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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
This was ranted at me last week.."Its ok for you, you don't have a mortgage"
Comments
-
-
twadge_face wrote: »Oh really?
Sorry, I thought that's what the bank bail outs, tax cuts and service cuts were all about...
Err, they're not.
Tax cuts?0 -
Well the latter does put the needs of the wealthy above the needs of the less well-off.Very selective analysis too. Save for a pension = virtue. Use BTL for a pension = spawn of devil.
Believe it or not, some (most?) people aren't so knowledgeable regarding where their pension funds are invested and are naive of the ethical concerns about certain corporate bonds e.g. Tobacco, fossil fuels, big pharma etc.Save for a pension and your fund invests in residential property? Attitude Unknown.
Interestingly the topic does get muddied when the financial services industry is trying to flog products that promise big returns xx years in the future. It's hardly in financial advisor's interest to go, "Yeah you're gonna have a HUGE and virtually RISK-FREE pension pot... the only tiny downside is that you'll be helping 10 year old kids to get hooked on tabs in third world countries thus reducing their lifespan to, ooooh, shall we say mid-forties?"
Oftentimes a parent won't want to leave their home to live in one of "God's Waiting Rooms" (my own grandmother an example here). Oftentimes the kids don't want to subject their parents to the misery of an uncaring care home and dubious care staff. Perhaps I've just had bad experiences, but just saying, like.Sell mum's house to pay for care? Attitude unknown (for the avoidance of doubt this is what I'm doing if and when the time comes, my children are well aware of that and I leave them to make their own way in life and set their own financial priorities).
I love the way you justify your stance by filling in gaps in the story with made-up stuff which - like magic! - perfectly supports your side of a non-existent argument.But as a demonstration of self righteous hubris you'd have a job beating it. I can imagine Fox's sister gets a tad tired of being lectured to about what decent people do and her temper probably snapped. She's probably living within her means anyway, but using credit, like many people do. Nothing at all wrong with that, it's not what I do, but plenty of perfectly decent people I know do.
You've just got it in for this girl haven't you? Aren't you just scrumptious!
Long live the faces of t'wunty.0 -
-
twadge_face wrote: »Oh really?
Sorry, I thought that's what the bank bail outs, tax RISES and service cuts were all about...
No, they are what happens if you spend more on public services than come in in tax revenue and borrow to make up the shortfall.
Defaults on mortgages and other lending in the UK had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis.0 -
twadge_face wrote: »Well the latter does put the needs of the wealthy above the needs of the less well-off.
OK, so what is unethical about providing someone with a place to live? It's a small business just like any other, and the fact is it's not distorted house prices to any great degree. You may not like that, but all the evidence points that way. Most BTL landlords are decent people providing for themselves and their family, which is just what Fox appears to want. Only when the investment doesn't happen to be one she approves of, she throws a hissy fit and it suddenly becomes the most evil thing in the world. It's not very consistent.
The OP is asking us to assume all sorts of things about her sister to support her self righteous view of the world. So it's hardly wrong to make a few assumptions of my own, is it? Live and let live and judge not lest yourself be judged and all that.0 -
Why are you telling her what she should be doing?
She's an adult with her own life and it's her choice whether she helps with your Mum or not.Without any doubt!!
And more so when you have a Mum like mine, and considering along with my Dad they gave her her first deposit on her first house.
Sounds like some sibling jealousy creeping in here. :think:The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
societys_child wrote: »Thought I'd stumbled onto mums.net for a minute . .
No, just checked, it's definitely Debate House Prices & the Economy
Brrrrrr. Now there's a waking nightmare no one should have to endure. The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
I don't believe I suggested they were. Don't try to rewrite history like the rest of the daft bulls Julie.No, they are what happens if you spend more on public services than come in in tax revenue and borrow to make up the shortfall.
Defaults on mortgages and other lending in the UK had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis.
OK, so public spending was higher than tax revenue for years, but the deficit only skyrocketed as a result of the bank bailouts. Look what happened in 08-09 and 10-11 as result of Browns crazy save-the-[STRIKE]world[/STRIKE]bankers mission:
If the banks had been allowed to go under then the housing market would have been kaput along with the rest of the economy, just like if Mum had gone to Iceland! Bailed out banks mean the taxpayers have kept the housing market afloat.
But now we have to reduce the deficit. Whoopdedoo.
Also, the near-ZIRP has robbed savers of £millions to support the housing market, whilst the various mortgage rescue schemes were kept in place to stop the unemployed from lsoing their homes did precisely the same.
We was robbed. It is fair game to be a little peeved. Only the bankers really won with their socialised losses and privatised gaines.
Some of you bulls have really nasty odious attitudes towards those less well off (haha, in perception terms anyway) than yourselves. You clearly have a lot to lose, and even more to learn.Long live the faces of t'wunty.0 -
twadge_face wrote: »I don't believe I suggested they were. Don't try to rewrite history like the rest of the daft bulls Julie.
OK, so public spending was higher than tax revenue for years, but the deficit only skyrocketed as a result of the bank bailouts. Look what happened in 08-09 and 10-11 as result of Browns crazy save-the-[STRIKE]world[/STRIKE]bankers mission:
Any chance of a link to that graph, twadge_face?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards