Getting fed up of the mortgage benefits etc....

Becauase that's what society means - we share responsibilty for these things. You made the right choice this time (and you were in the fortunate position to afford a house on one salary) you might not be so lucky next time. Perhaps I should be as narrow minded as you and suggest that because I did the 'right thing' by not having children that those of the population who do have children don't deserve help if something terrible happens and their children need massively expensive healthcare or education. You can't pick and choose.

I agree with Boop. You are very fortunate to be able to afford a house on one salary, very few people are able to do that. We bought at the top of the market mostly because everyone was saying prices would go up even higher. I wasn't fortunate enough to have a crystal ball or a good enough knowledge of economics to forsee the bust.

I don't see what benefit to society it is to throw people out onto the street (and all the problems that would bring) because they have tried to buy their own home rather than renting.

I do have mortgage protection by the way.

I'm not narrow minded. I'm sorry if that's the way my post came across.

I don't want to see people have their homes repossessed etc. And I'm not talking about people who were living within their means before the credit crisis.

I'm talking about those who knew they were taking big risks but chose to take them anyway and now won't face the consequences, because ALL of us, will pick up the tab.

Boop, I think that's very unfair and not remotely logical. Being a society doesn't mean picking up the tab for each other's unnecessary debts. Comparing reckless borrowing and spending with children needing medical treatment is utterly meaningless, not least because medical expenses are a necessity while an expensive house and lots of consumer goods aren't.

I think TF has a good point, and I've heard a lot of commentators criticising the rate cut- it's a feel-good for those who have over-stretched themselves and won't actually solve the underlying problems. I feel particularly sorry for pensioners etc living on interest who will really suffer as a result of the cut.

Being a grown up is no fun, I agree.

I know several people who are struggling with huge debts. At the time, when they were having their holidays abroad, new cars and consumer good, they were very happy to show them off. We were more prudent. Now we don't have the same debts we're "lucky." It does irk me, but I wouldn't wish them harm, so I smile sweetly and swallow my gall ?

There are more savers than borrowers in this country, surely we should reward them a bit too. Everything the government does is wrong in my eyes at the moment, they are just digging a deeper hole. Don't get me wrong, we are seriously in danger of both of us losing our jobs in the next six months, but I can't see an end to the current situation.

The point is though that many of the people who are struggling haven't been overly reckless - yes, some have but others have simply been doing what they've been told to do by successive governments and commentators - buying a house by whatever means necessary. We've had the discussion on here before about who's responsibility it is - and some people aren't in the fortunate position of being able to weigh up multiple differing opinions and choosing the right one.

The rate cut isn't what TF was talking about - her post talks about mortgage benefits (and the plans to force lenders to allow 2 year payment holidays I assume) - I don't see that as penalising those who've been sensible or letting off those who have been reckless. They still have to pay the money back, or get repossed in the end.

And my comparison is valid - children aren't a necessity.

Seems a rather aggressive response boop ...

anyway TF - not just you

i have a huge amount of sympathy for people who are in this horrible situation - but there will be a lot of them who will be in it because they have vast remortgages to fund very expensive cars, holidays etc

i am curious how this is going to work - once they have their jobs back and equity returned in their homes do they repay the taxpayer?

I did wonder if the current situation would prompt the reintroduction of MIRAS. That seems more fair to me than bail outs. I think the problem will come at where they draw the line - who qualifies for help and who doesn't. Does being redundant automatically mean you get help? Even if you are sitting in a £1m house? What about those who already get help with their mortgage interest from benefits but are still in financial trouble?

I think children are vital to a society Boop, otherwise it wouldn't survive for long.

So who will repay the money I have wasted on mortgage protection insurance?

Perhaps children aren't a necessity but health care and education for children who are here is, which was your original point.

I suppose in a lot of ways they aren't, but spending money on the ones who already exist is kind of necessary. And as someone else says, society won't last very long if no-one has children.

I do feel sorry for the savers who are now worse off because of the interest rate cut

I could argue that it was a waste anyway - they never pay out and most financial advisors tell you not to take it out (along with credit card payment protection, income protection etc). Perhaps you made the wrong choice on that one?

Like you, we're in a relatively comfortable position (although not so much now I'm self employed) but I don't begrudge helping others, in the same way that I don't begrudge the taxes that go towards other services that will never benefit me directly.

I think the main problem (or one anyway) is the repurcussions of it all those who struggle with their mortgage as part of what is now happening, lost their homes, there would be an even bigger burden on the govt - prevention is better than cure even at this stage. Also if all those houses got repossessed, chances are the lenders/banks wouldn't sell them at enough to even break even and so would suffer even more and the govt would have to help out there too. The knock on of everything that could happen without the govt intervention to help people keep their houses would be potentially worse than them trying to help them out now I think.

Also I don't know how the govt helping people will impact on their credit ratings/ability to borrow etc so you will probably still be in a better position due to the "sensible" decisions you made. Also not everyone who is now or soon will be struggling with their debt made bad/risky deicisions so how can the govt distinguish between those and the risk takers?

They are a necessity to society. Children may be a cost when they are young (especially those who need expensive medical treatment) but they are ultimately essential to become the next generation of wealth-producers. As well as being a bit meaningless, I thought your comparison was in extremely poor taste TBH.

I took her "etc" to mean the whole raft of measures (mortgage protection, interest rate cut etc), so responded in that vein.

I have every sympathy for people who haven't been reckless and now find themselves struggling (in fact, I have quite a lot of sympathy for those who have beeen a bit reckless as well ?) I don't think it follows that mortgage protection etc is the right thing. I also fear it will discourage the sort of sensible borrowing that people will need to adopt if we are to avoid getting into this situation again.

No, my point was that I see TF's anger at the help being offered to people who've made the wrong choices as as absurd as me suggesting that I should get a tax rebate because I don't have children.

What Boop said about mortgage protection insurance.

To be fair, I was under hte impression that the interest rate cuts were aimed at stimulating the economy, not just making things easier for those who are over-extended.

The nature of ours means it was worth it (and is better than what is being offered in terms of payment holiday etc) although normally I'd agree with you.

I don't begrudge helping those who need help. I don't like bailing out those who have behaved recklessly. If you had a teenager who constantly ran up debts and you always bailed them out, made it go away, gave them more time, you'd be doing them a grave disservice.......

So is there no point you would reach where you would begrudge money being spent?

That's what's been claimed, Sophie, but I've certainly read a lot of commentators who disagree- the problem is not so much the cost of credit but the fact that it's hard to get, full stop. Cutting rates isn't necessarily going to get banks lending.

Hey, I'm not angry, I'm fed up! I'm not saying there's a better solution either tbh.

But I do, childishly, want to say that this is as "not fair" on the careful but probably "safe", as letting people struggle when they got into difficulties through no fault of their own.

Begrudge is the wrong word. Economically, I don't agree that borrowing more money to spend on tax cuts is the way forward, but I do think that sensible options to keep people in their homes in the short-medium term is a good thing. Another poster already made the point about the additional costs of repossessions etc.

The economy is buggered - the solution is beyond me and my limited economics (A level 20 years ago) - but I do accept that money will be spent on things and services I don't need because that's what the population as a whole requires.

i can see the sense of all that, Jaz (see what i did there ?)

but it is still somewhat piquing

Doesn't bother me actually in the slightest. its all out of my control or influence.

Its pretty stressful losing your job in the current climate and i don't see giving people the right to ask the bank for reduced payments for a while to stop them losing their home in addition to that is a problem.

It took me a while, but yes ?

I think though it is a bit grating the best way to look at it is that in an ecomony likes ours, chances our it will all balance out eventually so we all get some sort of benefit of tax payers money that someone else won't. There are lots of things tax payers money goes on and is "wasted" on that only a small proportion benefit from. If you/I thought about it too much you'd get annoyed so I try to look ont he bright(est) side for the things I can't do anything about.

WSS.

The weird think about economics is that it doesn't actually make a lot of sense. You can tinker with interest rates and inflation until the cows come home but it is all down to how people feel that makes the difference, so on paper interest rate cutting or safeguarding mortgages may be unfair or not make financial sense but as long as it works....

There was a time when economic policy was set by a machine that consisted of just tubes and coloured water at least this time they seem to be at least discussing the options!

Boop, I agree with this general point, absolutely. My objection is two-fold:

1. given we live in a capitalist society, I think there is a limit to the class of things that we ought collectively to pay for (and this will cost all of us- although it's only a payment holiday, such things aren't free). Bailing out people who can't pay their debts is outside that class as far as I'm concerned, unless it helps the economy as a whole. I don't mean that in a mean "serves you right" way- I have huge sympathy for people who are struggling- but there is no right to own your own house. If there were, there are plenty of people worse off than struggling mortgage payers who'd be more legitimately entitled to help, such as those who aren't even in a position to consider home ownership.

2. I don't think this will help the economy as a whole- I think it's a short-term measure designed to push back the effects of the recession to the far side of the next election.

I know where you are coming from, TF.

I think there is a huge benefit to the tax payer who ISN'T getting any help from the government in that the burden on society would be a lot greater if this help wasn't being offered.

For one, lots of repossessions do not help falling house prices. Then there is the cost of rehoming the people who've had their houses repossessed into council housing, when there are already not enough council houses. Why force someone out of their house into subsidised housing when you can just subsidise the house they are already in?

L
xx

But maybe a house price crash is good for society. What about the numerous people who can't afford a home? If house prices fall then people who haven't bought because they were sensible and didn't want to stretch themselves could afford to buy somewhere.

Maybe its good for the individual to have their house repossessed (well, to know if they don't sort it out then it will be repossessed) if they have taken on too much mortgage, if they have too much other debt, if they are in a house which is bigger than they need. By offering various schemes, people will rely on the government to sort it out rather than do something themselves.

Its just a cynical attempt by the government to keep themselves in power at the next election.

OK, I don't see why people will benefit from losing their house. But then as someone who was evicted from their house as a child, I am not seeing that it had an overall positive effect on family life.

Nor do I see how it is possible to ascertain who is losing their house due to simply overspending and who is losing it because maybe one partner has lost a job and offer helkp accordingly. If you are going to offer assistance than a blanket approach is probably simplest and easiest and therefore less costly to implement.

There have been massive housing price crashes in the past - did society on the whole particulalrly benefit at the time? Does the benefit to first time buyers etc outweigh the negative effect for every other householder?

L
xx