pongo Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 but that was presumably during the recent decade of once-in-a-lifetime unprecedented boom - an unsustainable period of full employment, high wages and very low interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halfbaked Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 alot of people or should I say most on the FTB list can reasonable afford the mortagages on these houses otherwise the bank would not agree to give mortagages to them. Its mostly help with the deposit that first time buyers need in the form of the grants and low interest top up loans that the government provide. High rent in the private rental market make is so difficult for reasonable earning citizens to be able to save a deposit these days. The deposit is there for a reason, to show to the mortgage company that you can save/ pay the mortgage. This was only overlooked recently, in the last 10 years or so, when people were getting 100% mortgages. If you cant save up the deposit yourself then, again I would say you cant really afford the house. When you actually get on the ladder its not supposed to be that tight, things like having a family crop up and you are than faced with the loss of one income for at least 6 months quite possibly a lot longer until the children go into full time education. Oh! hold on! don't some want subsidised child care too? - see where I am going with this? Government intervention is just so, so wrong. If you cant afford it, you just cant, end of.............. I agree with what you are saying, but surely it is in the interest then for the government to offer this and stimulate the first time buyer market? because the grants and top up loans are available to people looking to buy on the open market and not just first time buyers if the property meets certain criteria. because people cannot afford a deposit due to the current financial climate does not mean the government should not try and help or the housing market is being just stunted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I agree with what you are saying, but surely it is in the interest then for the government to offer this and stimulate the first time buyer market? because the grants and top up loans are available to people looking to buy on the open market and not just first time buyers if the property meets certain criteria. Why should the government give a toss whether people own their own house or not? Does it really make any difference to their ability to spend in shops or pay taxes? If property is too expensive for every first time buyer to buy then without intervention prices will simply fall until people can start to get commercial mortgages to buy. This has been the problem from the very start of the housing 'boom' here in that we have had to 'help' FTBs to buy as greedy developers couldn't give a shit about selling houses at prices that actually relate to average earnings. In 1988 DD were pitching £65,000 FTB houses at couples earning £12,000 a year. Now they are pitching £180,000 FTB houses at couples earning £35,000 a year. Without these grants and assistance schemes a FTB house would probably have to be around £100-120,000 so that FTBs could comfortably afford one, so who is cheating who? Its all a complete con I'm afraid and its only the developers who are getting any benefit from any of it. Those artificial schemes didn't exist in the 1970s when people were spending £4,000 buying bungalows in places like Birch Hill, then you could either afford to buy a house or you couldn't and if you couldn't you saved until you could. There was no 'right' to home ownership whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Good to see after 15 years there is now going to be an investigation into the harcroft scheme http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/harcroft-scheme-under-scrutiny/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom de plume Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Why strive to own your own home anyhow? The Government takes it back when you go into care. Mr. X who has worked his balls off for 50 years to pay down his mortgage will be forced to sell his home if he needs to be transferred in to a nursing home. The proceeds of the sale used to fund his care until it runs out. Meanwhile Mr. Y, in the next room of the home, having never done a full day's work in his life or ever intended to own his house gets the same treatment & care for nowt. Can someone, perhaps an MHK, perhaps the DHSC Minister elucidate how this can possibly be fair? Work pays. Someone else's healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Why strive to own your own home anyhow? The Government takes it back when you go into care. Mr. X who has worked his balls off for 50 years to pay down his mortgage will be forced to sell his home if he needs to be transferred in to a nursing home. The proceeds of the sale used to fund his care until it runs out. Meanwhile Mr. Y, in the next room of the home, having never done a full day's work in his life or ever intended to own his house gets the same treatment & care for nowt. Can someone, perhaps an MHK, perhaps the DHSC Minister elucidate how this can possibly be fair? Work pays. Someone else's healthcare. True. But when Mr X has no further need of his house, the best use of the asset is to pay for his care. It should not fall on other taxpayers who may never inherit anything to pay for Mr X's care simply so that Mr X's family can get a free house to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom de plume Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Why strive to own your own home anyhow? The Government takes it back when you go into care. Mr. X who has worked his balls off for 50 years to pay down his mortgage will be forced to sell his home if he needs to be transferred in to a nursing home. The proceeds of the sale used to fund his care until it runs out. Meanwhile Mr. Y, in the next room of the home, having never done a full day's work in his life or ever intended to own his house gets the same treatment & care for nowt. Can someone, perhaps an MHK, perhaps the DHSC Minister elucidate how this can possibly be fair? Work pays. Someone else's healthcare. True. But when Mr X has no further need of his house, the best use of the asset is to pay for his care. It should not fall on other taxpayers who may never inherit anything to pay for Mr X's care simply so that Mr X's family can get a free house to sell. Therefore, why own your own home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Why strive to own your own home anyhow? The Government takes it back when you go into care. Mr. X who has worked his balls off for 50 years to pay down his mortgage will be forced to sell his home if he needs to be transferred in to a nursing home. The proceeds of the sale used to fund his care until it runs out. Meanwhile Mr. Y, in the next room of the home, having never done a full day's work in his life or ever intended to own his house gets the same treatment & care for nowt. Can someone, perhaps an MHK, perhaps the DHSC Minister elucidate how this can possibly be fair? Work pays. Someone else's healthcare. True. But when Mr X has no further need of his house, the best use of the asset is to pay for his care. It should not fall on other taxpayers who may never inherit anything to pay for Mr X's care simply so that Mr X's family can get a free house to sell. Therefore, why own your own home? Not all old people need care, they pop off quietly with so much as a by-your-leave, generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Why strive to own your own home anyhow? The Government takes it back when you go into care. Mr. X who has worked his balls off for 50 years to pay down his mortgage will be forced to sell his home if he needs to be transferred in to a nursing home. The proceeds of the sale used to fund his care until it runs out. Meanwhile Mr. Y, in the next room of the home, having never done a full day's work in his life or ever intended to own his house gets the same treatment & care for nowt. Can someone, perhaps an MHK, perhaps the DHSC Minister elucidate how this can possibly be fair? Work pays. Someone else's healthcare. True. But when Mr X has no further need of his house, the best use of the asset is to pay for his care. It should not fall on other taxpayers who may never inherit anything to pay for Mr X's care simply so that Mr X's family can get a free house to sell. Actually I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. The truth is though that if you don't want your parents house to be sold off to pay for their care then look after your bloody parents yourself and then they won't need care. People these days want it both ways - can't be arsed looking after mum or dad in their dotage but moan like fuck that the state takes their 'inheritance' to cover the cost of looking after their parents. To me it's easy if you want to keep the asset in the family look after your parents. If you don't go on great holidays and stick them in care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Agreed. People should stop whinging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Good to see after 15 years there is now going to be an investigation into the harcroft scheme http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/harcroft-scheme-under-scrutiny/ What's the issue? house prices went up. So what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 The truth is though that if you don't want your parents house to be sold off to pay for their care then look after your bloody parents yourself and then they won't need care. I don't think it is entirely that simple and this is perhaps one of the biggest challenges facing the economy; old people, and old people who live far longer. Invariably old people will develop some form of illness during the latter years, the body outlasting the mind or cancer in some form. This requires medical care, and a type of care beyond the average family (e.g. drugs, supervised living). The purpose of the NHS is to provide care, whether the person is 30 or 70, it does not discriminate if someone is older. The healthcare system is not far off breaking point and its continued operation relies on this contribution imbalance Nom de plum refers to. Someone who is economically active, owns a house, saves and contributes NI/Tax throughout their entire working career, may get ill in their 60s. This illness may require domiciliary care and because of their possessions, they will have to pay for that, NHS or no NHS. Savings, house sales, etc. You can argue they have the means, therefore they pay. Someone who has rarely worked, has little in the way of possessions and has accumulated no savings because of cruise holidays or just a poor wage also gets an illness that requires domiciliary care. Due to the lack of funds theGovernment picks up the tab. The individual has no means to pay, therefore they cannot pay. I have heard of families who buy their parent's house and rent it back for a pepper corn rent, pre-empting the fact that in 10 years something will happen. Using your example of "look after your bloody parents yourself", that applies equally in both cases. The fact is, there is an imbalance. Is it right or wrong? Each person has their own view. This is not confined to old people, the same arguments persist with all sorts of benefits, taxes, the NHS, NI and society in general. The pension deficit and living longer is going to test the economy to breaking point one day.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Good to see after 15 years there is now going to be an investigation into the harcroft scheme http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/harcroft-scheme-under-scrutiny/ Must be an election looming... Quick! On the bandwagon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Good to see after 15 years there is now going to be an investigation into the harcroft schemehttp://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/harcroft-scheme-under-scrutiny/ Must be an election looming... Quick! On the bandwagon! Another greedy twats charter. So people who got subsidies to buy £70,000 houses they couldn't afford are pissed off that they couldn't cash in the free money when the houses shot up to £250,000? Seriously? The scheme was set up to give them a home, not to give them a fucking massive profit so they could downsize and move somewhere cheaper and make a shit load of cash within 10 years. Greedy, greedy bastards. No wonder Malarkey has decided to put his weight behind this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Agreed. Greedy fuckers. Unbelievable what some people moan about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.