tonymac Registered User
Daffodils Registered User
I actually suggested this to Michael Noonan about two years ago but I called it a type of BIK which was the the wrong term. My argument was that thousands are benefiting from what was in effect a mistake by the banks and because if this others are unfairly paying. This is a way of sharing the burden. Why should one cohort of society pay through the nose for a roof over their heads while others pay very little?
ronaldo Frequent Poster
Gerard123 Frequent Poster
With respect to all, this is a ridiculous suggestion. Penalising people many of whom evaluated options and took a tracker. Are you serious?
Many of the tracker holders are in serious negative equity because tracker mortgages were popular in the 2004-2007 period, just when prices peaked. In fact there is an argument to say that trackers may well have partly inflated the prices as they increased repayment capacity so it didn't exactly benefit tracker holders either.
The period 2002 to 2007 also saw people paying huge levels of stamp duty.
I suggest the following as a counter proposal.
1. Repay the stamp duty to people who paid, or levy equivalent stamp duty on anyone who didn't pay sky high levels.
2. Stop charging property tax to people who paid stamp duty which in effect was property tax except paid at the start. Double taxation!
sky high purchase prices paid to people who bought in the peak period and allow people to buy back at the current price eliminating negative equity.
4. Then charge a levy or svr on the new lower mortgages.
The cost of all this to be borne by svr holders so that EVERYTHING is equalised, interest rates, mortgage levels and stamp duties. Doubt svr holders would go for this.
Equally ridiculous right? Just as valid an argument all the same. Irony!
Ps. I fully appreciate that some/many people on svr are really suffering and I have sympathy and understanding of course. But that's not the responsibility of tracker holders, is it? So why seek to penalise or levy them further?
Lots of others on svr have mortgages well paid down or bought at lower prices and low if any stamp duty paid.
Finally, a real life case. My next door neighbour bought their house at half what we paid but they are on svr. You really want me to subsidise their mortgage? As I said ridiculous and extremely unfair.
I wish this bandwagon of seeking to penalise tracker holders would stop, and frankly the jealously and sometimes bitterness towards tracker holders would stop also. Lots of people struggling both svr and tracker holders.
Finally, a contract is a contract and it would be detrimental and illegal. Would destroy the market and drive arrears sky high also.
No simple solution unfortunately.