100,000 could lose their homes if mortgages rise £20 a month

grizzly1911

RenovationMan wrote: »

The facts are that if we raise rates then the only 'problem' it will solve is that some people will lose their houses and some people, such as Graham, will benefit via cheaper housing.

There would be third benefit - those who are mortgage free and with savings, of which there are many.

I am thinking the silver foxes. Additional expenditure/tax revenue form this quarter is oft ignored.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Graham seems to think so - he advocates raising rates because 'people are becoming too dependant on low rates'. However in the face of a 'real life' example of someone who is struggling financially and where low rates are just about helping them to stay afloat, Graham does his usual flimflam act and tries to dodge the question.

The facts are that if we raise rates then the only 'problem' it will solve is that some people will lose their houses and some people, such as Graham, will benefit via cheaper housing.

He doesn't have the courage to admit this though, so we have the squirming.

Have you noticed that all your argument appear to rely on three key things? You seem to build an argument around them in every post.

1. Make things up to create the character you wish to argue against, knowing you can trounce all over this made up character.

2. Pretend you are completely and utterly dense and cannot read the words on your screen and need them explaining to you, split down sentence by sentence.

3. Rely on "so you are saying", "so you believe", "so you advocate" in response to a paragraph, or sometimes a single sentence to remove all context. That single sentence or paragraph completely isolated from the rest of the post, when clearly, what was written in the posts entirity didn't even relate to what you suggest is being said.

Now, I'm thinking if you need those 3 things for pretty much every response and interogation to a post to make your post work, maybe the argument was already won.

What I do know, is I'm very bored of it. More annoyingly, it's actually sticking, and about 4 of you will roll with the lies now, which actually, kudo's to you, makes it all look true.

I'm just wondering if we can calm it down a bit? This thread is a prime example of me suggesting the article isn't true, only for you and 3 others to fall over themselves insisting I said something different. Why? Why can you debate with me without doing this?

crash123

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Being tipped over the edge by £20 a month does indeed sound ridiculous, but if you ever read threads on the Debt Free board you will be astounded at the parlous state of some people's finances and how incomes are split between rent/mortgage, debt repayment and "other".

Unfortunately some people are good with money(the majority on here) and others not so good(debt free board). Its life.

RenovationMan

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There would be third benefit - those who are mortgage free and with savings, of which there are many.

I am thinking the silver foxes. Additional expenditure/tax revenue form this quarter is oft ignored.

I don't think Graham falls into that category . I really don't have a problem with people having a VI, I personally would like interest rates to stay low for my own financial goals. What I dislike is the disingenuousness of Devon, et al.

I just wish GD had had the balls to reply honestly to someone who is clearly in financial dificulties and say 'oh dear, but this is the problem with low rates, it helps give people like you time get back on your feet and that doesn't help me to get a cheap reposession'.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have you noticed that all your argument appear to rely on three key things? You seem to build an argument around them in every post.

1. Make things up to create the character you wish to argue against, knowing you can trounce all over this made up character.

2. Pretend you are completely and utterly dense and cannot read the words on your screen and need them explaining to you, split down sentence by sentence.

3. Rely on "so you are saying", "so you believe", "so you advocate" in response to a paragraph, or sometimes a single sentence to remove all context. That single sentence or paragraph completely isolated from the rest of the post, when clearly, what was written in the posts entirity didn't even relate to what you suggest is being said.

Now, I'm thinking if you need those 3 things for pretty much every response and interogation to a post to make your post work, maybe the argument was already won.

What I do know, is I'm very bored of it. More annoyingly, it's actually sticking, and about 4 of you will roll with the lies now, which actually, kudo's to you, makes it all look true.

I'm just wondering if we can calm it down a bit? This thread is a prime example of me suggesting the article isn't true, only for you and 3 others to fall over themselves insisting I said something different. Why? Why can you debate with me without doing this?

You're still avoiding the question and all your hysteria and rhetoric is fooling no one. What is the 'problem' with low interest rates that you alluded to when you replied to Jonee?

It's a simple question..... :cool:

p.s. people have to try and interpret your meaning because you avoid answering questions when you realise that you are on thin ice. Anyway, here is a good opportunity for you to say what you REALLY meant in your response to Jonee.....

Will you take it?

JonnyBravo

As far as I'm aware Graham has recently (a few months ago) changed his stance to say interest rate rises shouldnt be carried out now. They would destroy any recovery such as it is.
He certainly hasn't asked for rates to rise in this thread.

He also makes (IMO) a valid point that people get used to a "way of life" and if interest rates remain at 0.5% for another 5 years only a fool would argue that people aren't "getting used to that".
It does therefore (IMO) make it more likely that interest rate rises would need to be managed more carefully as a typical rise (0.25%)would have a larger proportional effect than from say 5% base rates.

The baiting of Graham is extremely tiresome. I'm all for taking him to task on points where it is a genuine discussion around a point but the last week or two, (yes, since chucky came back and started on him BIG time), have been boring, boring, boring.
Give the baiting a rest or give the forum a rest.
Please.

RenovationMan

JonnyBravo wrote: »

As far as I'm aware Graham has recently (a few months ago) changed his stance to say interest rate rises shouldnt be carried out now.

This is certainly news to me, and a complete U turn if true. I remember that GD backtracked when the EU rate rise that he championed as an example of responsible monetary policy was reversed, but since then he started to have BoE amnesia and started championing rate rises again.

I guess GD now has the opportunityto tell us. Does he think that rates need to stay low, and if so then why?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

I guess GD now has the opportunityto tell us. Does he think that rates need to stay low, and if so then why?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=53207493&postcount=18

The window of opportunity to put them up is gone.

And to point out, my stance hasn't changed on the danger of keeping rates low, I was cautious about it, and referring to others warning of this in 2010....it's now happening, and getting worse for each month that passes.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=39218626&postcount=8

RenovationMan

JonnyBravo wrote: »

The baiting of Graham is extremely tiresome. I'm all for taking him to task on points where it is a genuine discussion around a point but the last week or two, (yes, since chucky came back and started on him BIG time), have been boring, boring, boring.
Give the baiting a rest or give the forum a rest.
Please.

Hmn... :think:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=44333358&postcount=25

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=53207493&postcount=18

The window of opportunity to put them up is gone.

Another wriggle. That link says nothing about why you think rates need to stay low and why. You even couldn't help but put a caveat about the "window of opportunity..."

So when was this window of opportunity to put up rates closed?