UK household debt versus assets

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I'm pretty much losing the will to live and I'm not entirely sure you've presented a cohesive argument.

However, if your argument is that the averages presented will contain a number of people with loads of debt and no equity then yes I will agree.

If you are arguing that not everyone can effectively sell assets, pay off debts and downsize then I agree.

I think Cleaver was going to start an average school at one time - there might still be vacancies.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I agree that debt expressed as a LTV shows that debt is less of a concern than when compared to income alone. I think debt levels are too high but that quite a few/ most people will be able to cope if income dries and they have assets to sell.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

It's not nit picking. You've spent most of the thread saying how confused you were so people try and explain to you in different ways and each time you say that's not what you were confused about. Then late in the thread you decide that you weren't confused after all and you were just biding your time to make a point that you could have made in a one liner in your first point.

It's quite exasperating but the results always the same - thread trashed.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's not nit picking. You've spent most of the thread saying how confused you were so people try and explain to you in different ways and each time you say that's not what you were confused about. Then late in the thread you decide that you weren't confused after all and you were just biding your time to make a point that you could have made in a one liner in your first point.

It's quite exasperating but the results always the same - thread trashed.

You appear to, somewhat purposely confuse confusion with asking the OP what his point is. At no point at all in this thread have I said I am confused.

Thread trashed indeed. But don't try to keep laying the blame solely on to others. You were very active in it's demise. Takes 2 to tango. Though on here it usually takes 3 or 4.

RenovationMan

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm pretty much losing the will to live and I'm not entirely sure you've presented a cohesive argument.

However, if your argument is that the averages presented will contain a number of people with loads of debt and no equity then yes I will agree.

If you are arguing that not everyone can effectively sell assets, pay off debts and downsize then I agree.

I think Cleaver was going to start an average school at one time - there might still be vacancies.



I agree that debt expressed as a LTV shows that debt is less of a concern than when compared to income alone. I think debt levels are too high but that quite a few/ most people will be able to cope if income dries and they have assets to sell.



It's not nit picking. You've spent most of the thread saying how confused you were so people try and explain to you in different ways and each time you say that's not what you were confused about. Then late in the thread you decide that you weren't confused after all and you were just biding your time to make a point that you could have made in a one liner in your first point.

It's quite exasperating but the results always the same - thread trashed.

An excellent post and totally sums up the thread. I lost the will to live a while back and plain just gave up.

I now see that Graham is using the same hackneyed arguments that his pal geneer uses - namely that everyone else but him is to blame for trashing a thread, conveniently forgetting that that he is the common denominator and without him the thread would be untrashed.

Classis Bear strategy showing an astonishing lack of self awareness and meme.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

At no point at all in this thread have I said I am confused.

No but that's the very clear impression you gave. You asked about five times what the OP's point was and got the same answer expressed in five different ways to try and help explain it to you.

You jumped straight in because one of your internet enemies posted the OP and it took you a little while to find an objection.