We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Winter of Discontent...

2456789

Comments

  • FATBALLZ
    FATBALLZ Posts: 5,146 Forumite
    Who walks away?

    The bankrupt borrowers become bankrupt, the banks get billions!

    Like I said, the system is wrong, and the powerless are paying the price

    The bankrupt borrowers become bankrupt, so if somebody owes £100k suddenly they owe nothing and are a whole lot richer than they were. Of course all the people they owe money to are screwed as a result of their actions. Banks on the other hand are being made to pay back the money used to bail them out.
  • FATBALLZ wrote: »
    Banks on the other hand are being made to pay back the money used to bail them out.

    Are they? Tell me more...
  • olly300
    olly300 Posts: 14,738 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    TBH Stevie I don't understand a lot of it.

    When my daughter was born 5yrs ago we got the £250 from the child trust fund, invested it with the Co-op, today that £250 is worth £187........5 yrs on...

    We have a savings plan with the co-op for our son(£20 per month,endowment) ,runs for 18yrs but they no longer run them for less that £100 per month.

    Cash savings always return the worse interest rates but is the safest.
    I'm not cynical I'm realistic :p

    (If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    TBH Stevie I don't understand a lot of it.

    When my daughter was born 5yrs ago we got the £250 from the child trust fund, invested it with the Co-op, today that £250 is worth £187........5 yrs on...

    We have a savings plan with the co-op for our son(£20 per month,endowment) ,runs for 18yrs but they no longer run them for less that £100 per month.

    The thing about stock market investments is the longer they are invested the lower the risk (doesn't mean no risk), the risk of cash accounts is inflation, with RPI at 5% and returns of 0.5% you can see how the funds can be decimated.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    FATBALLZ wrote: »
    The bankrupt borrowers become bankrupt, so if somebody owes £100k suddenly they owe nothing and are a whole lot richer than they were. Of course all the people they owe money to are screwed as a result of their actions. Banks on the other hand are being made to pay back the money used to bail them out.

    Should have been more careful who they lent to, credit scoring I think they call it icon7.gif
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • leveller2911
    leveller2911 Posts: 8,061 Forumite
    edited 17 July 2010 at 8:42PM
    Are they? Tell me more...

    There are many,many threads on the subject, if you do a search it will stop the need to keep going over the same old ground..:D

    The big wigs at the Banks do indeed get away with it as will the BTL investor I mentioned in my previous post.

    Try looking at some of the SOA on the Bankrupt forum and see how regular post are saying how they take home £1800 per month from their jobs and yet those same people have £130k mortgages, £55k owed on credit cards and on top of that many have secured loans for £20k or more from buying cars on finance. These people generally go bankrupt, not just owing Banks money but also small businesses who can least afford it....

    These are not rare over there, you can see at least 1-2 on most days...........No-one is forced to borrow money so they should take responsibilty for their actions.......

    Over the past decade or so people have become too greedy, want it now and to hell with the future , with no thought of how they will pay the borrowing back........

    Personally I'm no financial whizz kid,working class,Comprehensive education but I did see this coming 5-6 yrs ago.I cut my cloth, have no debts whatso ever, work hard etc etc so you are right in that the inocents like myself are taking a bite of the sh1te sandwich which we didn't make or even chose the filling.........Thats life I guess..
  • Over the past decade or so people have become too greedy, want it now and to hell with the future , with no thought of how they will pay the borrowing back I guess...

    None more so than the banks...

    But the banks are still 'in charge', and making money, whilst their victims are losing their jobs and their homes
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    olly300 wrote: »
    Cash savings always return the worse interest rates but is the safest.

    Wrong! how can it be the safest if it is losing 4.5% per year? At least NS&I inflation adjusted tax free saving certificates are guaranteed to increase in value in real terms.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • dopester
    dopester Posts: 4,890 Forumite
    edited 17 July 2010 at 9:01PM
    None more so than the banks...

    But the banks are still 'in charge', and making money, whilst their victims are losing their jobs and their homes

    Not lost my money, am making money even on my savings even if the rates are low, and have not lost a home because I don't own one.

    I chose not to take a hefty mortgage commitment because I had many doubts and fears I could fulfil given the future is not always BOOM good times.

    In the majority of instances, your 'victims' could have similarly taken measures to limit their exposure to significant risk.

    No one asked them to take on dock-off mortgages. No one promised or guaranteed them good paying jobs for life with which to service their mortgage and other bills. Look to Gordon for answers if you felt house prices could never fall in value.

    Banks kept us their side of the deal and lent the money. Mortgage = death pledge. Now keep your commitment to pay what you owe.

    The real victims are the ones who chose not to borrow as your heroes borrowed themselves mad to buy over-valued property, pushing up prices year on year for all people who own part of that asset class. Further pricing out the sensible and cautious.
  • bigheadxx
    bigheadxx Posts: 3,047 Forumite

    Gordon Brown was infinitely less reckless/incompetent than the banks


    MMM

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/14/economy-gordonbrown

    It was Brown who ended meaningful banking regulation in 1997.
    It was Brown who claimed to have ended boom and bust.
    It was Brown who pumped up the public sector.
    It was Brown who created an over-inflated asset bubble.
    It was Brown who borrowed billions at the height of the boom.

    The banks were doing what they were allowed to do and the reason they were allowed to do it was because Brown needed the tax revenue to fund ever rising public spending.

    So people who say that this crisis would have been the same whoever was in power need to ask themselves one question. Would a different government have had committed so much money to public spending?

    If the answer is no then the crisis would have been infinitely less worse because the government would not have needed the tax revenue to spend and it would not have needed to borrow at the heght of the boom.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.