Who saw bbc panarama britians hidden housing crisis

exarmydreamer

Hindsight is a great thing, we ALL make mistakes and stupid financial decisions and suffer for it. Having said that, we have and are going through the worse financial crisis since the 30's, add in the Euro problems and previous and current government policies and anyone from any background could find themselves struggling.

No one is safe, we are all at the mercy of being homeless, should a series of personal or unexpected financial events happen to us. Anyone with enough intelligence would understand from previous financial history, how easy it is to go from paper/ asset rich to dirt poor.

After all the banks don't care, who you are. Money owed is money owed and the credit dries up very quickly. Of course the super rich are protected at the moment by government policy but then what's new.

BobQ

exarmydreamer wrote: »

Hindsight is a great thing, we ALL make mistakes and stupid financial decisions and suffer for it. Having said that, we have and are going through the worse financial crisis since the 30's, add in the Euro problems and previous and current government policies and anyone from any background could find themselves struggling.

No one is safe, we are all at the mercy of being homeless, should a series of personal or unexpected financial events happen to us. Anyone with enough intelligence would understand from previous financial history, how easy it is to go from paper/ asset rich to dirt poor.

After all the banks don't care, who you are. Money owed is money owed and the credit dries up very quickly. Of course the super rich are protected at the moment by government policy but then what's new.

Its true it can happen to anyone. I could not be quite so clinical about blame as dunstonh is, but he is right that we all make decisions in life and some are riskier than others and some of us choose to manage those risks in different ways.

Personally I have never been a risk taker and always insured to some extent against what could go wrong. But I still know I have also been very lucky. But equally I see people who base their lifestyle on a belief they can borrow whatever they need, spend today and tomorrow will look after itself, make no provision for retirememt etc and think I suspect that many of them think that people like me who live to a more modest standard ( well very modest given my means) are silly.

Programmes like this make me reaslise that some are just reaping what they sowed. But this does not mean I do not sympathise and realise that some have been unlucky.

The children deserve better however. I cannot see its fair for the state to pay to keep families in mansions, but equally I do not see any point in making children live in a bed sit because of their parents bad decisions.

exarmydreamer

BobQ wrote: »

The children deserve better however. I cannot see its fair for the state to pay to keep families in mansions, but equally I do not see any point in making children live in a bed sit because of their parents bad decisions.

Agreed, like you I live a very frugal but happy life, unfortunately under the current provisions of welfare and universal credit coming in, it is the children who will suffer. Not that I can agree with the parents about their life style choices, I have 4 children and we have always worked to provide and secure our families future, paying off the mortgage early and don't drink or smoke.

Some, I believe, have not received the skills in life to help themselves and so their children suffer and in turn end up in the same position as their parents. I believe the government tried to change this, they call it the big society, not that I'm political but I don't think it's working.

dunstonh

I could not be quite so clinical about blame as dunstonh

Part of a role of an adviser is to be clinical about such things. 1 in 5 men will die before retirement. I dont know what the latest stats are on CI but it was around 1 in 6 suffering a claimable event before retirement. Advisers should point out the risks and paint the picture of the consequences. There used to be a video that was near mandatory viewing by advisers at most firms called the widows tale. It had people in tears. However, it showed the cascade of events that could occur in the event of death (in that case). Advisers were and are still encouraged to disturb to quite a deep level. However, you now have so many people complaining about pressure that many have dropped the disturbance levels and have become almost apologetic for offering it rather than dig in deep and "disturb" the people as they should.

If you know say 1 in 6 are going to suffer a claimable event and you decide not to protect yourself for that event then it is a risk you are taking. If the risk event occurs then that is just how it goes. Clinical maybe but you dont want your advisers wrapping you up in cotton wool. You want them to tell you what can go wrong as well as what can go right.

It seems that people want to take on risk based transactions but when a risk event occurs that they havent covered themselves for, they want to blame someone else.

BobQ

dunstonh wrote: »

.
It seems that people want to take on risk based transactions but when a risk event occurs that they havent covered themselves for, they want to blame someone else.

Saying you were clinical was not a criticism and I hope it was not taken that way. I agree that a good advisor should do this when advising their clients.

Its still a problem when people decide to take the risks and things go wrong for them, whoever they seek to blame.

I can rationalise a single investment banker having to live in a bedsit because he made reckless decisions. But I do not feel very proud to live in a country in which children suffer through the mistakes of their equally reckless parents or due to misfortunes that befall their parents. However, just becauase their parents are featured on television does not mean they are any more deserving than the thousands of others suffering up and down the country.

The Big Society has so far made very little impact on these problems.

Pobby

Very sad. Humbling and made me grateful for my blessings. £230 a week for a room for 6 people? Illegal. Wish I had the cheerfulness of the poor lady with cancer. I don`t condemn any of those folks as I don`t have the full information. Yet I do believe that this is a reflection on the total mismanagement of housing spanning from the days that Thatch sold off council homes.

There has been a lot of time to address this but no. Many would take me to task but housing, in the lack of more worthwhile things, has become an investment tool and a bubble.

vivatifosi

BobQ wrote: »

Programmes like this make me reaslise that some are just reaping what they sowed. But this does not mean I do not sympathise and realise that some have been unlucky.

Sometimes the magnitude of what hits you is just so great that whatever provisions you have made are not enough. When I was treated for cancer I was just recovering from my second op when the double whammy of the credit crunch and the recession hit my business really badly. I did have good savings, but went through them more quickly than I would have expected and needed longer to get back on my feet and find work that I anticipated. Meanwhile the value of my investments had tanked to the extent that I couldn't rely on them. Fortunately for me I was married, not like the woman whose husband had left. Make no mistake though, if my husband had left me too, as well as having to deal with that, I would also have lost my house.

It will probably take another year or so to have sufficient savings again. You can make all the provisions you like and ultimately you will be better off than those with none, but if a tsunami of bad luck hits you, unless you're mega-wealthy you could still be stuffed.

moneyinmypocket

^ very good post, certinally makes us all think

flashnazia

BobQ wrote: »

Saying you were clinical was not a criticism and I hope it was not taken that way. I agree that a good advisor should do this when advising their clients.

Its still a problem when people decide to take the risks and things go wrong for them, whoever they seek to blame.

I can rationalise a single investment banker having to live in a bedsit because he made reckless decisions. But I do not feel very proud to live in a country in which children suffer through the mistakes of their equally reckless parents or due to misfortunes that befall their parents. However, just becauase their parents are featured on television does not mean they are any more deserving than the thousands of others suffering up and down the country.

The Big Society has so far made very little impact on these problems.

So what is the solution? Because if the government bailed out people who make bad decisions (for the sake of their children) then it will have the effect of incentivising bad decision making.

I agree with vivatifosi that a 'tsunami of bad luck' can wipe out even the most responsible of people and its right that the government should support people in those circumstances but there is a very thin line between that and being seen to support the irresponsible, in turn generating more irresponsibility.

MacMickster

In the casino of life some suffer a tsunami of bad luck while others appear to surf on a tide of good luck.

Many of the latter, however, attribute their good fortune to their own skill and decision making. They are gamblers on a winning streak who feel invincible. They spend all of their winnings (because they will continue winning surely) rather than putting some aside in case their luck should ever change. As vivatifosi eloquently points out, even those who make good provision can still find themselves engulfed by a losing streak in the casino.

Certainly I feel sorry for the children of families who suddenly find themselves impoverished, but the state and society can't be responsible for the choices made by their parents. The children have had advantages over many of their peers, and in many cases will continue to benefit throughout their lives from the experiences of when their parents had wealth.