government bailing out house losers - good or bad?

neverdespairgirl

PasturesNew wrote: »

The "toys" kids seem to get these days are over-priced gadgets to keep them quiet. You can get lots of proper toys 2nd hand (often unused) at charity shops, or hand me downs from people you come into contact with (e.g. playschool, school gate, neighbours, family, friends, etc).


Go from here to the DFW board or the Families board and there are loads there declaring they're skint, and panicking they're "only" spending £200 on their kid for Xmas. £200???!!!! £20 is enough!

£200 seems a hell of a lot to spend, to me. Isaac's toys are mostly things he can do stuff with - he's got some Duplo, which is fantastic, and he spends ages building things from it. He's also got quite a few books, many of which are from my mother's attic, that we read as children (and some are hers from the early 1950s, as well!)

We are getting Isaac two DVDs for Christmas (from Israel, £4 each) and a lego helicopter (£15).

meester

lynzpower wrote: »

the problem is that so many of the people losing thier houses are not always those who "overborrowed" they are normal people who are losing thier jobs as small businesses can no longer operate due to inability to raise capital.

Most of the posts on the debt board here are from people who've simply squandered and wasted borrowed money and lived beyond their means. Similarly when I've seen features on BBC news etc. about repossessions the people involved all seem to be money wasters. There is a major moral issue with bailing them out with taxes paid by the prudent, not to mention a bad precedent.

airhostess

PasturesNew wrote: »

Go from here to the DFW board or the Families board and there are loads there declaring they're skint, and panicking they're "only" spending £200 on their kid for Xmas. £200???!!!! £20 is enough!

I think this is part of a vicious circle. Kids see their parents bowing to pressures from the media, other parents and their own demands, and by seeing their parents giving in to these pressures, they themselves grow up thinking that it is right and normal to give into those same pressures as an adult.
Hence the amount of people using credit cards/loans to buy stuff such as the latest tv, new car to keep up with the Joneses etc etc...

Maybe parents should be firm and say things like "I don't care if everyone in your class gets a ....... for Christmas, we can't afford to buy you one and it's not the kind of toy I want you to play with." Sounds harsh and shocking when put like that, and no doubt it's a hard thing for any parent to say, but if you think you could be saving your children from a lifetime of debt misery by saying it...

airhostess

carolt wrote: »

Schools don't educate children till they'e 5.
If you ever do have children, I look forward to your experiment in bringing them up and keeping them at home for 5 years without toys!:

Kids in Morocco don't start school until they are 7, so Moroccan mums are stuck at home with toyless children for 7 years!!:eek:

pickles110564

PasturesNew wrote: »

Go from here to the DFW board or the Families board and there are loads there declaring they're skint, and panicking they're "only" spending £200 on their kid for Xmas. £200???!!!! £20 is enough!

PN I have asked my children for their Christmas wish list and it will cost several hundred pounds to get them what they want. That is why I work the hours I do to make sure they get all that they want, it is my choice and my decision.

mr.broderick

geoffky wrote: »

I love my toys.......

Do we need any more evidence to prove this lunatic is a can short of a 4 pack?

Lotus-eater

pickles110564 wrote: »

PN I have asked my children for their Christmas wish list and it will cost several hundred pounds to get them what they want. That is why I work the hours I do to make sure they get all that they want, it is my choice and my decision.

Really? Wow, I honestly didn't think you were like that.

Not knocking your choice tbh, but don't you ever think that, less hours = less toys = more Dad at home? Isn't that better for them in the long run?

SingleSue

airhostess wrote: »

I think this is part of a vicious circle. Kids see their parents bowing to pressures from the media, other parents and their own demands, and by seeing their parents giving in to these pressures, they themselves grow up thinking that it is right and normal to give into those same pressures as an adult.
Hence the amount of people using credit cards/loans to buy stuff such as the latest tv, new car to keep up with the Joneses etc etc...

Maybe parents should be firm and say things like "I don't care if everyone in your class gets a ....... for Christmas, we can't afford to buy you one and it's not the kind of toy I want you to play with." Sounds harsh and shocking when put like that, and no doubt it's a hard thing for any parent to say, but if you think you could be saving your children from a lifetime of debt misery by saying it...

I agree.

My children have been brought up to know how to find the bargains and to never keep up with the Joneses...plus to do all that with cash only and not credit.

There are some bonuses to being on benefits and not able to get credit! :rotfl:

* I did actually lead this life when I was working..my nickname was the budget queen! Did get me some funny looks when I was incredulous at people thinking nothing of spending £60 on a top or thousands on a holiday.

pickles110564

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Really? Wow, I honestly didn't think you were like that.

Not knocking your choice tbh, but don't you ever think that, less hours = less toys = more Dad at home? Isn't that better for them in the long run?

I still get to spend at least 2 days a week at home with them and because I do Shift work means that they still have me around for several hours each day. Which means I spend more time with them than some who do 9 til 5 hours with a two or three hour journey.

Generali

Well as Dr Frankenfurter said, "It's just a jump to the left......."

Labour nationalised Network Rail and a couple of banks. Who's next do you think. Would BA be allowed to go bust for example? Those seats in the suburbs in West London I would guess are pretty marginal.

What about one of the big house builders? They are big employers. Surely it's cheaper to nationalise them than pay their ex-workers dole? Of course it isn't but it's a seductive argument.