The Lib Dems dont count because Ming Campbell is the leader. Even less appealing than David Cameron.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Same old Tories...
- Thread starter Moshe Gariani
- Start date
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
Not neccessarily.
I would scrap it, increase Income support to reflect the loss to poorer families.
No body else gets it. Simple.
London Calling
New member
My brother first bought a property with 4 other mates for about £50,000 in around 1980, when one left they all upgraded to a new property, then again and again until he moved to his own house for £250,000. All based on the equity of the other properties. Unfortunately in the south east more people have got to do this at the mo.
The Large One
Who's Next?
It's a noble gesture, but it's not about fewer (poorer) people getting more money. It's about a civil service whose computers (or staff) could f*** up just about any form of benefit payment without the added burden of actually thinking about who should and should not get more money.
readingstockport
New member
But the computer systems in the civil service are almost exclusively run by those useless showers of shite eds and crapita under stupid pfi deals. Having worked with consultants from both companies I wouldn't let one of their consultants run a bath unsupervised, and I'd hesitate to allow them to do so then.
But if people really wanted to stop renting then they could, not immediately but over a period of time it can be done. Maybe not in the area you want to live, but it can be done.
20 years of renting if thats what you want to do is fine, but if thats not what you want to do then I'm suggesting they maybe haven't wanted to sacrifice anything to get it...
Anyhow thats a bit off topic...
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Labour is now politically the Tory party of 20 years ago.Whereas 20 years ago it was Labour.Unelectable.
So, things change.
However, it will always be; Lib Dems.Social Misfits.Unelectable.
Barnet Seagull
Luxury Player
Agreed, if you're happy to live in a shithole, not only could you potentially save enough cash to buy elsewhere but you'd also have a huge motivation to do so.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Since 1997, Labour has extended the gulf between rich and poor. Whoever is in power is screwing the ordinary man or woman whilst those exploiting loopholes in the system are still getting away with it. Council Tax has doubled over the course of 10 years. At the moment IHT is catching more and more in the net. In the South East owning a modest ex council house means being likely to fall into the IHT trap. Why should somebody have to cough up 40% tax on estates over a certain limit when all the money going into the treasury coffers is going to be paid out to keep the chavs and those lazy slobs on Disability Allowance from ever getting off their arses and into meaningful employment ?If you wanted to extend the gulf between rich and poor, impede social mobility, and reduce equality of opportunity is there anything you could do that would be more effective than abolishing inheritance tax...?
Brown should call an election this afternoon using the slogan "Is that all they've got...?"
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
I do , it's called Grimsby.
readingstockport
New member
I can only assume that you have not had to do so on a limited income. Try this, you earn say 20,000 per year and are paying 700 per month in rent. just how much do you have to save from or are you not allowed to have any kind of social life or enjoyment?
Been there done that and worked my way out of it! and yes I had to forgo very many friday nights out!!
Lord Bracknell
On fire
How does saving up for a deposit help a first time buyer in today's housing market?
Imagine this scenario.
You earn £30,000 a year, say £24,000 after tax. You are living in a modest flat, costing £600 a month in rent. Your living expenses are £600 a month. You put the rest (£800 a month) into a savings account.
You want to buy a house costing £200,000 today. You can get a mortgage of five times your annual income (£150,000). Therefore you need to save £50,000 as a deposit. That will take you over five years to achieve.
By that time, the house you want will have increased in price to £300,000 and your salary will have gone up to £37,000. You can now get a mortgage of £185,000. Even allowing for your £50,000 savings, you are still £65,000 short of the asking price. Further away from buying than you were five years earlier.
Imagine this scenario.
You earn £30,000 a year, say £24,000 after tax. You are living in a modest flat, costing £600 a month in rent. Your living expenses are £600 a month. You put the rest (£800 a month) into a savings account.
You want to buy a house costing £200,000 today. You can get a mortgage of five times your annual income (£150,000). Therefore you need to save £50,000 as a deposit. That will take you over five years to achieve.
By that time, the house you want will have increased in price to £300,000 and your salary will have gone up to £37,000. You can now get a mortgage of £185,000. Even allowing for your £50,000 savings, you are still £65,000 short of the asking price. Further away from buying than you were five years earlier.
readingstockport
New member
Thanks LB, I couldn't be arsed to do the maths to show how wrong tede was on this but you did it.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
The difference is of course that you can get mortgages over 5 times your salary these days. A guy on that salary could probably get a mortgages for about £900 a month which is far less than his rent and savings combined.
D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
Come on you tories fed with this bunch with there empty promises.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
And a mortgage over 5 times your salary is AFFORDABLE? More likely to be a candidate for repossession, once interests rates rise.
readingstockport
New member
The whole fuggin sub-prime situation in the US and worldwide have been caused by lending ridiculous multiples of salaries to people who cant afford it. You may not have noticed that it led to the first run on a British bank in 150 years. And you suggest it as a solution so someone on low wages can buy an overpriced house. Good idea. :thud:
I'm not wrong - Lord B's figures are obviously correct in their mathematics but I get a sense of using figures to create a generalisation to prove a point?
I have a major issue with this discussion - alot of people (again I don't say all) are too bloody minded and lazy to get on the housing ladder - they won't sacrifice anything to save, and will moan incessantly about the government not helping them out. If they really and truly want to do it they can.
Well HELLO - why should the government help you out?