Government to offer loans to buy cars

mower5

hearts wrote: »

This has nothing to do with Socialism.
Labour are not the Labour of old, they are a near centre party as are the Conservatives. We have a choice of 2 and neither is much different.

Do you honestly believe that had the other party been in government during these times, we would be anywhere other than where we are now? Do you honestly believe that should they win the next election they will be any more capable of getting us out of this situation?

I do think a tory win at the next election would help. The present bunch are worn out after 11 years of power dominated by Gordon "the roadblock to change" Brown. A fresh and new approach is desperately needed.

mramra

mizzbiz wrote: »

Well, I saved up £1k to buy a car that has lasted me five years and is still going strong. What is wrong with people buying what they can afford? If a luxury industry can only survive by lending people the money to buy their goods, and even WORSE, they can only survive by the government giving them taxpayers money to lend so that they can lend it to buy new cars, then that industry is a dead duck.

Lending on cars has helped keep new car prices over-inflated, and kept the price of second hand cars high. I don't think a little downward price pressure on the industry is a bad thing at all.

So answer my earlier question, does this include a mizzbiz ban on borrowing to buy houses? After all we could all go and live in a cave.

WTF?_2

StevieJ wrote: »

The analogy is getting the patient fit and well, easy easy chatchy monkey.

The issue here is that Gordon Brown's solution to the problem that our 'miracle economy' has gone up in smoke is to desperately try to restore 2007 levels of borrowing and consumption again.

He's completely missed out the slight problem that this abundance of credit upon which he apparently still sees prosperity being based was completely unsustainable, based as it was on a load of 'new financial instruments' that turned out to be a crock of crap.

Therefore solving the problem that the credit has dried up kind of involves figuring out how to deal with that reality and restore a sustainable (pre bubble) amount of lending, not to magically 'bring back 2007' by any and all means possible.

geoffky

i agree why should people not have to save up to buy a car.. i have done it lots and lots of others have to do it so why do the needy greedy not want to save up...because they are debt bloated pigs.. simple really:rotfl::rotfl: hey they might have to lower the price on them to get rid....or is that illegal

mramra

geoffky wrote: »

i agree why should people not have to save up to buy a car.. i have done it lots and lots of others have to do it so why do the needy greedy not want to save up...because they are debt bloated pigs.. simple really:rotfl::rotfl:

Surely it's a choice we as individuals make. If someone chooses to borrow money and can afford the repayments, in the knowledge they will pay interest and the car ultimately costs them more, why should we ban people from doing so? The next person chooses to save and buy cash in a few years, again personal choice.

The important point is that borrowers should be responsible and lenders should lend responsibly. The problem is/was uncontrolled borrowing and lending. The solution is not to unilaterally ban all borrowing.

mizzbiz

mramra wrote: »

So answer my earlier question, does this include a mizzbiz ban on borrowing to buy houses? After all we could all go and live in a cave.

Who mentioned a ban on borrowing for houses? Mortgages have been around for over a thousand years and form part of the basis of property law.

Borrowing to buy consumer goods is a relatively new and narcissistic trend that is not essential. You can save up to buy a car, you can't save up to buy a house. But in fact, NO, you shouldn't be able to borrow on a house, a car or a new clinique make-up set if you can't afford it.

BTW, why would we live in caves. There's millions of houses already built we could live in

mizzbiz

mramra wrote: »

Surely it's a choice we as individuals make. If someone chooses to borrow money and can afford the repayments, in the knowledge they will pay interest and the car ultimately costs them more, why should we ban people from doing so? The next person chooses to save and buy cash in a few years, again personal choice.

The important point is that borrowers should be responsible and lenders should lend responsibly. The problem is/was uncontrolled borrowing and lending. The solution is not to unilaterally ban all borrowing.

How is the taxpayer paying for the government lending to finance companies to lend to consumers for over priced cars 'responsible lending'.

If 'responsible lending' was even a notional thingm, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the government having to bail out car companies with finance!

mramra

mizzbiz wrote: »

Who mentioned a ban on borrowing for houses? Mortgages have been around for over a thousand years and form part of the basis of property law.

Borrowing to buy consumer goods is a relatively new and narcissistic trend that is not essential. You can save up to buy a car, you can't save up to buy a house. But in fact, NO, you shouldn't be able to borrow on a house, a car or a new clinique make-up set if you can't afford it.

BTW, why would we live in caves. There's millions of houses already built we could live in

I think we agree on that (the bold bit). As I stated in earlier posts, irresponsible borrowing is a problem.

But to me, informed, responsible borrowing based on affordability and rational thinking is a personal choice. However, the problem is that many people borrow irresponsibly, using home equity etc. I agree that in many cases this is a bad thing.

mramra

mizzbiz wrote: »

How is the taxpayer paying for the government lending to finance companies to lend to consumers for over priced cars 'responsible lending'.

If 'responsible lending' was even a notional thingm, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the government having to bail out car companies with finance!

That is another issue, let's not get confused. I responded to your inflammatory post stating that no-one should ever borrow to buy a car, and have argued against this point, giving a personal example.

I happen to disagree with the government's plans to lend taxpayers' money for the purchase of cars.

geoffky

mramra wrote: »

Surely it's a choice we as individuals make. If someone chooses to borrow money and can afford the repayments, in the knowledge they will pay interest and the car ultimately costs them more, why should we ban people from doing so? The next person chooses to save and buy cash in a few years, again personal choice.

The important point is that borrowers should be responsible and lenders should lend responsibly. The problem is/was uncontrolled borrowing and lending. The solution is not to unilaterally ban all borrowing.

BUT this money is from all of us...the taxpayers money..did you not read the thread?