If house prices fall another 37% ...

Dan:_4

lostinrates wrote: »

IMO, no, nor is mortaging wrong, but dicing near the edge of unaffordabilty of debt srvicing, while possibly filing to prepare in finncial provision for the future too....its the overall picture, thesed are all just pieces in it.

Agreed. However. while millions of people have some sort of debt - not everyone is in it up to their eyeballs.

Dan:_4

carolt wrote: »

Some of them MEWed and some of them didn't.

most didn't.

Dan:_4

mewbie wrote: »

well I am called mewbie, not loanbie. That's why I'm trying to wind bulls up on the HP forum, not in the debt free wannabees.

loanbie :rotfl: that would make a great sockpuppet!

lostinrates

Dan: wrote: »

Agreed. However. while millions of people have some sort of debt - not everyone is in it up to their eyeballs.

Absolutely, but a sizable minority ARE struggling with this right now.

And Imight be abou to be one of them :rotfl:

carolt

whathavewedone wrote: »

Nonsense. Did you not see those ads about "what about your inheritance?" "Life's for living mum, I said".

Loads of oldies spunked all their equity on cruises etc. Why shouldn't they, especially the ones that didn't have kids (or had kids that only bothered to visit twice a year under sufferance). You can't take it with you after all.

I agree - no reason why they shouldn't.

I think there's a difference between people using up the equity in their homes in that way - when the equity gets taken after death - to MEWing when you're young. In the former, it no longer matters; in the second case, it can matter a lot if you end up homeless as a result.

carolt

Dan: wrote: »

most didn't.

May well be true.

Enough did, though.

Dithering_Dad

carolt wrote: »

I'm glad you have them.

What happened to my being on 'ignore'?

Seriously, DD - you could be genuinely liked - you don't need to try and pick fights.

There is another way.

Someone PMed me and told me "carolt is spoiling for a fight again, DD." and supplied a link to your post. You should apply your sentence to yourself carolt, you're the only one here [who seems to be] trying to pick a fight.

Why not leave it alone now carolt, for the good of the board?

System

mewbie wrote: »

Let me labour the point a little bit longer.

Ten years ago, typical street had a variety of builder's vans, and old cars. Not old Audi's - old Renault's, Mondeo's, Rover's. Actually a Mondeo would be flash.

Move forward ten years and there are, admittedly mainly secondhand, but not all, Golf's, 4 x 4's, those truck things, BMW M3's.

Now people did not become that much better off, except through borrowing. This is my viewpoint though, so carry on and ignore me.

Cars are a lot cheaper nowadays, a Mondeo WAS flash and they were stupidly expensive, as were Rovers. I was driving a Rover 420 a few years back, I paid £1200 for it at 6 years old and it was £18000 new, so anyone who owned it then was certainly flush. Even new cars have better deals.

Nowadays you can pick up a decent Audi ever so cheap, especially A4's. Of all the people I know with posh cars none of them have financed them through mewing.

And please, mewing to buy a TV?

whathavewedone

I know, imagine going through all that hoo ha, paying the arrangement fee, waiting for all the paperwork to go through etc just to get a telly. Back in 1999/early 2000 I was doing my training as a lawyer and spent some time doing conveyancing including remortgaging. It takes a few months to go through and there is a fee even if the mortgage company pays the legal fees which is fairly common.

Why would you do that for a telly when you could buy it on a credit card?

By the far the most common reason for mewing was to fund extensions and loft conversions which would in the long run add value to a home and make it a better place to live in meantime.

ukcarper

I think some people mewed to consolidate loans. But what is the real difference between mewing and taking out normal credit longer term at a lower rate it's still borrowing.