Do you ever wonder if Gordon Brown has too much money?

[AtheneNoctua]

WTF, as if Norther Rock wasn't bad enough... let's just sell out the taxpayer to whole banking industry.

Banking industry bail out

All those years of saving up to pay off the mortgage when I could've been having the time of my life ...

No, doubt, Quattro. Just think of all the house you didn't think you could afford that you could be living in now! The ultimate in benefits - you don't have to apply for it, there's no stigma and at the end of the day, you get to KEEP the mo' fo'.

Fucking hell, what a have!

homeiswherethemoneyis

you won't lose your home. or your profits.

because those who will never own their own home will pay - many now even double the tax! - to keep you in yours so you can pass it to your kids or sell it on for a price most can never afford.

you can even rent it out to those poor sods -don't worry, no one will force you to take that nasty DSS those working poor have to rely on after i mugged their purse.

that's what i'm hearing you say, Darling.

and i'm far from alone.

and you and GB have the nerve to target those people on benefits with your right hand whilst doling it out to others with your left, so you can put them out to workhouse and take every penny they earn whilst leaving them to find a roof to put over their heads.

that's what i'm seeing you do, Darling.

and i'm far from alone.

Labour's new slogan

Take from the poor
Give to the rich

I am getting with all this "gloom for homeowners" "homeowners to get help" etc. Because homeowners will be largely unaffected by general changes in house prices as all the other houses go up or down too. And besides, if there was a charity for helping homeowners would anyone give money? But the general public do give money to Shelter - who try to help everyone to have a home. Though a growing number can't hope to have a secure home in the UK.

If the government must help people why can't they target overstretched mortgage holders? I would prefer that my money went directly to them rather than keeping the banks' share prices high!

Does anyone think that this boost for the banks will only:
1- Prolong the bust
2- Make the bust more severe (meaning we crash harder and lower than if we let the market correct itself now)

So, thos of us who do not own homes might wait a little longer but still get the opportunity we are waiting for.

What concerns me is that a serious crash is I thought!! what we all wanted to avoid.

Most people would agree we need a correction in the market, but that a gentle decline is better than a panic/crash.

I don't know that a gentle decline is better than a crash. If we we accept that property prices are over valued now and in need of correction, they will be causing all kinds of distortions in the UK economy, and all kinds of problems for young families seeking a stable home!

A crash would be painful and damage Labour's election prospects but I tend to think that it is better to get rid of distortions. And it would be better to get the much needed correction over and done with without diverting ever more of taxpayers' money into bank shareholders' pockets.

Of course the best policy of all would have been to tighten regulations during an obviously unsustainable boom. But it is too late now.

'why can't they target overstretched mortgage holders? I would prefer that my money went directly to them rather than keeping the banks' share prices high! '

Sorry, but I wouldn't prefer a penny of my money went to overstretched mortgage holder.

It's not my fault they borrowed too much. Why should I bail them out when I can't afford any secure home for my family myself?

Why the hell should I subsidise them?

Waaa, but then they'll lose their home.

So how is that my problem? I lose my home whenever my landlord decides to give me two months notice. That's just tough shit, isn't it?

Why should they be exempt from the same, especially when they borrowed beyond their means.

Life's rough. People get fired and made redundant. It happens. It's happened to me twice and I'm sure it won't be the last time.

Some people overstretch themselves financially with mortgages and some overstretch themselves financially with dependents (children).

On MN on the whole, no-one seeking advice over trying for another child ever seems to be advised to think about stopping at X number of children even when money is very very tight. Its generally all very emotional and warm fuzzy advice in respect of "you've already got the baby equipment and clothes from the existing children you are a SAHM anyway, your dh is supportive, what does one more matter ?"

Is it OK to berate someone who received poor financial advice and subsequantly stretched their finances for a bigger house or one in a nicer (more expensive area) with better schools and a safer place to raise children but not permissable to question the financial sense of people who reduced their family's overall financial security by persuing their personal desire for a third or fourth or fifth child. If the government relaxed its control on the financial market (remember GB disassociated the government from the Bank of England many years ago in what was then considered a clever move in avoiding blame being put on the labour government) this sort of thing was eventually inevitable. Mortgage lenders can prey on borrowers just as much as landlords can prey on those in need of private lets.

Do we assume that the children will not suffer in anyway because their parents are bursting with love for them and provide a loving home when we know that financial difficulties are the root of many divorces and the tense/argument filled periods preceding the divorce must affect the children. Of course its the fault of all the greedy mortgage holders who want to provide a permanent roof over their possibly smaller sized family.

I didn't agree with abolishing the 10p tax band because it was obvious that it would hit some (not all) low earners more than higher earners and that seemed terribly unlabour somehow. Hopefully this will finish GB in politics forever. I do think though that lashing out at mortgage holders is targeting the wrong people and smacks of jealousy in a lot of cases.

I think the objection is that GB want to give to the banks and not those directly in need.

It's okay to help peole onto the housing ladder in the interest of national economic security. But, why leave out those still struggling to get that first step onto the ladder. Seems like his interest is the banks, not the people.

Well Brown's predecessor was rewarded handsomely by banks - JP Morgan and Zurich reportedly pay Tony Blair millions for his advice so you can see why those in power might want to please the bankers.

Expat - I can't afford a stable home either and don't especially want to subsidise those who chose to take risks. But if it must be done I would prefer the people to be supported rather than the Banks. It is an utter disgrace that the politicians persistently act as though "the general public" "taxpayers" "homeowners" and "overstretched borrowers" were all the same group of people. It makes me very angry that the needs of those who missed the boat on property are dismissed and trivialised. We are not a small minority either - every year a huge proportion of young people come of age and join our ranks.

'I do think though that lashing out at mortgage holders is targeting the wrong people and smacks of jealousy in a lot of cases. '

I don't agree entirely.

It's a two-way street between borrower and lender.

No one holds a gun to someone's head and forces them to borrow money.

But there's NO sense of personal responsibility in this society so that's where posts like yours come from, tbh.

Of course, lenders are greedy. I mean, DUH! They don't loan people money for free for anything. That's your first clue that they don't have anyone's best interests in mind except their own.

But the bottom line is is it the government's job to bail people out everytime they fail financially?

Because it seems a lot of peoples' sense of entitlement thinks the answer is yes.

Expat, you couldn't be more wrong about where I'm coming from on this one. You and I are both from life's grafters division.

It is not the government's job to bail people out everytime they fail financially but they do constantly bail a huge strata of society out becuase there are hoards of folk who think its OK to have as many kids as they like and just send the bill to the government and therefore the taxpayer (via the benefits system).

Not all borrowers are savvy and sensible enough to borrow wisely and if the government does not regulate the lending market sufficiently they will be led into trouble so I do think the government has an indirect culpability here.

I'd like to post more but have to go out.

sitdownpleasegeorge - wouldn't a simpler way of targeting those groups be to make it impossible for the banks to chase people for more than say, 3.5 times earnings?

So if a bank had recklessly lent 6 x earnings to someone who could not afford it and they were then reposessed in negative equity, the bank could not force them to pay back the outstanding debt?

Just to add - any measures to protect those who have borrowed more than they can afford should only apply to people who own just one house - their home.

A lot of this mess has been caused by greedy people owning more property than they need. Buying up houses in country villages and then campaigning against more building so the young people local to the area are forced out. Getting in to Buy-To-Let and forcing thwarted First-Time-Buyers to pay their mortgage. These people have made business decisions and should not be protected in any way by using taxpayers' money!

I bet the 50 billion does not distinguish between the deserving and the greedy who chose to overextend themselves because they think property always goes up.

Everyone knows 5 plus times salary is too much,and interest onlt means you can't afford it and 35 yrs is too long to pay.All of these are classed as sub prime in the US but here it is just the wording that is different.If you over stretched why should the prudent pay for your belief that prices only ever go up?because it won't be a slow decline now and a crash is looking more likely every day.I viewed a house today at 235 The next door one sold for 285 in december and last summer the one opposite was 330.The one we viewed did need work but was bigger and the agent said they would take a further offer

These measures will come in the form of 'payment holidays' apparently.This is another way of adding more to the loans and will cost you in the end.I can't believe people are in trouble at rates of only 5% which is v low they must have taken the mortgages out at introductory offers without considering they would go up.

If my DH has no option but to take a less well paid job and we struggle to pay our rent will we get a payment holiday?

Didn't think so. Why are are our taxes being used to help people who are likely to be better off than we are? Who enjoy the benefits of owning their own home and who could have chosen to insure themselves against unemployment?

I agree they are also considering a reform of the benefits system for mortgage interst payments

'I agree they are also considering a reform of the benefits system for mortgage interst payments '

what a load of BS.

so DH gets to pay from his next to nothing wage so people can hang onto the house they paid too much and borrowed too much for whilst we and increasing amounts of others get to try to rent from such folks?

i'm already voting SNP up here. not sure how i'll go in the general elections, but it won't be Labour.

they target lone parents on benefits, then hand them out to irresponsible borrowers and lenders.

That is it. We shall buy a house we can't afford and quit our jobs, safe in the knowledge that we can have a payment holiday and/or the taxpayer will pay the interest on our mortgage.

What is the point in playing by the rules?

'What is the point in playing by the rules?'

that's the message i'm getting.

what's the point in working at all?

we just get hammered at every turn, we're completely priced out and now we're subsidising those who were irresonsible.

it's a kick in the teeth.

There should have been a comma after agree in my post!I wouldn't want anyone to think i agree with this bs

"Labour's new slogan"

"Take from the poor
Give to the rich"

Wrong.. I think you'll find it's actually

"Fuck the proles, feed the rich"

"I agree they are also considering a reform of the benefits system for mortgage interst payments"

Great... not only does it represent wealth redistribution from the young renters to old homeowners, it's one more Individual Learning Account style scam in waiting.

High property prices transfer money from the young to the oald and the poor to the rich.
very apt I think

I'm with you expat on this

plus my earlier expressed views on BTL, very simple in my book every adult should be allowed tax relief on 1 property only each year. Stops people moving into their BTL 6 months before they sell and paying no CGT on any of them as they move from one to the other.

Agree all. Strange how people were more aware of the implications of the 10p tax issue than the house price inflation!