Time to Wake Up and smell the coffee...

GDB2222

Baz wrote: »

And then he loses his job and eventually his home because he spent all his money paying off debts and didn't save for an emergency fund.

£10 a month better of off or safety cash stuck away in an account in case of emergencies?

Its all down to personal circumstances though.

It's a balance, too. At 19% interest, I would be all for paying off debts. Once the worst stuff is out of the way, a small safety fund is clearly a good idea.

IveSeenTheLight

Baz wrote: »

And then he loses his job and eventually his home because he spent all his money paying off debts and didn't save for an emergency fund.

£10 a month better of off or safety cash stuck away in an account in case of emergencies?

Its all down to personal circumstances though.

1) I'm not against an emergency fund, I was merely pointing out the most cost effective way of reducing debts, I have one myself. I build it up and then reduce it paying off chunks of my mortgages

2) £10 a month builds up to £120 a year. This is the additional money in your back pocket if paying off the higher interest rather than the lower interest. My point was that it can still be better to be in debt to two different sources rather than paying off one and leaving a higher debt with only one source.

3) I know my post is a lot of conjecture i.e. IF you have a debt of £1000 at a certain percentage. Naturally this will not apply to the majority on here, but I do not subscribe to the speculation of a person losing their job. It may happen, it may not. Good to have a cushion, I agree. My point was to clear the highest interest debt regarding of the debt source.

Baz_2

I'm sure he knows all of that, which is why he said its not the most cost effective way of doing things. You then posted the most cost effective way of doing things and then I pointed out the reason why he wasn't doing it in the most cost effective way.

Again, I'm sure he is well aware of both points.

And I'm very glad that you don't subscribe to people losing their jobs, ::rotfl: it must be very nice to have such job security as you obviously have. But I live in the real world and know that if I have an accident, or my employer has an accident or loses a big client or retires or any number of things happen can put my position at risk. As I also said its all down to personal circumstances.

carolt

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't want to own my own home, it's something you have to do.

There is no social housing for people like me (single), but I would like to be settled in an area and feel part of that area - something you can't do if you're renting because you're at the whim of the landlord.

I'd buy because I'd like to ploink down somewhere for life. To be able to shut my door and know nobody will come a-knocking. To feel that those around me are also mostly long-term residents, so there's a feeling of common values and community.

That is how I grew up, with people around me that were staying long-term where they were. You can only get that if you're in social housing or if you buy. I don't WANT to buy, I have to buy for the security of tenure. If social housing had kept up with need then council estates would be full of good people again, like they used to be, not just filled with the lowest level of life because they get more points than decent people. House buying should have been left to the middle classes.

I am a low-earning single; working class, but decent. I'd like to have lived a life where I worked and had money left over after putting a roof over my head, but when you're single it all goes on rent/bills. It'd be fantastic to live in cheap social housing at only about £70/week and know I could enjoy the rest of my money for life. Not to have to spend 20+ years stressing about trying to save to buy a house. Lack of social housing and no long-term private rentals enabling us to put down roots has forced people to buy houses.

Lovely post.

Should be said more often.

Everyone doesn't have a right or a need to own their own home, but everyone does have a right and a need for a long-term secure roof over their heads and somewhere they can put down roots.

Is anyone listening?

Nah.

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I do not subscribe to the speculation of a person losing their job. It may happen, it may not. Good to have a cushion, I agree. My point was to clear the highest interest debt regarding of the debt source.

I think of an emergency slush fund as covering the more regular boiler breakdown / car service type of problem.

IveSeenTheLight

Baz wrote: »

I'm sure he knows all of that, which is why he said its not the most cost effective way of doing things. You then posted the most cost effective way of doing things and then I pointed out the reason why he wasn't doing it in the most cost effective way.

Again, I'm sure he is well aware of both points.

And I'm very glad that you don't subscribe to people losing their jobs, ::rotfl: it must be very nice to have such job security as you obviously have. But I live in the real world and know that if I have an accident, or my employer has an accident or loses a big client or retires or any number of things happen can put my position at risk. As I also said its all down to personal circumstances.

Initially reading your post I thought you were trying to start a flaming spiral, which I will not fan the flames, however, I didn't say I dont subscribe to people losing their jobs, I said I didn't subscribe to the speculation that people may lose their jobs.

Of course what you say may happen. I could lose my job, break a leg etc etc etc.

I could also win the lottery (although it would help if I bought a ticket;))

I do live in the real world, just for the record. This post is not from someone in the afterlife

Baz_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I didn't say I dont subscribe to people losing their jobs, I said I didn't subscribe to the speculation that people may lose their jobs.

Sorry, I just found your speculation post really funny.

I mean until someone loses their job its speculation isn't it so surely not subscribing to speculation that people may lose their jobs is just the same as not subscribing to people losing their jobs. Same thing.

I take it you also don't subscribe to income protection insurance and unemployment insurance too?

Its fine paying off all your debts with all of your spare money but if the worst happens and it takes 3 or 4 months to get back on track you will be glad of a savings pot.

Common sense is it not?

WTF?_2

Baz wrote: »

Its fine paying off all your debts with all of your spare money but if the worst happens and it takes 3 or 4 months to get back on track you will be glad of a savings pot.

Common sense is it not?

Agreed - Debt paying is a great aim but if you use all your money paying off a large chunk of debt and then you lose your income or need a lot of cash suddenly, you're in a bind.

Build a savings buffer first. Then pay off as much debt after that as you can afford.