How millions are using credit cards to pay mortgages

AD9898_2

chucky wrote: »

banks are there to make profit for shareholders and not lose money.

it's probably makes financial sense for the bank not to repossess and keep the people in the property.

Quite true, although I believe inacting normal repossession rules would probably mean banks crystalizing their losses on loans, resulting in them going bust and having to be bailed out again, unfortunately we are not in a position to do that as a country, hence the continuation of low interest rates and banks only repo'ing in extreme circumstances.

While they can keep people in their homes, the banks can keep the plates spinning.

Really2

AD9898 wrote: »

Quite true, although I believe inacting normal repossession rules would probably mean banks crystalizing their losses on loans, resulting in them going bust and having to be bailed out again, unfortunately we are not in a position to do that as a country, hence the continuation of low interest rates and banks only repo'ing in extreme circumstances.

While they can keep people in their homes, the banks can keep the plates spinning.

Personally I thinks the governments motive for keeping people in homes is not to save the banks. (Low IR is to help the banks and economy I agree wit that)

It is because the government know it is going to be staggeringly cheaper to do that then rehousing them and paying housing benefit.

It is not something I disagree with TBH
a) I want savings where we can make them on government spending.
b) if it is temporary (job loss) it is the best all round in the current market banks don't foreclose to soon. While it is cheaper to keep them housed in their own home why not do it and hope they can take on the liability again. (by getting a job)
c) if it becomes permanent (after 2 years) nature takes it's cause anyway.

It is not really rewarding those that take risks, it is in reality giving similar access to benefit non-home owners have.
Society would be vastly unfair paying someones rent if they lost there job, but if you lose a job as an owner you get no support.

Both pay (paid) taxes so get similar support, the other option would be support neither IMHO.

AD9898_2

Really2 wrote: »

Personally I thinks the governments motive for keeping people in homes is not to save the banks. (Low IR is to help the banks and economy I agree wit that)

It is because the government know it is going to be staggeringly cheaper to do that then rehousing them and paying housing benefit.

It is not something I disagree with TBH
a) I want savings where we can make them on government spending.
b) if it is temporary (job loss) it is the best all round in the current market banks don't foreclose to soon. While it is cheaper to keep them housed in their own home why not do it and hope they can take on the liability again. (by getting a job)
c) if it becomes permanent (after 2 years) nature takes it's cause anyway.

It is not really rewarding those that take risks, it is in reality giving similar access to benefit non-home owners have.
Society would be vastly unfair paying someones rent if they lost there job, but if you lose a job as an owner you get no support.

Both pay (paid) taxes so get similar support, the other option would be support neither IMHO.

Probably so, but all this just shows that house prices are too high and letting them get so high by ignoring policies that could have stopped it was a mistake.

The only difference of opinion really is what we do about it. Of course its understandable that BTL'rs and people who bought at or near peak don't want prices to fall now, but we have a problem and it has to be sorted somehow.

The issue is the hole is now so deep which whatever happens there is going to be pain for someone, our current situation is not sustainable over the long term though.

Really2

AD9898 wrote: »

Probably so, but all this just shows that house prices are too high and letting them get so high by ignoring policies that could have stopped it was a mistake.

The only difference of opinion really is what we do about it. Of course its understandable that BTL'rs and people who bought at or near peak don't want prices to fall now, but we have a problem and it has to be sorted somehow.

The issue is the hole is now so deep which whatever happens there is going to be pain for someone, our current situation is not sustainable over the long term though.

Nominal stagnation and real term falls, I am sure it felt the same in the early 90's.

RenovationMan

AD9898 wrote: »

Come now Treliac, don't be mean and let the truth and common sense come between a VI and his post.

To be fair, there are VI's on both sides and, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I do love the extreme views expressed in here. I really enjoy macaque's (my favourite poster) 70% wind ups of the bulls and also your Peak Oil armageddon posts. Brilliant fun.

AD9898_2

Really2 wrote: »

Nominal stagnation and real term falls, I am sure it felt the same in the early 90's.

The problem is inflation is squeezing people's income and it's not being matched by wage inflation, so there are no real term falls. Ironically money people saved on their mortgages when IR's dropped is now being mopped up by inflation in essentials, so even though IR's are static, most people are getting poorer.

I think this government and the last one thought they could beat the laws of economics, they can't but they can tread water for a while, the question is, how long ?

AD9898_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

To be fair, there are VI's on both sides and, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I do love the extreme views expressed in here. I really enjoy macaque's (my favourite poster) 70% wind ups of the bulls and also your Peak Oil armageddon posts. Brilliant fun.

You may want to think about how much fun it will be when you next fill up, watching the price click round. Armageddon ??, well maybe not but peak production passed over 2 years ago, we are on a plateau now that is likely to last around 4-5 years, after it's all downhill........ apart from the price you're going to pay at the pump that is, not much fun really.

If someone wants to come up with a credible argument (with facts of an alternative that can globally be scaled within a short time frame and not wishful thinking) that refutes this, I'm willing to debate.

nembot

Bank's aren't repossessing because the vast majority of recently purchased properties (during the last few years) are worth less than the money borrowed - excluding places such as London and the locale's of all of the Bull's here.

People who bought earlier aren't under anywhere near the same financial pressure.

RenovationMan

AD9898 wrote: »

You may want to think about how much fun it will be when you next fill up, watching the price click round. Armageddon ??, well maybe not but peak production passed over 2 years ago, we are on a plateau now that is likely to last around 4-5 years, after it's all downhill........ apart from the price you're going to pay at the pump that is, not much fun really.

If someone wants to come up with a credible argument (with facts of an alternative that can globally be scaled within a short time frame and not wishful thinking) that refutes this, I'm willing to debate.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we run out of oil the better. In one fell swoop we will be well rid of globalised islamic fundamentalism (when the arab paymasters no longer have any money to fund these groups, they will return to a local level of terrorism in their own countries), we will also see a move towards cleaner technologies and we will also, more importantly see a return to having communities where families live near to where Mum & Dad work and so work mates are your local friends and neighbours (imagine that, actually knowing your neighbours!), where kids go to the local school and play with their school mates in the streets (imagine that, children playing together outside without electronic gadgets), we will see more people walking and bicycling, more people buying locally sourced produce on the high street instead of driving to vast out of town supermarkets and retail parks.

While you may think its going to be armageddon, but I know that we have already seen the future because its part of our, very near, past. In the 1940s and 50s we had less reliance on oil and gas, the cars weren't clogging up the streets and people were fitter and thinner and healthier and kids didnt laze about in central heated homes playing on computer games.

I dont believe that we are close to peak oil, but even if we were, it holds no fears for me. I live in a farm house and we're cultivating a kitchen garden, we walk to the local village and shop in the high street. Our car can sit unused on the drive for days, sometimes weeks at a time. Our brand new heating/hot water system uses a Heat Bank, which is currently heated from our wood burning stove (which has a large hot plate for cooking on) and natural gas (efficient condensing boiler) but can be heated from solar water heating panels and from a ground sourced heat pump. I'm in the process of replacing all our flourescent lighting with LEDs and our white goods with A or A+ rates appliances. Hopefully next year I'll be fitting a rainwater harvesting system to flush our toilets and for our washing machine and I'm half way through fitting a whole house heat recovery ventilation system. Finally, we are also insulating our roof, walls and floor/ceiling cavities with PUR and multi-foil products

I'm all prepared (or soon will be), even though I dont believe in peak oil. I would be interested if you 'Peakers' are as prepared as some of us 'norms' that your trying to fill with fear?

AD9898_2

Armageddon is you're word not mine, preparation wise, only mental acceptance of change is all that's required. Not believing that something that is very finite and all of the worlds economies are built on is not going to be too expensive to use when the cost of extraction exceeds it's worth is a strange and illogical position to take, I guess it takes all sorts though.