Cautious consumers pay off debt

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well you might be left in the dark.

The rest of us however can relate to what's being said and not need everything laid out in front of us.

A fair few simply means a group of people relevant to the discussion.

Oh well, that was an interesting discussion while it lasted, but here's Graham to ruin it. Hey ho.

FTBFun

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I am quite willing to except that someone is in the black if they own property that has equity, but there are still a lot of grey area there, you still have a huge mortgage.

Not really, it's less than 2.5 times my income p.a.

But the UK logic these days is that life make total sense as long as all the debts are less than the perceived value of property. I think that this thought pattern plays much in the governments thinking, for as long as people have illusionary wealth and are able to brag about their house price down the pub they will continue to be subservient and willing wage slaves, the minute mass properties start losing more than 30% of their value then I think this country will be in big trouble.

Why do you think property nationally is going to be devalued by 30%? I think you'll have to give your reasoning for that.

Some of the Bulls are right when they say that the government will do anything to prop up the housing market, but when the day comes when there is nothing they can do, thats when it will get nasty.

Right, so house prices are kept up by "props" but soon the housing market will fall even those "props" are still there? That doesn't make any sense.

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well you might be left in the dark.

The rest of us however can relate to what's being said and not need everything laid out in front of us.

A fair few simply means a group of people relevant to the discussion.

This is a debating forum you know. Why can't we have a discussion about this?

wotsthat

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Well wotstit, I have backed up far more than you, you have made moronic generlisations such as £1.5 trillion is no big deal and that it is spread between the 60 million UK population.

If you believe that over half of UK freehold is owned outright

If the under 17 over 70 hold little debt

If there are at least millions of UK citizens that are in the black and better

then I would say that I have provided some evidence and you just continue to live in fairy land

I've not said £1.5tn isn't a big deal, I've said nothing about the 60m population, I've said nothing about how many houses are owned outright, I've said nothing about the debt levels of the under 17's or over 70's and I've not said millions are in the black or otherwise.

Most of the argument you're having seems to be with the voices in your head.

homelessskilledworker

FTBFun wrote: »

Not really, it's less than 2.5 times my income p.a.



Why do you think property nationally is going to be devalued by 30%? I think you'll have to give your reasoning for that.



Right, so house prices are kept up by "props" but soon the housing market will fall even those "props" are still there? That doesn't make any sense.

1. Still a lot of money whatever you are earning.

2. For the purpose of THIS debate/thread I used a 30% figure for the purpose of the point I was trying to make.

3. The prop's that I am talking about are the same as the litle boy sticking his thumb in the damm, it might give some time but will not stop the inevitable IMO. Props such as holding off repossessions or no rules on the repayment vechicle for interest only mortgages, the 400 year old record BOE interest rates. For now they can be used as props, someone else in the world might just kick them away one day though.

Graham_Devon

FTBFun wrote: »

This is a debating forum you know. Why can't we have a discussion about this?

LOL, you can.

But does it really need absolute numbers to state the obvious? If so, I'll leave you guys to your ignorance.

FTBFun

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

1. Still a lot of money whatever you are earning.

I'm not worried about it. It's attached to an asset worth much more than the debt, a debt to which I have no problems servicing. There's no point looking at the debt extant from these factors.

2. For the purpose of THIS debate/thread I used a 30% figure for the purpose of the point I was trying to make.

Right so it's an arbitary figure? Seems a bit of a strange way to try and back up your point.

3. The prop's that I am talking about are the same as the litle boy sticking his thumb in the damm, it might give some time but will not stop the inevitable IMO. Props such as holding off repossessions or no rules on the repayment vechicle for interest only mortgages, the 400 year old record BOE interest rates. For now they can be used as props, someone else in the world might just kick them away one day though.

I would say a minority of mortgage holdings fall into the first two camps, so it is hard to say whether the situation changes, these would affect the housing market as much as you say. Regarding the interest rate position, they are as low as they are due to the total economic situation rather than the specific subset of housing. It might be possible that were these to increase substantially there may be a change, however I can only see interest rates increasing when the economy starts making some improvement - even inflation has started to slow down lately (its below 4% now compared to near 5.5% a year ago).

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL, you can.

But does it really need absolute numbers to state the obvious? If so, I'll leave you guys to your ignorance.

I'd much rather have a discussion about it than say "well, that's obvious" and leave it as it is. It is debatable whether it is as obvious as you make it out.

homelessskilledworker

wotsthat wrote: »

I've not said £1.5tn isn't a big deal, I've said nothing about the 60m population, I've said nothing about how many houses are owned outright, I've said nothing about the debt levels of the under 17's or over 70's and I've not said millions are in the black or otherwise.

Most of the argument you're having seems to be with the voices in your head.

Are you really that lowlife and disingenious??

You asked me to provide facts.. YOU ASKED ME.

I then gave you these un arguable statements to prove that the debt is spead between a minority of the UK population where as in you post earlier you spread it among the whole UK population. You also said that the £1.5 trillion was not that big a deal or words to that effect.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But does it really need absolute numbers to state the obvious? If so, I'll leave you guys to your ignorance.

Graham please stay. Let's forget the numbers and just use terms like "a fair few", "lots", "not many", "loads", "oodles"

I thought this place couldn't get any more bizarre.