Pay off your debts

DervProf

I paid off my debts ages ago (not that I had many).

I tried to not spend tomorrow's wages today. I preferred to save some of today's wages in case tomorrow's wages didn't arrive. That plan seems to have been a good one. Pity some countries didn't adopt that idea.

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

We're concentrating on increasing the value of our house with the renovations and reducing the mortgage debt via overpayments. This sustained period of low rates is really helping with both ventures.

Really ? :T

ninky_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why do we need banks? why don't govt's just print money and loan it out at x% interest rate. why the need for the middle man? plus, as the govt knows how much tax you pay, you can't really defraud them.

Good point. I think it's called 'nationalization'.

RenovationMan

DervProf wrote: »

I paid off my debts ages ago (not that I had many).

I tried to not spend tomorrow's wages today. I preferred to save some of today's wages in case tomorrow's wages didn't arrive. That plan seems to have been a good one. Pity some countries didn't adopt that idea.

Really ? :T (to use your own top class remark)

If you are comparing the finance of countries against your personal finances then the question would be where would the growth come from?

From comments you have made on here (please correct me where I am wrong, but let's try not to be too pedantic about it, the point is the thing) it would appear that you have been in the same house since 1995 which has been paid off. You have a self-contained personal finance system that probably consists of a stable/static amount of income and stable/static outgoings with the occasional big purchase to replace things when they fail or become obsolete (i.e. computer, TV, etc.) and occasional holidays. i.e. you have no children, so you don't suffer the variations to expenditure that those with children suffer, so your expediture is pretty static.

Extrapolating this to the finances of a country would result in stagnation of the economy and job losses. The only way we could have an economy so static would be for all the variables to be static, so no increase in population and stunted innovation. Probably akin to the sort of society we had pre-industrial revolution.

pqrdef

Oh dear. The Telegraph and the Guardian both had the same headline in the first editions last night, based on a briefing from No 10, but No 11 is running round frantically this morning saying Cameron didn't actually mean that after all.

Meanwhile Gideon is giving Dave a little lecture - "Low interest rates don't do any good unless people take advantage of them. Why do you think the economy isn't growing? We should be taking advantage of them too, only we can't because we're the Tory Tea Party and it would stick on our craw to not slash public spending"

Graham_Devon

Heres what he is actually saying:

He is also expected to tell UK households to pay off their credit and store card debts, arguing that the debt crisis was caused by individuals - as well as businesses, banks and government - borrowing too much.

According to pre-released extracts from the speech, Mr Cameron will say that ministers "need to tell the truth about the overall economic situation".

"People understand that when the economy goes into recession, times get tough. But normally after a while things pick up. Strong growth returns, people get back into work," he will say to the conference in Manchester.

"This time, it's not like that. And people want to know why the good times are so long in coming.

"The answer is straightforward, but uncomfortable. This was no normal recession. We're in a debt crisis. It was caused by too much borrowing by individuals, businesses, banks and most of all governments.

"The only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. That means households - all of us - paying off the credit card and store card bills. It means banks getting their books in order."

I#d have to agree.

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

Oh dear. The Telegraph and the Guardian both had the same headline in the first editions last night, based on a briefing from No 10, but No 11 is running round frantically this morning saying Cameron didn't actually mean that after all.

I take it you don't like the tories? Cus the abvove isn't really true is it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171917

pinkteapot

FTBFun wrote: »

I have an Amex that I pay off every month, and I purchase things like food and my travelcard on it.

For this service, Amex pay me back 1% of the amount and I spend on that card.

Sounds terrible, right?

Same here - free money! I'm strictly better off than I would be spending money in the form of cash or debit card.

Of course, if everyone used credit cards in the way that we do then the card companies would close down. We're profiting from the numpties in the country who can't help themselves when it comes to buying tat they can't afford.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I take it you don't like the tories? Cus the abvove isn't really true is it?

It was on News 24 this morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15180491

Thrugelmir

RenovationMan wrote: »

Extrapolating this to the finances of a country would result in stagnation of the economy and job losses. The only way we could have an economy so static would be for all the variables to be static, so no increase in population and stunted innovation. Probably akin to the sort of society we had pre-industrial revolution.

So a doubling of mortgage debt in a short space of time (£600 billion). Created wealth for the whole of the UK by inflating house prices and creating equity in property for people to draw on at a later date?

Where is the money coming from to "buy" this equity?