UK household debt versus assets

wotsthat

The reason we don't talk about Mr. Rogers and Mr. Bloggs is that they are two fictional characters.

One of the handy things about averages is that they are way to express all of the data simply. I'm not trying to say that as individuals we all conform to the average. I'm not saying that there won't be uneven different distributions of debt or equity within the average either.

Not a single person has suggested that anyone should sell their assets to pay off the debts of others.

TBH (c) is looking the most likely mixed in with a little (a).

wotsthat

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

It is fatuous to say the least to say that the household debt level is irrelevant because of household assets.

It would be - but no-one has said that.

oldvicar

We seem to be overlooking around £1.3tn of debt the government has borrowed on behalf of us all.

oldvicar

oldvicar wrote: »

We seem to be overlooking around £1.3tn of debt the government has borrowed on behalf of us all.

Silly me .... this is where the bulk of the personal financial ASSETS, offsetting personal debt, are held.

RenovationMan

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

It is fatuous to say the least to say that the household debt level is irrelevant because of household assets.

I'm not sure that the OP said it was irrelevent, he seemed to suggest that we're not as broke as many people on here like to make out. I agree with him and I have said as much in the past. On paper, my own debts look horrific (£253,000). In reality my assets more than cover the debt. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people in the UK are in the same boat.

The rest of Graham's posts seem to be him arguing a point that the OP never actually made. His 'test cases' seem to be getting increasingly bizzarre and unlikely and he is now arguing that one person would not pay the debts of the other person. Excuse me, but I don't remember taking out a 120% mortgage with northern rock, yet my tax money is now being used to pay for it. Looks like person (A) is actually covering the debts of person (B).

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

The rest of Graham's posts seem to be him arguing a point that the OP never actually made.

Sorry, but the OP stated to me...

Hardly a crushing debt burden.....

As I say, it isn't, if the fantasy world scenario is in play.

In reality, it is a massive problem.

I kept asking the OP for his point, as I believed him to be suggesting that because some have wealth, others have debts, and then we've got inbetweens, the country doesn't have a debt burden.

That would only be true if all those who had assets became creditors to the debtors. Aint gonna happen. If it did, many of you would have a hernia before making it to MSE to post about said hernia. Myself included.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, but the OP stated to me...

As I say, it isn't, if the fantasy world scenario is in play.

In reality, it is a massive problem.

I kept asking the OP for his point, as I believed him to be suggesting that because some have wealth, others have debts, and then we've got inbetweens, the country doesn't have a debt burden.

That would only be true if all those who had assets became creditors to the debtors. Aint gonna happen. If it did, many of you would have a hernia before making it to MSE to post about said hernia. Myself included.

If you didn't understand what the OP's point was, why have you spent 4 pages arguing against it?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

If you didn't understand what the OP's point was, why have you spent 4 pages arguing against it?

You really are trying now.

Where have I, up until my long post above, argued against it? I have simply been asking him for his point, while trying to battle you lot trying to answer for him.

I see you, nor anyone else who was very active a min ago, has bothered to even try and argue against what I said in my long post above. I just wanted to be sure that the OP was saying what I thought he was before posting my response, but he refused to answer. As it was getting silly with you lot trying to answer on his behalf and have a go, I went with what I think the OP meant.

If he doesn't mean what I think and I have got him wrong, he is more than free to politiely correct me.....and tell me what his point was, but the truth be told, if it wasn't the fantasy stuff I wrote above, I don't think even Hamish knows what his point was.

wotsthat

So all this was about Hamish saying 'hardly a crushing debt burden' and you disagreeing?

Why not say this in your first post?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

So all this was about Hamish saying 'hardly a crushing debt burden' and you disagreeing?

Why not say this in your first post?

Do you agree, or disagree with the argument I presented?

Or do you you agree, or disagree with what Hamish stated?

Or are you just continually going to pick me up on whatever you possibly can, no matter how trivial, have a whinge about it, question why or how I responded, and then suggest I'm wrecking the thread?

I know you don't like my arguments. I know you don't like how I present some of them. But this nit picking is all a little silly, espoecially when you and your fellow nit pickers then accuse myself of taking this thread down this route.