Re: Something else I have also puzzled over: the minimum wage

On Sep 11, 8:32 pm, MM <kylix...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:30:16 +0100, Maria <d...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]
 How many thousands of people "bought" their houses having
lied about their real salary by self-certification?

Where else am I going to live? The self-employed have to
self-certificate, or rob a bank. What do you suggest?

By skewing the market through self-certification, we end up driving
house prices up out of all proportion, which is *exactly* what
happened in the past few years of the so-called boom. People moved,
paid off their credit cards and thought they had discovered the Magic
Money Tree.


As Maria says, the self-employed have to self-certificate if they want
a mortgage.

Self-certification is only a bad thing if people lie and exagerate
their income (because they think incomes and house prices can only
rise, and they are desperate to find somewhere to live or to get on
the housing 'ladder'), and if mortgage companies accept their self-
certified figures without checking. And especially if they then offer
a 125% mortgage.

If that hadn't happened, housing would have become an even more urgent
problem than the Labour government recognised and more low-cost
housing for rent would *have* to have been built.

The relative lack of new social housing to rent contributed to the
housing price bubble. In that sense, the last Labour government acted
like devious capitalists, artificially inflating the market, a bit
like speculators ramping up share prices, even though they didn't
deliberately intend to do so.

Agree (more or less) with what you say below.

Thus would you and
others have got a roof over their heads. Where do you think all the
other millions of people in Europe live who can't afford a house?
They're not all living in cardboard boxes, are they? No, their
governments made sure than a housing boom like in Britain didn't
happen (except maybe in Spain).

The loan is secured on the property - just take it back if the debtor
defaults. What is the problem with that?
I have to buy - I cannot rent because the agencies require you to be
working full time and have employer's referenes.

This could possibly be sorted through legislation, but also by having
enough affordable homes to rent in the first place. It is ENTIRELY the
fault of the Labour government that this didn't happen, despite all
the warm words. They had 13 years in which to achieve a noticeable
increase, yet housing starts have, if anything, been stagnating.
Labour, however, did find the time to introduce 3,600 new offences.

You want people to start businesses so they can employ people, and then
tell them they can't ever buy a house, car or anything else on tick
because they might lie about their income?

Alternatively, you seem to *want* them to lie about their income, thus
manufacturing a skewed market!



The landlords and
large chain stores can charge fabulous (for them) prices because they
have a ready clientele for all their tat, bought, as I say, on the
never-never. The whole situation has to change.

'Tat' as in cookers, washing machines, fridges, freezers, beds?
BTW the only way the low paid can get stuff on the never is through
Brighthouse - they have an interest rate of 29.9% APR but charge a huge
amount for 'insurance'. The price of the item is inflated to start with,
and you pay back double the retail price. That's what people do to
people with no choices - screw them, stick them in workhouses, and make
them do silly dances, because they can.

Cookers, fridges, and beds are essentials. The others aren't. Do you
believe that the £1.4 trillion personal debt owed by Britons was
racked up solely in buying essentials?

MM

.

Quantcast