House prices by 2015

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And that answers your why not question.

Loads of people up and down the country are already saddled with debt and maxed out on it.

This fascinates me. Not because it's true - it isn't. But because it's interesting that the idea has spread and that people want to believe it.

I'm not surprised the idea of a shopping therapy fueled credit card maxed out underclass has become accepted truth, because it was a staple of consumer finance TV and newspaper articles for many years. But in reality most people deal with their finances perfectly well, so in effect the coverage is creating and sustaining a myth.

Ultimately when you get a media fuelled mythology, it's to feed an underlying desire for reassurance elsewhere. I see this as being in the mass of people who feel that life is slightly difficult. This group wants to see people who they would see as having fallen into the traps they have avoided as being punished for their excesses.

And that is why there is enormous indignation in the camp of the "virtuous" if for some reason - easier bankruptcy or mortgage interest benefit payments - those who have deviated (in their eyes) from the path of virtue and self sacrifice escape their just desserts. You can see that in the thread about mortgage interest benefit, where the level of venom was disproportionate to the cost of the scheme, and the remedy ultimately demanded was that people be forced out of their home to teach them a lesson about buying only what they can afford.

In many senses it's very Victorian. You can easily pick up books of cautionary tales from that period which reflect exactly the same attitudes. In the Victorian era though, moralism was about shaping society as a whole around specific moral precepts, and was about essentially "training" those transitioning from the working class trades into the nascent middle class, including the new industrialists.

Now, I would argue that it's much more about a sense of place in society, feeling superior to a particular group based not on wealth or privilege but on attitudes to debt. It's a crazy measure really, but what it does do is equalise the situation between (say) a middle class single income family for which spending just about stays north of income, and a chav couple living in a 5 bedroom glitzy house and all the trappings.

The only way you can feel good about that situation is to forsee doom and destruction to those you feel haven't earned the trappings of wealth that you can't afford. It's psychologically fascinating, and it does mark a very profound shift in the way our old class system is readjusting to an era where wealth is distributed differently. Instead of being based on birth and wealth, it's now based on attitudes to debt and perceptions of the virtue of spending versus saving.

Ultimately, the truth is that debt in this country is being repayed for the most part, including unsecured debt at very high rates of interest. Those who extend themselves run marginally higher risks than those who are more careful, given that a period of unemployment is risky for anyone whether indebted or prudent.

Thrugelmir

julieq wrote: »

This fascinates me. Not because it's true - it isn't. But because it's interesting that the idea has spread and that people want to believe it.

I'm not surprised the idea of a shopping therapy fueled credit card maxed out underclass has become accepted truth, because it was a staple of consumer finance TV and newspaper articles for many years. But in reality most people deal with their finances perfectly well, so in effect the coverage is creating and sustaining a myth.

Ultimately when you get a media fuelled mythology, it's to feed an underlying desire for reassurance elsewhere. I see this as being in the mass of people who feel that life is slightly difficult. This group wants to see people who they would see as having fallen into the traps they have avoided as being punished for their excesses.

And that is why there is enormous indignation in the camp of the "virtuous" if for some reason - easier bankruptcy or mortgage interest benefit payments - those who have deviated (in their eyes) from the path of virtue and self sacrifice escape their just desserts. You can see that in the thread about mortgage interest benefit, where the level of venom was disproportionate to the cost of the scheme, and the remedy ultimately demanded was that people be forced out of their home to teach them a lesson about buying only what they can afford.

In many senses it's very Victorian. You can easily pick up books of cautionary tales from that period which reflect exactly the same attitudes. In the Victorian era though, moralism was about shaping society as a whole around specific moral precepts, and was about essentially "training" those transitioning from the working class trades into the nascent middle class, including the new industrialists.

Now, I would argue that it's much more about a sense of place in society, feeling superior to a particular group based not on wealth or privilege but on attitudes to debt. It's a crazy measure really, but what it does do is equalise the situation between (say) a middle class single income family for which spending just about stays north of income, and a chav couple living in a 5 bedroom glitzy house and all the trappings.

The only way you can feel good about that situation is to forsee doom and destruction to those you feel haven't earned the trappings of wealth that you can't afford. It's psychologically fascinating, and it does mark a very profound shift in the way our old class system is readjusting to an era where wealth is distributed differently. Instead of being based on birth and wealth, it's now based on attitudes to debt and perceptions of the virtue of spending versus saving.

Ultimately, the truth is that debt in this country is being repayed for the most part, including unsecured debt at very high rates of interest. Those who extend themselves run marginally higher risks than those who are more careful, given that a period of unemployment is risky for anyone whether indebted or prudent.

There's a real world outside your castle.

Citizens Advice Bureau - Debt Related Enquiries

Debt 2008/9 -1,736,637 2009/10 1,926,723 +11%

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The average household in the UK has £58,000 of debt hanging over them.

Individuals owe more in debt than the entire country produced in 2010.

What are we not supposed to believe?

If we are talking averages that figure is not that frightening if it's a mortgage.

At 5% over 25 years that would be £343 a month average wage including part time is £26k take home £16,555.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

If we are talking averages that figure is not that frightening if it's a mortgage.

At 5% over 25 years that would be £343 a month average wage including part time is £26k take home £16,555.

So what do you think IS frightening?

2...3....10x the annual output of the entire country?

Every 5 mins, an individual is declared bankrupt in the country. What would be frightening to you? One person every 30 seconds?

Debt is still increasing too. Though were told everyone is paying down debt. That's not actually the case. Debt is growing slower than it was, but even unsecured debt is still growing, last month by £0.8bn.

I'm not sitting here in a tin foil hat. I'm just giving you the figures. You say they are not frightening....though I'd suggest "worrying" is a more apt word. So what would be worrying to you? At what point would you suggest this debt is something to start thinking about?

To put the figure into perspective, the same figure, household debt, in 2005 was £42,865.

A 35% rise in personal debt in just 6 years.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So what do you think IS frightening?

2...3....10x the annual output of the entire country?

Every 5 mins, an individual is declared bankrupt in the country. What would be frightening to you? One person every 30 seconds?

Debt is still increasing too. Though were told everyone is paying down debt. That's not actually the case. Debt is growing slower than it was, but even unsecured debt is still growing, last month by £0.8bn.

I'm not sitting here in a tin foil hat. I'm just giving you the figures. You say they are not frightening....though I'd suggest "worrying" is a more apt word. So what would be worrying to you? At what point would you suggest this debt is something to start thinking about?

I don’t think the level of dept is the issue it’s servicing that dept if you take a mortgage of 4x your wages I think most people would say that was ok.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I don’t think the level of dept is the issue it’s servicing that dept if you take a mortgage of 4x your wages I think most people would say that was ok.

Ok, lets look at servicing of debt.

Debt risen 35% in 6 years.

Have wages risen 35%?

If not, servicing of debt is getting harder. Unless you want to somehow explain this another way...

We've just had the biggest debt wake up call we could have had...yet it seems some people are still insistent that rising debt is indeed good.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

TWhat are we not supposed to believe?

good attitude. never say die, that's the spirit.

chucky

RenovationMan wrote: »

What I dont understand is when a potential FTB comes on here and says that houses are too expensive but when you scratch the surface many are looking to jump the traditional 1 or 2 bed apartment/house and buy a 3 bedder, even though they have no kids. Well, if that's their first house, no wonder it looks expensive! When I bought my first house, nice three beds were way out of my price range too!

What they seem to not understand is that if they are obsessed enough about buying a house to spend time on a housing forum, there must be a million other people outside the forum who are also obsessed, but are either buying traditional FTB properties as soon as they can afford it, or are 2nd time buyers moving to a 3 bed house. While a few wait and talk about the fundamentals in the economy that will cause houses to fall, their competitors for housing (most everyone else) are looking at houses and doing their level best to buy one.

it's the same each and every time.

from not being able to afford property, they can afford property and they don't buy because they want a 4 bedroom detached house.

it's so bad that any positive news that gets posted, they're very quick to jump on it trying to make up bad news on the thread or even derail the thread like Geneer and his buddy desperateprof do each and every time.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, lets look at servicing of debt.

Debt risen 35% in 6 years.

Have wages risen 35%?

If not, servicing of debt is getting harder. Unless you want to somehow explain this another way...

We've just had the biggest debt wake up call we could have had...yet it seems some people are still insistent that rising debt is indeed good.

The argument was we are struggling under a mountain of debt some people are but if someone on average earning with the average debt is not if it’s on a mortgage in fact I would say that if the had twice the average dept on mortgage they wouldn’t be struggling under a mountain of debt. Not all dept is bad if you are earning 30k and have a mortgage of £100k I would say that’s fine if you are earning £30 and have £30k outstanding on a credit card I would say that is not good.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The average household in the UK has £58,000 of debt hanging over them.

Individuals owe more in debt than the entire country produced in 2010.

What are we not supposed to believe?

Graham, that figure includes mortgages.

Now given that if they weren't paying their mortgage, they'd still have the same or indeed a greater expenditure on rent but for a lifetime not a fixed term, this is a classic case of debt being good.

The average unsecured debt figure is £8428 per household. This has reduced from £9500 per household in 2009.