The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

[ADK]

I get the feeling that house prices are going up for the simple reason that those with healthy bank balances are investing in property rather than getting very little interest standing in risky banks .

 

House prices are going up because the government pledged up to £130 Billion of taxpayers money to guarantee mortgages at the last budget. The front to the gullible public is that this money is designed to help "first time buyers" get mortgages for their first home.

 

The reality is that with the supply of houses so restricted this simply results in increased house prices so it doesn't help people to buy houses, it simply results in people who could already have bought a house having to borrow more money to buy that house.

 

Interest rates are very low at the moment, when interest rates rise, if people have borrowed more than they should then you get a large rise in repossessions and house prices crash which leaves a lot of recent buyers in negative equity.

 

Really we should be building more houses to increase supply and certainly not inflating house prices further with government money.

[leicsmac]

House prices are going up because the government pledged up to £130 Billion of taxpayers money to guarantee mortgages at the last budget. The front to the gullible public is that this money is designed to help "first time buyers" get mortgages for their first home.

 

The reality is that with the supply of houses so restricted this simply results in increased house prices so it doesn't help people to buy houses, it simply results in people who could already have bought a house having to borrow more money to buy that house.

 

Interest rates are very low at the moment, when interest rates rise, if people have borrowed more than they should then you get a large rise in repossessions and house prices crash which leaves a lot of recent buyers in negative equity.

 

Really we should be building more houses to increase supply and certainly not inflating house prices further with government money.

 

Bang on.

[Webbo]

 

 

Really we should be building more houses to increase supply and certainly not inflating house prices further with government money.

When the price of houses goes up it gives builders the incentive to build more houses.

[davieG]

When the price of houses goes up it gives builders the incentive to build more houses.

Which first time buyers can't afford, eventually the market will stagnate if no ones buying at the bottom of the ladder.

 

E.g Filbert Street build

 

Nobody representing the company was available for comment yesterday but a report by Leicester City Council planning officials said it had been scaled back because the developers said it was not financially viable to include low-cost housing – as is usually required as a condition of getting planning permission. Ward councillor Neil Clayton said: "It is disappointing because normally we would seek to get some affordable homes out of a development like this, but it is perhaps a sign of the state of the economy that it sometimes doesn't happen.

 

[Webbo]

Which first time buyers can't afford, eventually the market will stagnate if no ones buying at the bottom of the ladder.

 

E.g Filbert Street build

I've got 3 teenagers, I worry how they're ever going to buy a house of their own but you can't expect builders to use up their landbanks and build for nothing. I don't know what the solution is.

[davieG]

I've got 3 teenagers, I worry how they're ever going to buy a house of their own but you can't expect builders to use up their landbanks and build for nothing. I don't know what the solution is.

I just believe this current government incentive/assistance wont help in the medium to longer term.

 

It doesn't help that many of the houses being built provide some of the poorest accommodation space wise in Europe, if we're not careful today's new builds will be tomorrows slums.

 

'Rabbit hutch' style homes face curb

[Rincewind]

Surely if you sell a house unless you buy a down market one or not buy one you are High  Street electricity and gas prices on the rise and low wages it will be extra difficult.

I'm sorry to put a dampner on the good news thread.

 

Wheres Ed Milliband? The sooner he goes and Labour get a leader that isn't a wimp the sooner things will change. ATM the coalition seems to be doing what they like to the country. There are a few Lib Dems saying never again though.

TBH this is why I have lost faith in politicians. There is no choice between them. Where are the Foots and the Benns?

Edited 21 August 2013 by Rincewind

[Guest MattP]

Really we should be building more houses to increase supply and certainly not inflating house prices further with government money.

 

In an ideal world we would all do that but it costs money we don't have unfortunately, people can't want to keep a fully funded NHS, build more schools, build more houses, pay everyone a pension, give out child benefit, send foreign aid etc etc etc.

 

You have to pick and choose what's the most important. I agree with you though and I would try and find the funding for it.

 

 

I've got 3 teenagers, I worry how they're ever going to buy a house of their own but you can't expect builders to use up their landbanks and build for nothing. I don't know what the solution is.

 

Maybe there isn't, Britain stands alone in what we do, most people in Europe will always rent, we've had it so good for so long with the percentage of people we get onto the property ladder, that might become a thing of the past.

 

Wheres Ed Milliband? The sooner he goes and Labour get a leader that isn't a wimp the sooner things will change. ATM the coalition seems to be doing what they like to the country. There are a few Lib Dems saying never again though.

TBH this is why I have lost faith in politicians. There is no choice between them. Where are the Foots and the Benns?

 

Wasn't Foot widely regarded as the worst Labour leader ever? Didn't he want nuclear disarmament, higher personal taxation, renationalisation of the banks etc, it was so pathetically socialist even the Daily Mirror blushed. (Can't get to a pc now but wasn't it called "the longest suicide note in history" by one of his own MP's) No wonder they ended up getting battered by a pretty unpopular Thatcher government.

 

I liked Tony Benn, didn't agree with him politically but a man of principle no doubt.

 

The coailition are doing what they like, we're seeing lower unemployment, growth and might even be on the way to claming some national identity and power back from people we never elected. Bastards.

Edited 21 August 2013 by MattP

[Rincewind]

http://www.mydownnotout.org.uk/food-bank-inquiries-soar-as-further-working-class-families-slide-into-poverty/

 

Well not so much Foot. I was just thinking of the old school politicians that were in it for what they believed. Maybe it just seemed like that.

Tony Benn appeared in that program the other night He was still the same still spoke his mind. I would have liked him as PM but he also was a socialist OTT

Edited 21 August 2013 by Rincewind

[Guest MattP]

http://www.mydownnotout.org.uk/food-bank-inquiries-soar-as-further-working-class-families-slide-into-poverty/

 

Well not so much Foot. I was just thinking of the old school politicians that were in it for what they believed. Maybe it just seemed like that.

Tony Benn appeared in that program the other night He was still the same still spoke his mind. I would have liked him as PM but he also was a socialist OTT

 

If DNO (see I got it right) wants to have it's political opinions taken seriously it's going to have to stop linking everything that they report to the Guardian or Indy.

 

How serious would you take a group who took every shred of it's evidence from the Daily Mail?

[MooseBreath]

The reality is that with the supply of houses so restricted this simply results in increased house prices so it doesn't help people to buy houses, it simply results in people who could already have bought a house having to borrow more money to buy that house.

The cost of renting a typical property is about the same per month as the monthly repayments on a mortgage for the samr property. The reality is that the availability of a deposit is the number one thing preventing people getting onto the ladder. Mortgage providers are still spooked after the credit crunch. They are asking for at least a 20% deposit on your average £150k house. Even if you could comfortably afford the monthly repayments, how many young people have got £30k lying around for a deposit? What the government is doing is backing mortgages so the deposit can be lower. Now you only need to find £7.5k for the same property.

Obviously this increased demand will push prices up. But if you (or labour) can think of a way to help first time buyers without increasing demand then I'm all ears. Before you say "increase supply", the government are trying to do that too, that's why the first help to buy measure only applies to new-builds. The government isn't in the housebuilding business itself, all it can do is incentivise developers to build. Plus you get the phooking climate gimps and the save the planet gimps getting in the way as well. No matter what the government do they can't win. But the fact is that there was a problem with first time buyers not being able to get onto the ladder. That problem is now being solved.

[Rincewind]

where does the majority of the stereotyping come from?

All the news we get doesn't come from those papers although they are the one of the few that will report anything that the public are unaware of and likely does not want to know about when they are hidden away in their two up two down. The reports also come from service providers, charities, health organisations and many other groups that have facts and figures at first hand by going out on the streets.

In the last couple of months we have had people in London, Birmingham and Leicester filming and interviewing service users and providers and gathering information. Has the Mail done this when they print their story about one scroumger which its readers immediately applies to all those on benefits.

Those food bank figures have been provided by those that set them up and work at them. Are you calling them all liars?

[Webbo]

where does the majority of the stereotyping come from?

All the news we get doesn't come from those papers although they are the one of the few that will report anything that the public are unaware of and likely does not want to know about when they are hidden away in their two up two down. The reports also come from service providers, charities, health organisations and many other groups that have facts and figures at first hand by going out on the streets.

In the last couple of months we have had people in London, Birmingham and Leicester filming and interviewing service users and providers and gathering information. Has the Mail done this when they print their story about one scroumger which its readers immediately applies to all those on benefits.

Those food bank figures have been provided by those that set them up and work at them. Are you calling them all liars?

A little bit of stereo typing yourself there Ken.

[Guest MattP]

where does the majority of the stereotyping come from?

All the news we get doesn't come from those papers although they are the one of the few that will report anything that the public are unaware of and likely does not want to know about when they are hidden away in their two up two down. The reports also come from service providers, charities, health organisations and many other groups that have facts and figures at first hand by going out on the streets.

In the last couple of months we have had people in London, Birmingham and Leicester filming and interviewing service users and providers and gathering information. Has the Mail done this when they print their story about one scroumger which its readers immediately applies to all those on benefits.

Those food bank figures have been provided by those that set them up and work at them. Are you calling them all liars?

 

I have no idea what this is in response to me or not.

 

Stereotyping I'd say comes from personal experience. My stereotype of chavs in town comes from chavs in town, my stereotype of problem drinkers comes from my experiences with problem drinkers, my stereotype of shirkers comes from my time spent working with shirkers.

 

I dont have time to scour the country getting video footage of the hard working shirker or the sober alcoholic just so I can prove myself wrong.

 

I'm sure food bank numbers are going up, I saw a report on one station where she said she had never turned a person down, a guy I know has been to one, he got some beans and bread for free. He earns a decent wage and only did it to see if he could get served.

 

Maybe they should start looking at who they are giving to, some people might be taking the piss and that could explain a rise in numbers. A guy I've got on facebook volunteered at one and he got into an argument with a fellow volunteer as he didn't want to hand a load of tins to a guy who stunk of booze and fags, for some these food banks could be being used so they can spend what they would on grocerys on luxieries.

 

I hope it's a strict system they are using to hand things out.

Edited 21 August 2013 by MattP

[Rincewind]

Matt said he'd believe it if the stories never came from the guardian or independent I was making the point that it would be unlikely that the mail would publish them as he suggested. The Mail mainly does the opposite viewpoint which are likely to be the viewpoint of its readership.

As for the second highlighted point there are stories in the Mail about benefit cheats and their are those even one or two on here that keep saying things like 'they should get a job' when stats show that the majority of those on benefits are working.

 

Anyway I'll depart from this thread and let you all keep posting your good news. I only wanted to show that not everyone will make a mint from the rising cost of buying a house.

[MooseBreath]

Matt said he'd believe it if the stories never came from the guardian or independent I was making the point that it would be unlikely that the mail would publish them as he suggested. The Mail mainly does the opposite viewpoint which are likely to be the viewpoint of its readership.

As for the second highlighted point there are stories in the Mail about benefit cheats and their are those even one or two on here that keep saying things like 'they should get a job' when stats show that the majority of those on benefits are working.

Anyway I'll depart from this thread and let you all keep posting your good news. I only wanted to show that not everyone will make a mint from the rising cost of buying a house.

But the down and out link you linked us to had absolutely nothing to do with making money from rising house prices.

[Guest MattP]

Matt said he'd believe it if the stories never came from the guardian or independent I was making the point that it would be unlikely that the mail would publish them as he suggested. The Mail mainly does the opposite viewpoint which are likely to be the viewpoint of its readership.

As for the second highlighted point there are stories in the Mail about benefit cheats and their are those even one or two on here that keep saying things like 'they should get a job' when stats show that the majority of those on benefits are working.

 

Anyway I'll depart from this thread and let you all keep posting your good news. I only wanted to show that not everyone will make a mint from the rising cost of buying a house.

 

No I didn't.

 

I said if you want any sort of credibility you should be posting links to your evidence from a variety of sources.

 

Someone who justs posts links all day to the Grauniad will come across as a left wing nutjob just as anyone who would link to the Daily Mail all day would come across as a right wing one.

[Rincewind]

The reports may come from them but the facts come from a variety of sources. They have to be named. DNO is a news agency that deals with social issues. The stories are checked and verified. I would love them to come from a wider selection but if you Google any word related the majority of the results come from the Guardian and Independent.

I've mot looked at my Kindle Indie yet maybe there is a good news story in it.

I took it on a free months subscription and thought I was going to have the option to stop. Been charged last couple of months. Thinking of changing not sure what to. Want a middle of the road paper. Most are 9.99 PM.

[ADK]

The cost of renting a typical property is about the same per month as the monthly repayments on a mortgage for the samr property. The reality is that the availability of a deposit is the number one thing preventing people getting onto the ladder. Mortgage providers are still spooked after the credit crunch. They are asking for at least a 20% deposit on your average £150k house. Even if you could comfortably afford the monthly repayments, how many young people have got £30k lying around for a deposit? What the government is doing is backing mortgages so the deposit can be lower. Now you only need to find £7.5k for the same property.

Obviously this increased demand will push prices up. But if you (or labour) can think of a way to help first time buyers without increasing demand then I'm all ears. Before you say "increase supply", the government are trying to do that too, that's why the first help to buy measure only applies to new-builds. The government isn't in the housebuilding business itself, all it can do is incentivise developers to build. Plus you get the phooking climate gimps and the save the planet gimps getting in the way as well. No matter what the government do they can't win. But the fact is that there was a problem with first time buyers not being able to get onto the ladder. That problem is now being solved.

The point is though, that due to the under supply of houses, allowing people to put down lower deposits isn't going to achieve anything. Imagine you have a house for sale and it costs £100,000 for simplicities sake. You have two couples a and b who want to buy them and they are available on a mortgage with 20% deposit. Couple a can only afford £15000 so can't afford it, couple b have £20000 so they buy the house.

 

Then the government comes in and says to the bank "we want you to lend to people with less money so you need to offer mortgages with only 15% deposit, we'll guarantee them with taxpayers money". So now couple a can afford to put down a deposit for the house too. Trouble is the builder selling the house realises he can get a better price off couple b.

 

The builder puts the price of the house up to £133,000. Now couple a cannot afford the deposit and couple b buys the house with a 15% deposit of £20,000.

 

So who gains? Well the builder got £33,000 more for his house, and the bank loaned £33,000 more to the buyer with the extra lending guaranteed by the taxpayer.

 

Who loses? Couple b had to borrow £33,000 more which means they will have larger mortgage repayments. The taxpayer has taken on liability for the mortgage, there was a reason the bank didn't want to lend the money.

 

Did it help Couple a to buy a house? No.

 

There are a few instances where the scheme might help. If builders were not building houses due to low returns this would incentivise house building. However I'm pretty sure house building is already very attractive to developers but other factors are restricting development.

[MooseBreath]

If this scheme alone was capable of pushing prices up by the 33% required to make your example work then I wouldn't support it. But it hasn't and it won't. We're seeing more like 2-3% and a lot of that could down to increased demand caused by the wider economic recovery.

[ADK]

No I didn't.

 

I said if you want any sort of credibility you should be posting links to your evidence from a variety of sources.

 

Someone who justs posts links all day to the Grauniad will come across as a left wing nutjob just as anyone who would link to the Daily Mail all day would come across as a right wing one.

 

Well really he should be using primary sources where possible and forming his own arguments rather than linking to the guardian or any other newspaper. Obviously all organisations have a bias. It's obvious that DNO has a leftist bias. I think a lot of charities suffer from being close minded like this which is perhaps ironic.

[ADK]

If this scheme alone was capable of pushing prices up by the 33% required to make your example work then I wouldn't support it. But it hasn't and it won't. We're seeing more like 2-3% and a lot of that could down to increased demand caused by the wider economic recovery.

 

I only used those numbers to make the point obvious. The real housing market involves more than 2 people and more than 1 house. That said, if interest rates remain low and house prices continue to rise at the rates they are then that 33% figure could be very real very soon.

[Rincewind]

Thats a bit unfair to the Tory do-gooders

Edited 21 August 2013 by Rincewind

[MooseBreath]

I only used those numbers to make the point obvious. The real housing market involves more than 2 people and more than 1 house. That said, if interest rates remain low and house prices continue to rise at the rates they are then that 33% figure could be very real very soon.

Still you had to use those kind of numbers otherwise your example doesn't work. Any less of an increase and it benefits the person using the scheme. You'd still need that level of increase regardless of the numbers of people and houses involved. I would have thought the question "will this scheme result in price increases which negate the benefits" would have been an important consideration when they designed the scheme. The government obviously decided it won't and so it is proving so far. If we do see a sudden explosion in prices then they'll have to admit they got it wrong.

[Rincewind]

Well really he should be using primary sources where possible and forming his own arguments rather than linking to the guardian or any other newspaper. Obviously all organisations have a bias. It's obvious that DNO has a leftist bias. I think a lot of charities suffer from being close minded like this which is perhaps ironic.

 

Thats a bit unfair to the Tory do-gooders

We try not to be political and also do a lot of positive stories of schemes and people that have succeeded despite drawbacks. The homeless World Cup is a good example. Muslims giving food away to the needy at Ranadam .was another. May not be financial good but they are good for the people that need the help the most

Edited 21 August 2013 by Rincewind