for those who want the base rate to rise

MegaMiniMouse

leveller2911 wrote: »

...with no repyment vehicle in place to pay off the mortgage?...

It was the banks who wrongly calculated that the value of the surety would never fall below the value of the debt

MMM

purch

nstead, it is a direct result of Amercan sub-prime debt being fraudulently repackaged into AAA securities and sold off around the world. !!!!less bankers failed to spot this American-fraud

I can't believe people still accept this propaganda.

just like the world failed to spot that the Americans did NOT land on the moon in 1969.

.......ah ha, that explains it !!!

leveller2911

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't know how many? not many would be my guess. BTW interest rate policy is set for the good of the country and to help recapitalise banks, nothing to do with mortgage holders.

So they're not "Leaned" on to keep them from rising rates which would create carnage with repo's?.

No of coarse not.......;)

So its fine to "recapitalise" banks or in plain English allow them to profiteer but heating Oil companies who made a packet are being investigated for profiteering....

Silly old me thinking its an elected Government that runs the country.

tara747

wolvoman wrote: »

When interest rates were in high single digits and even higher, borrowers were subsidising savers.

What goes around and all that.

Eh??? A borrower does not subsidise a saver. You want to borrow, you pay the going rate. Can't pay it? Then don't borrow. Taking on too much debt relative to your income? Then don't borrow. Self certing your income on the basis of unpredictable bonuses? Then... you deserve everything you get if it all comes crashing down.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Neither savers nor borrowers contributed to the mess that we are in to any significant extent.

Instead, it is a direct result of Amercan sub-prime debt being fraudulently repackaged into AAA securities and sold off around the world. !!!!less bankers failed to spot this American-fraud - just like the world failed to spot that the Americans did NOT land on the moon in 1969.

Divide and conquer. Set the public against each other and nobody will see the truth. Smoke and mirrors I'm afraid. Meanwhile, the thieving bankers and politicians continue with their pillaging of the Nation's wealth. If it was any other country, we'd send the troops in.

GG

Oh, that old chestnut - blame the Americans! I hear Gordon Brown talking. What about the UK govt, BOE and FSA who failed to regulate? They could have mitigated the impact of the US meltdown over here, they are each to blame in a massive way. As are the borrowers...

p.s. can we leave the moon landing conspiracy theories out of it please?

Blobby8_2

I'm unemployed but not entitled to benefits, the sooner rates go up & house prices fall I can buy another property to rent out.

diable

Tax savers and make them spend their money instead of hoarding it to make life easier for borrowers.............. ;o))))

ViolaLass

Banks have always offered accounts paying 0.1%, in good and bad times. Anyone earning 0.1%, even now, has only themselves to blame.

wolvoman

tara747 wrote: »

Eh??? A borrower does not subsidise a saver. You want to borrow, you pay the going rate. Can't pay it? Then don't borrow. Taking on too much debt relative to your income? Then don't borrow. Self certing your income on the basis of unpredictable bonuses? Then... you deserve everything you get if it all comes crashing down.

You state that if you want to borrow then you pay the going rate. Sure, I accept that.

But surely as a saver you should also earn the going rate? Do you agree?

I have some savings myself, and as a result of very low IRs decided to buy shares of high yielding companies and am making 6%+ on my savings now.
It's a free market - you can put your money wherever you want.

tara747

diable wrote: »

Tax savers and make them spend their money instead of hoarding it to make life easier for borrowers.............. ;o))))

Savers are alreday taxed, or didn't you know that? Or maybe you'd like us taxed more? Yes, what a marvellous idea. Tell you what, let's all go and withdraw ALL our money from the banks tomorrow and spend it all within a week. Then what?

ViolaLass wrote: »

Banks have always offered accounts paying 0.1%, in good and bad times. Anyone earning 0.1%, even now, has only themselves to blame.

Well, I agree. It's very annoying that even the best rates are so low, though.

wolvoman wrote: »

You state that if you want to borrow then you pay the going rate. Sure, I accept that.

But surely as a saver you should also earn the going rate? Do you agree?

I have some savings myself, and as a result of very low IRs decided to buy shares of high yielding companies and am making 6%+ on my savings now.
It's a free market - you can put your money wherever you want.

Yes, I agree. But I think that the going rate should be fairer. Considering that the banks *need* our money.

I am aware that I have other savings and investment options but, as my money is for a house deposit, I can't lock it away for a long time. Anyway, yu'd have to offer me more than 6% to make the risk worthwhile. 'High yielding' indeed...

gravitytolls

I don't want to see rates rise ~ I know too many who are relying on the reduced rates to make ends meet whilst work is waning and they've had to cut prices to get the work, yet outgoings are rising constantly (fuel etc.).

Sorry savers, it doesn't affect me either way personally, as we have no mortgage, but no savings either, but I'd be happier for rates to rise when the economy is really recovering than now, as I fear it could tip many over the edge.