those who are property developers for the ridiculous rise in property prices and the bankers for not being circumspect in loaning out mortgages in the past to those who just couldn't repay them when interest rates soared because they over extended their resources to obtain a mortgage in the first place.

Well I do. That's who my post was aimed at.

People who buy up many homes because it's a finite resource and have the money to hand. Even then it wouldn't be so bad if there were more places being developed but around London these are mostly high priced, luxury, flats for investors and/or rich people from overseas that see London property as an excellent place to put their money. Few people can afford that but we need homes and the only home being built are marketed towards a small but wealthy demographic. The very price of them mean they're not going to be brought by first-time buyers.

In my town a planned development is being strongly protested by the 'Residents Association' who don't want the town to get bigger and more people to move to the area. Then there are Green Belts too.

Overall though owning a home doesn't look like a realistic prospect for me or a lot of my peer group (unless I move North but manage to keep the same salary then it's more possible).
.

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Now anyone who's managed to save a few quid by, for example, not having new cars, foreign holidays etc. etc. is being penalised with pathetic savings rates. What are people supposed to do to provide for their retirements if savings and property yield less?

It's not hard to feel that the game is rigged. You look towards the future and figure that the pension age will be much higher and the amount a lot less if I reach pension age. You look at the NHS and increasingly wonder if more and more stuff will require you pay for it. I still have thousands of pounds to pay back for my University fees.

Then you look at what went before, better pensions at younger ages, fuller NHS coverage, free University (although this is debatable given more people go now). Then see that we're paying for some of these entitlements that we ourselves won't be entitled too when we reach the same age.

I feel like I am at the bottom of a massive Ponzi scheme.

You forgot about the dying younger than your generation will, the fact that only 8% used to go to University (agains the current 45%), the worrying about impending (and probable) nuclear holocaust, the three day weeks and day long power outages - oh, we were so lucky.....

Originally Posted by Hugh

You forgot about the dying younger than your generation will, the fact that only 8% used to go to University (agains the current 45%), the worrying about impending (and probable) nuclear holocaust, the three day weeks and day long power outages - oh, we were so lucky.....

Don't disrupt my rants with 'logic'.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's not hard to feel that the game is rigged. You look towards the future and figure that the pension age will be much higher and the amount a lot less if I reach pension age. You look at the NHS and increasingly wonder if more and more stuff will require you pay for it. I still have thousands of pounds to pay back for my University fees.

Then you look at what went before, better pensions at younger ages, fuller NHS coverage, free University (although this is debatable given more people go now). Then see that we're paying for some of these entitlements that we ourselves won't be entitled too when we reach the same age.

I feel like I am at the bottom of a massive Ponzi scheme.

Hang on while I get my violin out...