One in five homes for sale because owners unable to afford mortgage repayments

WTF?_2

Really2 wrote: »

Err. If you were employed before you would have been a tax payer.That is one of the reasons you pay tax.
I pay more in tax than I would claim back at the moment if I were unenployed.

Do you want to scrap the system and health service. Would you not claim if you were unenployed and in rented accomodation?

See my post above (and where did I say anything about the health service?????)

StevieJ

!!!!!! Talk me through this one!
However, even if people switch their mortgages to IO it means a shortfall in the banks income - which will also have to be funded by taxpayers.

Really2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

The point is, that no matter what way things go it's the taxpayer and eventually savers who will bail out those who took on reckless amount of mortgage debt.

.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

What a load of tosh !!!!!! it will be the taxpayers who pay, the tax payer is also bailing out saver like me "Icesave" bank nationalisation not done for the mortgage holders you fruit.
The savers get interest off debt.
Get off your high horse again!

As for the NHS it is a social service cortibuted for via tax.
Just like the payment of IO part of a mortgage is.

pickles110564

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Dole isn't charity. It's a benefit arising from the fact that you pay taxes when you are in work.

Rubbish there are loads of Northerners that have never done a days work in their life, that is why i use the same phrase as them, they think DOLE is their wages.

Really2

pickles110564 wrote: »

Rubbish there are loads of Northerners that have never done a days work in their life, that is why i use the same phrase as them, they think DOLE is their wages.

Oh dear, no one from the south, just all up north.:rolleyes:

If you said that about a persons colour that would be racism! Anything else you want to tell us.:rolleyes:

WTF?_2

Really2 wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl:

What a load of tosh !!!!!! it will be the taxpayers who pay the tax payer is also bailing out saver like me "Icesave" bank nationalisation not done for the mortgage holders you fruit.

Try and keep it civil please.

The savers get interest off debt.

Inflation will erode savings as well as debt. It disadvantages savers to bail out debtors.

Get off your high horse again!

I considered taking on a reckless amount of debt to buy a house almost 2 years back and concluded it was a bad idea.

I've saved lots of money, putting it in NS&I and the banking system thus enabling the banks to operate their lending and providing direct funding for the government's borrowing activities.

I've been urging other people of the dangers of borrowing to buy an overpriced house ever since I did the sums myself.

Meanwhile, lots of people have just went out and borrowed absolutely stupid amounts of money that meant they were always going to have problems if things changed in the economy over the 20/25 year course of their mortgage.

Now, I'm going to be soaked even more than otherwise to bail them out. Either through government intervention in the banking system or vastly increased load on the welfare budget through support of overblown mortgages.


So, if you consider me to be on a high horse then I would consider that I have every right to be there. Clearly that annoys you, too bad.

As for the NHS it is a social service cortibuted for via tax.
Just like the payment of IO part of a mortgage is.

So you just thought you'd conflate the two issues and maybe score a few points?
(I'm fully behind the NHS by the way before you start to go on with "ANSWER THE QUESTION")

I don't however have a lot of time for people who abuse their bodies and then place strain on the system as a result. e.g. Heavy alcohol consumers who as a result require organ transplants or treatments sucking money that could have went to people who just happened to suffer an arbitrary illness.

Same goes for the debt junkies who end up falling back on the good old welfare state.

Really2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Try and keep it civil please.



Inflation will erode savings as well as debt. It disadvantages savers to bail out debtors.



I considered taking on a reckless amount of debt to buy a house almost 2 years back and concluded it was a bad idea.

I've saved lots of money, putting it in NS&I and the banking system thus enabling the banks to operate their lending and providing direct funding for the government's borrowing activities.

I've been urging other people of the dangers of borrowing to buy an overpriced house ever since I did the sums myself.

Meanwhile, lots of people have just went out and borrowed absolutely stupid amounts of money that meant they were always going to have problems if things changed in the economy over the 20/25 year course of their mortgage.

Now, I'm going to be soaked even more than otherwise to bail them out. Either through government intervention in the banking system or vastly increased load on the welfare budget through support of overblown mortgages.


So, if you consider me to be on a high horse then I would consider that I have every right to be there.




So you just thought you'd conflate the two issues and maybe score a few points?
(I'm fully behind the NHS by the way before you start to go on with "ANSWER THE QUESTION")

I don't however have a lot of time for people who abuse their bodies and then place strain on the system as a result. e.g. Heavy alcohol consumers who as a result require organ transplants or treatments sucking money that could have went to people who just happened to suffer an arbitrary illness.

Same goes for the debt junkies who end up falling back on the good old welfare state.

Sorry could not be bothered after your first comment.

How are you BTL veiwings going.

WTF?_2

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry could not be bothered after your first comment.

How are you BTL veiwings going.

A perfect example of the behaviour of the little clique of 'anti-bears' here.

You write an insulting post.

I take the time to compose a reasoned reply, despite your rudeness.

You don't address any of the points I made and just fire off another jibe.

Good going, champ.

Really2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

A perfect example of the behaviour of the little clique of 'anti-bears' here.

You write an insulting post.

I take the time to compose a reasoned reply, despite your rudeness.

You don't address any of the points I made and just fire off another jibe.

Good going, champ.

The differnce is !!!!!! i do not try to hold a Moral High ground over you.

But you as a "saver" will rescue the world and pay for everyones mess.

Sorry !!!!!! that irritates me.

Thats why i made a light dig then decided not to read your response as you fail to see what gives you the right to pour scourn on people for having a house.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

The point is, that no matter what way things go it's the taxpayer and eventually savers who will bail out those who took on reckless amount of mortgage debt.

Sadly, the axe will fall equally on both the "reckless" and the cautious in terms of redundany. TBH I know folks with very large mortgages, interest only (they get big bonuses) and they will almost certainly be fine. Truly, they are life's winners. The person who has been cautious with their mortgage multiples and those who rent are just as vunerable to redundancy. It just depends what industry you are in.

Going back to health analogy. Hospitals are full of fit and unfit people. Some smoke, drink, take drugs, don't exercise, over eat - however, some exercise loads, never smoked in their life, never drank,etc. Sometimes life just throws you are curved ball.

It's pointless looking for villains in all this IMHO.