Reply to: Government allows mortgage payments to be deferred for 2 years

[BrilloPad]

They're trying to keep it below the 75K that the Tories clocked up in '92

So 66k in 2009, 2010, 2011, etcetc.

The debt bubble needs to be deflated a little.

[Turion]

75,000 repos due in 2009 - government policy will affect around 9000 of those. 66,000 is still alot.

They're trying to keep it below the 75K that the Tories clocked up in '92

[TimberWolf]

Seems like under the old rules people on benefits could have had their mortgage interest paid for them for free after x months, but now they have to go into personal debt from day 1. Isn't this a good thing? But I'm only qualified to make knee-jerk comments since I don't know what the new rules are or old rules were.

[BrilloPad]

It is not a free ride. The interest is only deferrred for 2 yrs max. It will roll up on the existing debt so it is not a free handout. It sounds like it will help people who hit hard times temporaily eg people who do normally work for a living and that will include many contractors. Also, what happens when houses get repo'd. The homeless family must be re-housed at the tax payers expense. Hardly good for the country at large. There will still be many more repos next year whatever happens.

75,000 repos due in 2009 - government policy will affect around 9000 of those. 66,000 is still alot.

[Turion]

It is not a free ride. The interest is only deferrred for 2 yrs max. It will roll up on the existing debt so it is not a free handout. It sounds like it will help people who hit hard times temporaily eg people who do normally work for a living and that will include many contractors. Also, what happens when houses get repo'd. The homeless family must be re-housed at the tax payers expense. Hardly good for the country at large. There will still be many more repos next year whatever happens.

[bobhope]

Hardworking households

I snorted coffee over that one. Surely, he knows that the phrase is a parody of itself?

Plus, what's the big deal? They are not having their interest paid for them, they are just having a payment holiday and increasing the outstanding debt.

It's a negative amortization mortgage, in effect (the ones that helped America get into the sub-prime mess it's in)

[BrilloPad]

Exactly, this ruse might con the very "intelligent" British public into keeping New Lie in for another term.

And what makes you think the Torys would do any different?

[Purple Dalek]

Holy Mackerel!

I wish I had a mortgage now so that I could default on it.

Linky

You wouldn't have been eligible anyway. Mark my words, it'll only be for party members.

[OwlHoot]

Apparently last night several banks said they knew nothing about these plans, and hadn't agreed anything, and are now hopping mad

On the plus side, in fairness, someone on another forum made the point that if the Government has a duty one way or another to rehouse people after repossessions, then it may be cheaper for the taxpayer to guarantee these deferred mortage payments, in the hope of reducing the number of repossessions.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I liked this para:
Currently, those on benefits have their mortgage interest payments covered for two years if their mortgages is below £200,000.

That's not the whole story - if you are on jobseekers or income support and subject to other means tests, you may get some payments towards the interest portion only, but only after 36 weeks on the benefits and not if you have significant savings.

[SantaClaus]

Two years? Now, remind me when the next General Election has to be called by?

Exactly, this ruse might con the very "intelligent" British public into keeping New Lie in for another term.

[TimberWolf]

I must say I have really enjoyed the last 10 years and I can't wait to see what happens in the end.

[BrilloPad]

Erm, won't this just make the debt mountain even bigger?

Exactly my first thought. This will just prolong the misery. Japan style 15 year depression here we come.

[thunderlizard]

They never do care much about renters. After all, they haven't played their part in the great smoke-and-mirrors boom game so why should they get any sympathy? Unless they've paid their rent on credit of course.

Just like how negative equity (where what you've paid out is greater than the value of your asset by a factor of about 10%) is a disaster; but renting (where what you pay out is greater than the value of your non-existent asset by a factor of infinity) is tickety-boo.

It's the same the whole world over.
It's the poor that gets the pain.
It's the rich that gets the gravy.
Isn't it a blooming shame?

[zara_backdog]

This sounds massively unfair to rent payers (unless their rent is paid when they're unemployed? not sure).

In this case you may be able to get 'housing benefit'. Does not always cover the entire cost of the rent if you find yourself unemployed, or your income is such that you can claim other benefits.