wakeboard1980 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 What's your deposit then?? You're missing that big fact 10% deposit on a house worth over 1/2 as much again as your mates £110k and I'm paying almost 300 less a month. Like I said they must be getting screwed and I only have 2 lenders to choose from. Now my situation is the real world as its all happened this week, can't get any closer to reality than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 And it's illegal for you to be rich? Of course it is comrade, didnt you get the memo ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toolbox Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 And it's illegal for you to be rich? Yes, unless your name is Tony blair, Cherie blair, Gordon brown, Peter mandlson etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Because you said "one example does not make a problem" and thats exactly what you then did. The only difference being you are your only example while thousands suffered in stafford under the caring party's watch.....which is clearly a better example.....its not all about you. Stafford will be nothing as this nasty party gets the NHS into profit making private companies hands, are you so naive to not see that a profit making NHS is going to mean misery for most of us, the only people who will not be affected is the rich who can afford private healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyba Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 And it's illegal for you to be rich? It's not about being rich or not, it's about who suffers in times of need, should we tax the rich more and they might not be able to buy a new car this year or do we take money from the poor which could mean they will be homeless or not afford to eat. It's a questions of morality not just money. who has the greater need, the poor for food or the rich for money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 You are joking arent you ? All I see is anger and misinformation. I realise he is a comrade but there are some looking silly on this thread that's for sure. Nahhh ate, he owns you and knocks all your theories out of bounds, read the thread again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Mate, skyba is owning you and making you look rather silly, I suggest you calm down a bit. I suggest you just have a debate without the constant name calling, you are very quick to call anyone who disagrees with you, silly stupid or slow and skyba is the same by saying you are a fool basically if you dont see things from his perspective, its very interesting that the " labour " supporters are very quick to throw abuse around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 My son received brilliant care when he broke his arm last year, no sing of a lack of staff, back up appointments were quick and anything he needed he got. My wife is having problems with her neck, she had had scans and physio and again no complaints. Anyone would think the NHS had gone to wrack and ruin since the Useless party were chucked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Nahhh ate, he owns you and knocks all your theories out of bounds, read the thread again. Whatever makes you happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andy Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 And it's illegal for you to be rich? It seems that some would rather it were illegal to be rich, the trouble is when some have naff all because they cannot be bothered to go out and get it they want everyone else to have naff all, it is jealousy and bitterness at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieF8 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 It's not about being rich or not, it's about who suffers in times of need, should we tax the rich more and they might not be able to buy a new car this year or do we take money from the poor which could mean they will be homeless or not afford to eat. It's a questions of morality not just money. who has the greater need, the poor for food or the rich for money... The rich are taxed more, basic ecoeconomics Decided to move on from hospital closures have we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 It seems that some would rather it were illegal to be rich, the trouble is when some have naff all because they cannot be bothered to go out and get it they want everyone else to have naff all, it is jealousy and bitterness at work. The Labour way, we should all be miserable and poor together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 The rich pay more tax, when did that happen ? The rich are taxed more, basic ecoeconomics Decided to move on from hospital closures have we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieF8 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 The Labour way, we should all be miserable and poor together And let someone else pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 And let someone else pay for it. Of course, like a Harvey Norman buy now pay later deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toolbox Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Stafford will be nothing as this nasty party gets the NHS into profit making private companies hands, are you so naive to not see that a profit making NHS is going to mean misery for most of us, the only people who will not be affected is the rich who can afford private healthcare. Stafford was just one example though, I can give you many more if you want....are you so naive to believe that the nhs does not need modernising along with the whole welfare state, even dippy Gordon brown recognised it, but hadn't got the balls to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakeboard1980 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Skyba, what's the latest on the mortgage front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Skyba, what's the latest on the mortgage front? I doubt anythings changed since half an hour ago lol i hope your not trying to wind him up mr wakeboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakeboard1980 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I doubt anythings changed since half an hour ago lol i hope your not trying to wind him up mr wakeboard No I know nothing has changed. I would like to understand though how his mate is paying a lot more for a mortgage on a £110k house than what I'm going to pay. His figures just don't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Skyba's point was that people can't afford the mortgages so I'd like to hear their suggestion as to how people's chances of owning a home could be achieved. How would an investor cash in exactly? I thought the government was giving a loan to help with the deposit? A loan that would have to be paid back. How would an investor cash in? because the loans arent for just first homes,so the amount of loans an investor could take out isnt capped at one as far as ive seen, i dont know all the details yet,but thats how it looks at first glance,. For me the scheme should be for first time buyers or at least those with just one property,they "could" cash in by taking out loans on multiple properties,buying at the present lower prices then selling them when the market picks up,like i say,the priority should be first time buyers and those with only one property Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 No I know nothing has changed. I would like to understand though how his mate is paying a lot more for a mortgage on a £110k house than what I'm going to pay. His figures just don't make sense. Not just his figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Maybe less of a deposit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/cameron-busted-on-debt-claims/12556 Heres those figures you asked for andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chris955 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 The idea is to stimulate the housing market, whether it be first home or investment home it doesnt really matter. If the number of loans in total isnt capped then there is no reason to think first timebuyers wont be prioritised or processed alongside others. How would an investor cash in? because the loans arent for just first homes,so the amount of loans an investor could take out isnt capped at one as far as ive seen, i dont know all the details yet,but thats how it looks at first glance,.For me the scheme should be for first time buyers or at least those with just one property,they "could" cash in by taking out loans on multiple properties,buying at the present lower prices then selling them when the market picks up,like i say,the priority should be first time buyers and those with only one property Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 The idea is to stimulate the housing market, whether it be first home or investment home it doesnt really matter. If the number of loans in total isnt capped then there is no reason to think first timebuyers wont be prioritised or processed alongside others. I know what the idea is,it matters to me who the money is prioritised for,its a "leg up,for those who havent got a deposit",thats how it was sold,they should be first in line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.