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
BOE in rate shocker
Comments
-
Doesn't really make sense though, a rich person may have more debt but also more assets.
Your example was more debt and no assets whatsoever.
My example was very simple, to make the point clear. It wasn't about if's and maybe's.
Let's go back to what I replied to, the USA being the richest country in the world. If all the countries in the world paid off their debts, would the USA still be the richest ? I don't know the answer to this, maybe someone could enlighten me. I have a feeling they might not be.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
of course it doesn't make sense - dervprof cherry picks what he wants and it has to be his way and anything else is irrelevant.Doesn't really make sense though, a rich person may have more debt but also more assets.
Your example was more debt and no assets whatsoever.
i wouldn't bother trying to educate him either, it's a complete waste of time.0 -
If all the countries in the world paid off their debts, would the USA still be the richest ? I don't know the answer to this, maybe someone could enlighten me. I have a feeling they might not be.
If countries tried to literally pay off all their government debt, then most people in that country wouldn't feel very rich, because the government would have to raise taxes and cut public spending.0 -
"The more you earn, the more you borrow" ?
Is that the rule ?
I would have thought that the way to be rich is to earn more, and borrow less.
I think you might be trying to say "the more you borrow, the more you earn". If you are, my reply would be "if you invest your borrowed money wisely (and with a bit of luck)".
No the more you earn the more you can borrow? Your example of a £1m mortgage needs a very high wage to get that size of mortgage.
How can the more you borrow the more you earn work??? it's not logic I cant get my self in debt up to my eyes to get a better job?0 -
No the more you earn the more you can borrow? Your example of a £1m mortgage needs a very high wage to get that size of mortgage.
How can the more you borrow the more you earn work??? it's not logic I cant get my self in debt up to my eyes to get a better job?
You might not be able to, but an entrepeneur could.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
of course it doesn't make sense - dervprof cherry picks what he wants and it has to be his way and anything else is irrelevant.
i wouldn't bother trying to educate him either, it's a complete waste of time.
Another brilliant addition to the discussion by chucky.
Other folk are at least disagreeing or arguing against my comments, you revert to your default.... insults.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
No the more you earn the more you can borrow? Your example of a £1m mortgage needs a very high wage to get that size of mortgage.
OK. It is true, the more you earn, the more you can borrow.
Fred earns £200K, borrows £1million.
Joe earns £10K, borrows £50k.
Neither have any money saved before they borrow the money. For the purpose of this example, both buy a house for the amount they borrow. Who is the richest person ?
Another example. Man Utd are supposed to be the richest club in the UK. They may have the largest income, but what if you balance their books ? What if you sell their assets, and settle their debts. How much would you be left with ?
To me, being "rich" means that you have your own money in your own bank account. Or you have assets that you own, that you can sell. Having a pile of debt means that your "richness" might not be as it appears.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
Derv, debt is wealth. Accept it, or understand you need "educating".
However, you can sit there and smile when those suggesting debt is good, are actively going round stating they are overpaying, in the aim of being debt free.
What's actually meant is debt is good if it's seen as a pyramid scheme, and others taking on larger debts behind you can increase your wealth.0 -
Fred earns £200K, borrows £1million.
Joe earns £10K, borrows £50k.
Neither have any money saved before they borrow the money. For the purpose of this example, both buy a house for the amount they borrow. Who is the richest person ?
Well...in this contrived example they both have net assets of zero in financial terms, but one of them has a £1,000,000 house and presumably is in no danger of defaulting on his mortgage. Don't you think that the right to own and occupy a £1,000,000 house is a form of wealth?Another example. Man Utd are supposed to be the richest club in the UK. They may have the largest income, but what if you balance their books ? What if you sell their assets, and settle their debts. How much would you be left with ?
What do you mean balance their books? I thought their books were balanced - Manchester United aren't insolvent.0 -
Well...in this contrived example they both have net assets of zero in financial terms, but one of them has a £1,000,000 house and presumably is in no danger of defaulting on his mortgage. Don't you think that the right to own and occupy a £1,000,000 house is a form of wealth?
It is a form of wealth, but what is the value of the wealth ? How rich is the person that lives in the house ?
They may not be insolvent, but if the owners sell the club, how rich will they be ? Very rich, if someone is willing to take on the club's debts, not so rich if they aren't.What do you mean balance their books? I thought their books were balanced - Manchester United aren't insolvent.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards