hy doesn't the govt help out by introducing a law whereby all existing consumer debts

The_White_Horse

will have 0% interest for a 2 year period (irrespctive of any other agreements, fixed periods etc)

this will allow a load of debt to be cleared up. and make us much stronger.

mbga9pgf

Because banks are relying on profit from debt to restore their balance sheets. They would effectively make a large loss due to operating costs, as well as the fact that markets are priced off LIBOR and not the base rate.

The_White_Horse

who cares about banks

they were bailed out by the people, and now they owe the people.

IveSeenTheLight

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Because banks are relying on profit from debt to restore their balance sheets. They would effectively make a large loss due to operating costs, as well as the fact that markets are priced off LIBOR and not the base rate.

Also people tend not to pay 0% debt as they are not being subjected to an increasing debt.

I for one am concentrating in clearing off the debt as soon as I can while the rates are low.
My ability to overpay would be less as the interest rate increases.

Dithering_Dad

The_White_Horse wrote: »

who cares about banks

they were bailed out by the people, and now they owe the people.

Yes, and the best way for them to pay back what they owe us is to charge people for using their credit facilities.

Why should my tax money be spend in allowing people to buy crap? I have zero debt on my two credit cards and I have no loans. Why should I therefore foot the bill to give an easy ride to spendthrifts?

ad9898_3

The_White_Horse wrote: »

will have 0% interest for a 2 year period (irrespctive of any other agreements, fixed periods etc)

this will allow a load of debt to be cleared up. and make us much stronger.

This a joke, yeh. I agree with DD.

dallas123

Now come on that's not fair - I'm 29 years old and have lived on my own for 11 years. Much of my debt has been trying to keep a car on the road and a roof over my head - I don't go on foreign holidays or buy luxury items but I do pay my debts and my credit score is impeccable. You can't tar everyone with the frivilous attitude some debtors adopted.

Dithering_Dad

dallas123 wrote: »

Now come on that's not fair - I'm 29 years old and have lived on my own for 11 years. Much of my debt has been trying to keep a car on the road and a roof over my head - I don't go on foreign holidays or buy luxury items but I do pay my debts and my credit score is impeccable. You can't tar everyone with the frivilous attitude some debtors adopted.

Perhaps you should have bought a more reliable car, rented a cheaper place or increased your income with a better paying job (or a second job at a bar).

This would then have allowed you to live within your means.

tesuhoha

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Perhaps you should have bought a more reliable car, rented a cheaper place or increased your income with a better paying job (or a second job at a bar).

This would then have allowed you to live within your means.

Let me say first that I don't agree with the 0% idea. However, I really loathe the 'You shouldn't have been so foolish, so tough. Ive been clever with my money so I'm smarter than you.' curt dismissive attitude which is prevalent on this board. People make mistakes, people have bad luck, people are inexperienced, and sometimes cheaper is not always possible. Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing

lostinrates

tesuhoha wrote: »

Let me say first that I don't agree with the 0% idea. However, I really loathe the 'You shouldn't have been so foolish, so tough. Ive been clever with my money so I'm smarter than you.' curt dismissive attitude which is prevalent on this board. People make mistakes, people have bad luck, people are inexperienced, and sometimes cheaper is not always possible. Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing

I do agree with your sentiment, but the point is that the poster gave know indication of having realised that debt accrued on housing and car was (possibly) an inexperienced mistake or bad luck. Indeed cheaper is sometimes impossible and has blighted many of the 29 year olds' generation (i too am one of them...for a little longer - just a couple of years though till I'll admit to 30) but cheaper was RELUCTANTLY available to a lot of us, though not all. Its only when we accept this bad luck/mistake/inexperience decision to continue to put these choices of necessity on CC we can move on (as individuals). Somewhere to live, and transport to work are necessity, no question, penthouse flats and big engined cars are not. I am well and truely there and shouting along with the common gripes of my generation, and am not picking on the poster -I note for example I don't know their choice of car/home- but I also agree with DD's point.

Dithering_Dad

tesuhoha wrote: »

Let me say first that I don't agree with the 0% idea. However, I really loathe the 'You shouldn't have been so foolish, so tough. Ive been clever with my money so I'm smarter than you.' curt dismissive attitude which is prevalent on this board. People make mistakes, people have bad luck, people are inexperienced, and sometimes cheaper is not always possible. Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing

Where have I said any of those things?