The Labour Housing Minister was caught out saying something halfway sensible last week, which did not go down well with the Home-Owner-Ists*. So he was told to write grovelling letters of apology, see for example today's Metro.
However, if you look at it closely, apart from the use of the word 'help' (which is NewSpeak for 'give money to') and the last sentence (which is just propaganda), he is actually still sticking to his original (and entirely correct) statement:
Regarding repossessions (Metro, Fri), I want to be clear that where the government can help families stay in their homes it will. Every repossession is a tragedy** but some families are drowning in debt and will never get on top of their mortgage payments. The best thing to do is seek help as early as possible.
I urge anyone struggling to go to www.direct.gov.uk/mortgagehelp or call the National Debtline on 0808 808 4000.
John Healey MP, Housing Minister.
* The Home-Owner-Ist view is that once you are 'on the ladder' then it is the government's (i.e. the taxpayers') solemn duty to keep you there, no matter how recklessly you borrowed.
The idea that a lot of people would be better served if we just built a load more social housing is completely alien to them. If we did, then all households would have a fair choice: do they want to pay top whack to 'jump on the property ladder' in the hope of making windfall capital gains; or would they rather pay a below market rent and live risk-free? I fail to see why the windfall capital gain is seen as 'saving' or 'building capital' and why this is morally superior to saving a few quid on your rent each week and waiving the opportunity to make a capital gain.
** It's not a tragedy for the family that can then buy the repossessed home, of course.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Retraction Of The Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well, they could quite simply stay in their houses and we could tackle Home-Owner-ism at the same time just by reforming repossession so that the house becomes the property of the council automatically (with banks reimbursed at, say, 70% of the present or initial value of the mortgage, whichever is lower).
JD, why should councils pay over the odds for houses when they can build new ones for £70,000?
Remember that councils can give themselves planning permission for free - they can give a new council house to the indebted family (so that's them sorted) and then the bankruptcy courts can deal with the rest.
I can understand the Tories being against council housing, seeing them, probably rightly, as Labour fiefdoms, but the fact that Labour is against them too shows how far the HOists have got their feet under the table and morally bankrupt this lot are in the extent they put votes before principles. If power were a drug, it would definitely be class A.
@JamesD - so the rest of us who insured against the vicissitudes of life; who deliberately didn't buy that nicer house down the street because it would have made bigger demands on a limited budget; who worked to pay the mortgage down; who didn't withdraw equity from the house to buy a car or to (repeatedly) repay credit card debts, we can all go hang and pay for the 30% of the mortgage which you want the banks to write off? If you think they won't pass on that loss by pricing it in to future mortgages, you haven't been paying attention....
Not to mention that houses are in fact the legal possession of the person who owns it. Summarily relieving them of their property to hand it to the Council is theft by the State.
I'm not what MW refers to as a Home-Owner-Ist but I do like to see the niceties observed when it comes to private property. Mortgaged or not. And for the record I still think one quick way to sort out some of the HOI mess (pending a more permanent solution) is to levy CGT on house profits as they're withdrawn, without allowing mortgage interest as an expense (that's rent, that is).
Or even underground housing.
I'm an LVTer and I'm against Council houses.
B, exactly.
FT, to be fair, people in default on their mortgages have already forfeited the right to the property. And CGT on property gains is too messy, far better to have a flat land or property value tax (to replace a load of other taxes) set at such a rate so that you just don't make capital gains on houses.
JH, if you're a Womble.
AC1, I knew you'd say that, but given our starting position, it's better than nothing.
Why the hell should I, as a tax payer, and home owner, subsidise 'Social housing'? Council rents should be at the market rate.
Post a Comment