Mountains In U.k. - Scone & St...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
mortgage lenders
14 Answers
so the banks have had �50 BILLION pounds of taxpayers money and still REFUSE to pass any interest cuts on to houseowners.why should i and millions of other homeowners who have tried to better ourselves by buying houses worry about mortgage repayments,and people cold lose their homes,while idle,unemployed people and immigrants who come into this country,pay no taxes,no council tax,recieve housing benefits etc etc,can sleep easy in their beds without the fear of losing their homes.beggars belief really.....
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stokemaveric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
erm - pretty simple really - if you are worried, why not sell your house and rent?
Also to be pedantic, the banks have not 'had �50 Billion of taxpayers money' they are being lent the money against security that they hold.
What would you rather the unemployed had? Would you rather they be on the streets?
Also to be pedantic, the banks have not 'had �50 Billion of taxpayers money' they are being lent the money against security that they hold.
What would you rather the unemployed had? Would you rather they be on the streets?
oneyevic why should i or thousands sell the homes we have worked hard for over the years?on a personal level i can easily afford my increased mortgage repayments but i feel so sorry for those that cant.the greedy banks and mortgage lenders should pass on the intrest rates cuts to help out families instead of increasing the misery by charging fees for late payments missed payments etc etc.i am not saying the unemployed should be on the streets but they and immigrants sure have an easy time of it....compared to those who try to better themselves.
I think Stokemaveric's question is in two parts.
First to do with banks and I agree with buildersmate that banks are business entities and they want to make profit.
Second is to do with social laws and benefit system here which is very easy to manipulate. System depends very heavily on people's sub- conscious. You want to be fair then it is perfect system, however if you want to abuse it then there are so many easy loop holes. That is one reason why so many people will travel through whole Europe and try to settle in the UK.
For example I know one family ( a couple and 3 kids) who had been received �1200 a month rent for a large three bed house for over 8 years. Now as his eldest Son is 20 so Son bought the same house and since has become landlord. Rent has gone up to �1300/month paid by council and their mortgage is �1400/month.
In the end council is paying their mortgage. Where so many people would struggle to pay the mortgage. That is only one loop hole.
Contrast to that the same council refused to pay part of my rent when I could only manage to find a part time job. I had before that worked for years and had paid heavy tax. Although I had 3 kids younger than 4 years (including twins) they asked that my wife should find a job as well. When I argued with them I told them about the loop holes but I did not want to do that. I was told I should. Long stories don�t worry.
First to do with banks and I agree with buildersmate that banks are business entities and they want to make profit.
Second is to do with social laws and benefit system here which is very easy to manipulate. System depends very heavily on people's sub- conscious. You want to be fair then it is perfect system, however if you want to abuse it then there are so many easy loop holes. That is one reason why so many people will travel through whole Europe and try to settle in the UK.
For example I know one family ( a couple and 3 kids) who had been received �1200 a month rent for a large three bed house for over 8 years. Now as his eldest Son is 20 so Son bought the same house and since has become landlord. Rent has gone up to �1300/month paid by council and their mortgage is �1400/month.
In the end council is paying their mortgage. Where so many people would struggle to pay the mortgage. That is only one loop hole.
Contrast to that the same council refused to pay part of my rent when I could only manage to find a part time job. I had before that worked for years and had paid heavy tax. Although I had 3 kids younger than 4 years (including twins) they asked that my wife should find a job as well. When I argued with them I told them about the loop holes but I did not want to do that. I was told I should. Long stories don�t worry.
Your question asks why should you buy a house (and have all the costs and worries that go with it) rather than sponge off the taxpayer. You then go on to criticise mortgage lenders for refusing to lower their interest rates.
Firstly, I imagine you chose to buy a house because no realistic alternative that suited your requirements existed. The fact that others are virtually given a house (and indeed almost everything else) probably did not influence that decision, so the two matters are not really linked.
Now, on to the current credit situation. Banks and building societies are in business to make money for their shareholders and savers. They do this by borrowing money from some people (the savers) and lending it to others (the borrowers). If they do not have any money to lend they cannot do this part of their business.
At the moment, because of a problem which began with the �sub-prime� mortgage situation in the US, a source of a large amount of their funds (borrowing from other institutions) has dried up. Banks now need to look elsewhere to raise funds and they are trying to attract funds from retail investors. The way to do this is to offer attractive interest rates on the High Street and this, of course, leads to higher interest rates for borrowers.
The �50bn that the government has pledged to help ease the situation is far too little and will not address the root cause of the problem. This is, that for the past ten years at least, the country has been enjoying apparent growth on the back of a badly controlled cheap credit philosophy. Cheap money has inflated house prices to ludicrous levels and a correction is due.
Unfortunately it is borrowers who will have to pay for this.
Firstly, I imagine you chose to buy a house because no realistic alternative that suited your requirements existed. The fact that others are virtually given a house (and indeed almost everything else) probably did not influence that decision, so the two matters are not really linked.
Now, on to the current credit situation. Banks and building societies are in business to make money for their shareholders and savers. They do this by borrowing money from some people (the savers) and lending it to others (the borrowers). If they do not have any money to lend they cannot do this part of their business.
At the moment, because of a problem which began with the �sub-prime� mortgage situation in the US, a source of a large amount of their funds (borrowing from other institutions) has dried up. Banks now need to look elsewhere to raise funds and they are trying to attract funds from retail investors. The way to do this is to offer attractive interest rates on the High Street and this, of course, leads to higher interest rates for borrowers.
The �50bn that the government has pledged to help ease the situation is far too little and will not address the root cause of the problem. This is, that for the past ten years at least, the country has been enjoying apparent growth on the back of a badly controlled cheap credit philosophy. Cheap money has inflated house prices to ludicrous levels and a correction is due.
Unfortunately it is borrowers who will have to pay for this.
Shell say they need to "secure its long-term competitive future in the UK" their solution .....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east /7362348.stm
3 months earlier.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7219148.st m
Nice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east /7362348.stm
3 months earlier.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7219148.st m
Nice.
It is precisely because companies like Shell (and in the context of this question, large banks) make such decisions as and when required that they manage to make large profits. They are multi-national, multi-billion pound (or dollar) organisations who have a duty to their shareholders. They are not philanthropic societies.
1 to 14 of 14
