Government's Mortgage Rescue

ad9898_3

My opinion is the government shouldn't be helping people except perhaps in the most severe circumstances (like lOulOu), the simple reason is "moral hazard", if people know they have the safety net of the taxpayer, they are less likely to care about how they arrange their finances in the future.

This would be a vicious circle that would eventually hurt everyone.

Any bailout should be on a strictly one to one basis, with every small detail of their situation scrutinised, if they find you in a position like the poster i have mentioned, a little help would be a good thing

However if people have been mewing to keep up with "the Jones" then let them rot, having children should not be an automatic route to being saved by the state.

wymondham

ad9898 wrote: »

However if people have been mewing to keep up with "the Jones" then let them rot, having children should not be an automatic route to being saved by the state.

Here lies the problem... the children are not responsible for the actions of their parents, and they need to be protected/helped no matter what their parents do - parents and children come as one package, so it's never going to be a perfect world, but the children must not be allowed to suffer.

ad9898_3

wymondham wrote: »

Here lies the problem... the children are not responsible for the actions of their parents, and they need to be protected/helped no matter what their parents do - parents and children come as one package, so it's never going to be a perfect world, but the children must not be allowed to suffer.

Moral hazard then, no matter what you do, the taxpayer to the rescue ??

I agree in part with what you say but a line must be drawn in the sand, having children should not be "that" line otherwise we are all fooked, the children included, even peoples children who have responsible parents.

StevieJ

wymondham wrote: »

Here lies the problem... the children are not responsible for the actions of their parents, and they need to be protected/helped no matter what their parents do - parents and children come as one package, so it's never going to be a perfect world, but the children must not be allowed to suffer.

There really are some mean spirited people around.

StevieJ

ad9898 wrote: »

Moral hazard then, no matter what you do, the taxpayer to the rescue ??

I agree in part with what you say but a line must be drawn in the sand, having children should not be "that" line otherwise we are all fooked, the children included, even peoples children who have responsible parents.

Are you for real, you are an utter Rotter.

WTF?_2

StevieJ wrote: »

Are you for real, you are an utter Rotter.

He has a point. At some stage you have to think of the overall good of society.

We're already at the stage where kids are used by irresponsible adults to ensure they get the optimum welfare benefits. eg. Having a kid is a ticket to a council house. Same goes for various other benefits too - much easier to get if you have a child, hard to get as a single person or childless couple. Kids are also 'misused' by illegal immigrants to give them an excuse to avoid deportation. "You can't deport us - we've had children and they've settled in, or you'll be sending them back to a life of poverty" or some such argument.

As welfare dependency grows and the economy (taxes) shrink we'll be hitting a point where the whole concept of the welfare system is threatened. At some stage you have to start being ruthless to ensure that we actually keep a welfare system rather than end up like much of the world (USA included) where it's very much everyone for themselves, children or no children.

ad9898_3

StevieJ wrote: »

Are you for real, you are an utter Rotter.

No, I think "the utter rotter" is the irresponsible parent, who bought a new car or a nice holiday mewed from their house and then hoped that I would be happy to bail them out. I'm not.

Neither am I happy to bail out people who had their "beloved children" to scrounge off the state.

I am happy to help people who find themselves in the s**t through no fault of their own for instance lOulOu who posted further up this thread.

If you are happy for your tax money to pay off someones BMW X5 then fair enough, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. My opinion differs.

ad9898_3

!!!!!!? wrote: »

He has a point. At some stage you have to think of the overall good of society.

We're already at the stage where kids are used by irresponsible adults to ensure they get the optimum welfare benefits. eg. Having a kid is a ticket to a council house. Same goes for various other benefits too - much easier to get if you have a child, hard to get as a single person or childless couple. Kids are also 'misused' by illegal immigrants to give them an excuse to avoid deportation. "You can't deport us - we've had children and they've settled in, or you'll be sending them back to a life of poverty" or some such argument.

As welfare dependency grows and the economy (taxes) shrink we'll be hitting a point where the whole concept of the welfare system is threatened. At some stage you have to start being ruthless to ensure that we actually keep a welfare system rather than end up like much of the world (USA included) where it's very much everyone for themselves, children or no children.

Excellent post, You are obviously not Gordon Brown in disguise.:D

StevieJ

ad9898 wrote: »

No, I think "the utter rotter" is the irresponsible parent, who bought a new car or a nice holiday mewed from their house and then hoped that I would be happy to bail them out. I'm not.

Neither am I happy to bail out people who had their "beloved children" to scrounge off the state.

I am happy to help people who find themselves in the s**t through no fault of their own for instance lOulOu who posted further up this thread.

If you are happy for your tax money to pay off someones BMW X5 then fair enough, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. My opinion differs.

I also think she deserves some help, interesting that you don't mention anything about the husband coughing up to help pay the mortgage and feed the kids.

ad9898_3

StevieJ wrote: »

I also think she deserves some help, interesting that you don't mention anything about the husband coughing up to help pay the mortgage and feed the kids.

The reason I didn't mention the husband is because by law and morally he has an obligation to his family, however if he is a t**t and is not helping then the full force of any law should be bought upon him, even if he is helping I am still happy that my tax money is spent to help this kind of person.