Gordon Brown to bar 100pc mortgages

[Sysman]

I held my nose and read the original article on the Observer's website.

However, the last point about modest incomes access to the mortgage market is the origin of the sub-prime problem that Clinton created.

MIRAS was a cause of the same thing in the UK in the 1980s. Although the idea of tax relief for mortgage interest originated in 1969, there was a change in something like 1985 (can anyone be more precise?) in the way you got it.

Prior to 1984/5(?), your tax code was adjusted, so you got more in your pay packet. After the change the bank/building society claimed it direct from the taxman and this created a loophole (which the government knew about but weren't bothered about) where non taxpayers were getting the relief anyway.

Read more about it and the cockup which led to a sudden spiral in house prices in 1988.

Times article

[minestrone]

There is nothing wrong with the product, it is just that some people should not have them.

It is wrong to just come out with total bans.

I see this as Brown flapping about for an answer when he still does not understand the question.

[OwlHoot]

This should have been done years ago ..

I might have known *you'd* be in favour of this daft idea, which will kill the first time buyer's market stone dead, or even deader than it already is.

How many people under 30 have much in the way of savings these days, especially when they're saddled with tens of thousands of pounds in student loans? And in today's uncertain economic climate, even for the few with savings how many will be willing to blow the lot on a mortgage deposit?

[OwlHoot]

However, the last point about modest incomes access to the mortgage market is the origin of the sub-prime problem that Clinton created.

Exactly - "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly" [Proverbs ch 26 v 11]

[Cyberman]

I might have known *you'd* be in favour of this daft idea, which will kill the first time buyer's market stone dead, or even deader than it already is.

How many people under 30 have much in the way of savings these days, especially when they're saddled with tens of thousands of pounds in student loans? And in today's uncertain economic climate, even for the few with savings how many will be willing to blow the lot on a mortgage deposit?

I bought my first house which was a 2-bed terraced and had to put down 20% deposit in 1984 at the age of 29, having worked for 11 years and saved.
It is not a right that people can buy a property, but it should only be allowed if they can afford it, otherwise we will end up the exactly the same mire in the future as we are today.
In reducing ability to buy properties at the smaller end of the market, it will also cause prices to be more affordable for first-time buyers.

You are a fool if you really believe that people should be lent money that they do not have the ability to repay. To further suggest that students with tens of thousands of debts already that they need to repay, with no tangible credit-history, should be allowed by banks to take on even more debts is plainly ludicrous.

[Cyberman]

Exactly - "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly" [Proverbs ch 26 v 11]

On the one hand you want to carry on giving people(heavily-indebted students and first-time buyers) mortgages that they cannot afford to repay, and here you knock the very people that have done it in the past.

You are a total hypocrite, and it does not surprise me at all that you quote the Bible.

[BrilloPad]

I might have known *you'd* be in favour of this daft idea, which will kill the first time buyer's market stone dead, or even deader than it already is.

How many people under 30 have much in the way of savings these days, especially when they're saddled with tens of thousands of pounds in student loans? And in today's uncertain economic climate, even for the few with savings how many will be willing to blow the lot on a mortgage deposit?

I thought the reason they had little money was spending money on cars, holidays, drink and nights out. Maybe they should try being boring : staying in and watching telly and saving hard.

Okay I exaggerated a bit. Well a lot. But you get nowhere without sacrifice.

[Doggy Styles]

I thought the reason they had little money was spending money on cars, holidays, drink and nights out. Maybe they should try being boring : staying in and watching telly and saving hard.

Okay I exaggerated a bit. Well a lot. But you get nowhere without sacrifice.

WHS

And in addition to that, house prices are now crashing down from the stupidly expensive, which was the MAIN reason that people couldn't afford them.

[OwlHoot]

You are a fool if you really believe that people should be lent money that they do not have the ability to repay...

Many young people could happily afford a mortgage (especially with low interest rates). After all, if they're living away from home they'll be paying rent anyway.

But they're unlikely to have a giant deposit handy, or any propect of getting one soon, and would be reluctant to blow the lot on a mortgage even if they did.

I agree mortgages shouldn't be handed out to people unlikely to pay. But my point was specifically about deposits, which as you evidently hadn't noticed, is what we are talking about given McDoom's stated aim of abolishing 100% mortgages.

[BrilloPad]

Many young people could happily afford a mortgage (especially with low interest rates). After all, if they're living away from home they'll be paying rent anyway.

But they're unlikely to have a giant deposit handy, or any propect of getting one soon, and would be reluctant to blow the lot on a mortgage even if they did.

I agree mortgages shouldn't be handed out to people unlikely to pay. But my point was specifically about deposits, which as you evidently hadn't noticed, is what we are talking about given McDoom's stated aim of abolishing 100% mortgages.

What is wrong with saving for a mortgage.

In the good old days (cough) you had to save for years then beg the building society manager......