Cheer me up

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

So 100% mortgages are presumably an even better thing, right?

And 125% mortgages? Wow, they must be sooo good.

Do you think there could possibly be anything missing from this happy scenario of endless options available to happy consumers?

My first property was bought on a 100% mortgage.
Despite this I seem to have faired very well.

I could have delayed and waited until I had a higher deposit (my savings at the time went on solicitor fees and rennovating the property, clearing student debt etc), but then I might have been priced out of the market.

A year ago, I spent a couple of thousand pounds on some bedroom furniture, new mattresses etc, I had the savings to pay outright but was offered a loan for the full amount (100%) on 0% interest.
I therefore took up the option and retained the savings in a seperate account to pay off the loan but still benefit from earning the interest on the money.

Certainly, 100% is not necessarily a bad thing.
The option is there for the buyer and it is up to them if it is an option they wish to choose.

Indeed there are many 100% loan options available, should they all be removed from society? If not, why so different with house prices?

I do not agree with 125% loans, personally this is putting you immediately into negative equity, therefore is not for me. Upon consideration though, if the terms of the loan are found to be affordable to the person and acceptable to the lender (in terms of risk) then again should they be banished as an option. this extra amount could be required to replace kitchen / bathrooms and having the extra loan on the mortgage could be preferential to obtaining a higher interest home improvement loan.

Of course I believe it is always better to not over indebt yourself but I firmly believe this is up to the adult and his responsible acceptance.

Choice is not necessarily a bad thing and options should not be restricted to those who are responsible because a minority might not be.

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Choice is not necessarily a bad thing and options should not be restricted to those who are responsible because a minority might not be.

I agree with the first part - but this sentence is where we part ways.

I think you do need to protect everyone against the foolishness of the minority - because everyone, including the non-foolish, suffer as a result of their actions.

If it was just them - they get repossessed, learn their lesson and end of story, then maybe (though I think you can put up a pretty good argument that people ought to be protected against the results of their own stupidity/greed).

But the reality is that though I never bought a house, let alone in America, the whole world is paying for the global bailout of the banking system, caused by exactly this type of thing. Yes, the majority were sensible. But the minority was large enough and reckless enough that it wrecked our whole financial system.

And I don't think that should be allowed to happen again.

carolt

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

That's why I wrote it down because I couldn't believe that anyone would write such a thing. Nor that anyone would thank such a post.

Toodle pip

You're mad.

Harry_Powell

carolt, my commiserations for the weirdos who seem to dog your steps on this forum :rolleyes:.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Thanks generali, I rally do now understand the rule better.

I thought in all offside decisions the attacker had to be gaining an advantage from being in the offside position and now I understand this is only one of the three factors.

In my example, the attacker is simply interfearing with play when he was offside at the time the ball was played, regardless of when he interefeared he was back in an onside position

Yes. The decision in this case comes from being in an offside position when the ball is played.

Van Nistlerooy is good at playing the offside rule - he'll stand in an offside position when the ball is played to a team mate and then allow the team mate to run in front of him and then receive the ball from his team mate
no longer in an offside position as he is now behind the ball. It's very clever as it gives the defender no chance.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I once (without qualification) agreed to help out by refereeing a very young team (I think they were under 7's). It was really hard to make some simple decisions at the split moment, so I do have simpathy for ref's.

Remember the Mun Utd v City extra time debate, where Owen scored the winner and Hughes was questioning how much time was added on. that was just nonsense.

Referee's are there as you say to officitae as best they can the rules of the game.
Their decision should be final.
I'd be far more happier clamping down on cheats (divers etc) such that the game can be officiated easier.
If the officials reviewed footage (where available) and hit these people with subsequent red cards leading to missing games, then the clubs and managers would be forced to make the cheaters play fairly.

TBH I don't think there is a way to stamp the diving and cheating out of the game.

The managers love to complain and the papers love to print the complaints as it gives them some 'controversy'.

What annoys me is seeing Man Utd (and other) players running 80yds down the pitch to scream in the face of the referee and for them not to be cautioned. It's even worse when they do it to an AR as the AR can't defend himself as he can't give a card. It would be easy to stamp out dissent as it is very easy to spot.

What we were told was if someone starts moaning behind you, you say something like, "It's just as well I didn't hear that because you have to be cautioned for swearing at an official". If someone swears or shouts directly at you it's a straight yellow or red, no warnings. If someone swears at your AR it's a straight red. If we don't protect the ARs the FFA will be on our case.

Afriend_2

Football is just men being paid a fortune to kick a ball around, act like spoilt brats and never grow up.
Hope that's cheered everyone up.

Generali

Afriend wrote: »

Football is just men being paid a fortune to kick a ball around, act like spoilt brats and never grown up.
Hope that's cheered everyone up.

Including the amateur game?

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

I agree with the first part - but this sentence is where we part ways.

I think you do need to protect everyone against the foolishness of the minority - because everyone, including the non-foolish, suffer as a result of their actions.

If it was just them - they get repossessed, learn their lesson and end of story, then maybe (though I think you can put up a pretty good argument that people ought to be protected against the results of their own stupidity/greed).

But the reality is that though I never bought a house, let alone in America, the whole world is paying for the global bailout of the banking system, caused by exactly this type of thing. Yes, the majority were sensible. But the minority was large enough and reckless enough that it wrecked our whole financial system.

And I don't think that should be allowed to happen again.

The things is, maybe the correct path would be to allow the options and allow the failures to happen.

By restricting the options, you are punishing the responsible.

Bit like putting the whole class on detention because 1 or 2 are disruptive, not fair really is it

If I recall correctly, you were very for socialism, yet this view of yours contradicts that in my opinion.
To clarify, every working person pays income tax which is then utilised on a number of things.
It goes towards education, yet some earners don't have children.
It goes towards healthcare, yet some may never need to go to the hospital.
It goes towards welfare, yet some may never be out of work or disabled.
Etc Etc Etc

My point being is that we elect the government and they make decisions on how much and where our taxes are utilised. We may not utilise or agree with the things they spend it on but as a society we still need to contribute.

Afriend_2

Generali wrote: »

Including the amateur game?

The amateur game is fine. I sometimes catch a bit while 'chillaxin' (mewbism) in Reigate Priory Pavillion.
It's the professional, win at all cost brats that I'm not fond of.

WISHIWASRICH_2

Harry_Powell wrote: »

carolt, my commiserations for the weirdos who seem to dog your steps on this forum :rolleyes:.

Ha Ha - very rich coming from MSEs biggest weirdo:T Though carolT and her many personas are coming a close 2nd I'll give you that.