I can't see many people disagreeing with this. And as if on cue, here's a link to Christian Nock's Facebook page. Christian is currently walking around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough every night to raise money and awareness of homelessness amongst ex-servicemen. He's currently in Durness in northern Scotland. Lucky guy. https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3.
(Edited for correct amount)
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
I doubt many that do 'move around a lot' would take advantage of this scheme, even if they were eligible – However, it would greatly help those that are coming to the end of their military service.
That may be right - I'm responding to JosiasJessop's thought that these people are moving around, so they have a hard time getting a bank loan.
Why should they only get that advantage ? Why not fire fighters ? Nurses ? Ambulance drivers, etc. etc. No one forced them to join the army ?
@ EiT- JJ does have a point - but ‘moving around a lot’ is a bit of a misnomer for many service personnel, many are actually relatively static, especially within the Corps, and then there are those that rarely leave the UK – Being based abroad will always incur a certain amount of difficulty when buying a property in the UK, irrespective.
However, from my understanding of the scheme, it is purely a means ofassisting those that would have difficulty acquiring a mortgage.
As the AF housing scheme blurb puts it: “To be eligible you must have between 4-6 years continuous service, and be unable to afford a suitable home on your own.
If you are eligible, you could receive an equity loan of between 15-50% of the value of the home you choose on the open market, usually through an estate agent. For example, if you qualify for a mortgage of £70,000 and have a deposit available of £10,000, you could potentially purchase a property worth up to £155,000.”
3rd attempt to post this comment - so if the all appear apols for the mess.
I for one would complain about it , why should I be paying to buy someone else a house. They want to join the forces go ahead does not make them special in my eyes , it is just another career choice and no way I should be subsidising them. More focus group policies , I am almost at the stage I want Labour back in rather than these bleeding heart numpties.
For many in the forces, the role requires frequent moves nationally and internationally. Lenders are rather reticent to lend to people who move around so much, and so this deal could help some of the relatively low-paid servicemen and women get a home. It may also help lower costs in other ways, and reduce the scandal of homeless squaddies (*).
It's a small amount, and seems like a good idea to me, although the devil will be in the details You are naturally free to disagree, although I suspect it's a move that Salmond and the SNP would agree with.
(*) I use the word squaddies as shorthand for all the armed services.
Why would someone who moves around a lot buy a house?
I doubt many that do 'move around a lot' would take advantage of this scheme, even if they were eligible – However, it would greatly help those that are coming to the end of their military service.
That may be right - I'm responding to JosiasJessop's thought that these people are moving around, so they have a hard time getting a bank loan.
From the BBC article:
And the MoD said armed forces staff often experience difficulty getting credit because of frequent moves and deployments.
I'm not sure you can have it both ways. CP's are supposed to be heading towards having the same rights as marriage (correctly, in my view). Saying that people who are not willing to take that further step of lifelong commitment should be treated the same as those who are seems strange.
The whole thing's a mess, but I'm not sure that's the solution.
It's not me that's having it both ways. The point is that this proposal benefits CPs but excludes straight couples with precisely the same degree of commitment. No doubt other examples will follow, because governments won't want to discriminate against CPs. We've taken a collective decision to equalise partnerships at the marriage level, and sooner or later people will want to do the same at the "not yet marriage" level.
By the way, Alan's personal tragedy dwarfs anything we talk about, and the fact that he mentioned it as an example doesn't mean it's open season to badger him about whether he took beareavement allowance etc. His replies have been vety patient. This is supposed to be a friendly site, not bloody Guido.
Nick, I really wish you hadn't written that last paragraph in reply to my post, as it reads as if I was doing it. Not sure if that's what you intended ...
Needless to say, sympathies to Alan and Squareroot.
Sorry, Josias, not my intention. My first para replied to you, the second to other posts on the thread. Should have made it clear.
If any of that was true things would be getting better.
I don't see the connection at all. Even assuming people perceive the world to be getting worse, they may trust LibLabCon to manage decline more than UKIP or George Galloway.
Comments
However, from my understanding of the scheme, it is purely a means ofassisting those that would have difficulty acquiring a mortgage.
As the AF housing scheme blurb puts it: “To be eligible you must have between 4-6 years continuous service, and be unable to afford a suitable home on your own.
If you are eligible, you could receive an equity loan of between 15-50% of the value of the home you choose on the open market, usually through an estate agent. For example, if you qualify for a mortgage of £70,000 and have a deposit available of £10,000, you could potentially purchase a property worth up to £155,000.”
3rd attempt to post this comment - so if the all appear apols for the mess.
http://homeless.org.uk/veterans#.UkbaAIaURIk
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/9000-ex-service-personnel-homeless-after-2071049
However at a deeper underlying level it is continually shifting rightwards (I suspect as we get more and more affluent)