3 more years of 0.5% interest rates

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Or people found leveraging up with debt far easier and more profitable than working longer hours in the wider economy.

You really don't have a clue and just spout constant soundbites.

It's a bit like when you claimed cash from UK mortgage equity release was spent exclusively on BMWs.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In the credit boom years the biggest export market in the world for BMW was the UK.

The majority of the £324 billion of equity release from property was partied away. Not invested in income generating or wealth creating ventures. So hardly surprising the economy is running along but standing still.

stinktankcynic

Low interest rates are fine, why should someone get 7% interest on their savings when a risk taking business may only make 10%?
Same, if base rate is 0.5% then payday loans should not be 1000%. It's shaft the saver, let the companies charge whatever they want.
Wage increases will probably stall, lot's of cheap labour out there.
How can you win, or lose less?

Tax free savings? ISA, 2% cash ISA's.?
Pay into a pension, get the tax relief, invest in s+s?

Perhaps that's why the government has/wants to reduce the annual and lifetime pension contributions?

Thrugelmir

stinktankcynic wrote: »

Same, if base rate is 0.5% then payday loans should not be 1000%.

Over simplification of how pay day lenders work.

If everybody paid for their current account banking then personal lending rates could be cheaper.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Who bailed out Southern Cross?

How much did they pour in?

I am sure the Landlords were more than happy with the rent defaults.

I doubt we will ever know how much has been written off by lenders to the landlords or successive operators.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/11/lloyds-care-homes-ownership

Do these care homes fees get paid solely by private individuals from their own means or are the majority paid for wholly or partly by the taxpayer?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/01/private-equity-social-care-debt

How much blood can be got from a stone?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401970/Thousands-care-home-residents-face-uncertainty-1-3-businesses-risk-collapse.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/10266897/1500-care-homes-at-risk-of-going-bust.html

Just in case I get accused of bias.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am sure the Landlords were more than happy with the rent defaults.

I doubt we will ever know how much has been written off by lenders to the landlords or successive operators.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/11/lloyds-care-homes-ownership

Do these care homes fees get paid solely by private individuals from their own means or are the majority paid for wholly or partly by the taxpayer?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/01/private-equity-social-care-debt

How much blood can be got from a stone?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401970/Thousands-care-home-residents-face-uncertainty-1-3-businesses-risk-collapse.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/10266897/1500-care-homes-at-risk-of-going-bust.html

Just in case I get accused of bias.

at then end of the day

the owners lost their money

the landlords took a haircut and took over the business

the tax payer paid nothing

the elderly residents stayed well looked after

capitalism working OK

compare that situation with mid staffs.. everyone (except the patients ) walked away with large pensions, payoffs and/or better jobs

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

at then end of the day

the owners lost their money

the landlords took a haircut and took over the business

the tax payer paid nothing

the elderly residents stayed well looked after

capitalism working OK

compare that situation with mid staffs.. everyone (except the patients ) walked away with large pensions, payoffs and/or better jobs

So Banks didn't need to write off any debts whatsoever?

The tax payer doesn't pay the majority of the care fees?

Mid Staffs Trust is being prosecuted apparently - quite what use that will be interesting to see.

The mid staffs death rates were out of line in a number of cases but the statistical samples were often so small that one extra death would have had a disproportionate affect. Should elderly vunerable people be taking up space in hospitals or should that care be being provided in nursing homes dedicated to specialist long term care? No doubt the private health sector provides its fair share of care to these cases....

Next you will be telling me to believe the discounts given by certain carpet and furniture retailers.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So Banks didn't need to write off any debts whatsoever?

The tax payer doesn't pay the majority of the care fees?

Mid Staffs Trust is being prosecuted apparently - quite what use that will be interesting to see.

The mid staffs death rates were out of line in a number of cases but the statistical samples were often so small that one extra death would have had a disproportionate affect. Should elderly vunerable people be taking up space in hospitals or should that care be being provided in nursing homes dedicated to specialist long term care? No doubt the private health sector provides its fair share of care to these cases....

Next you will be telling me to believe the discounts given by certain carpet and furniture retailers.

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make?

Businesses do fail with consequences for their creditors.
I see this as inevitable and productive.

Some businesspeople are crooks.
Some people employed by the state are crooks.
Some politicians are crooks.
I don't believe people are crooks simply because they work in the private sector.

If you think that all healthcare should be nationalised then just say so.
If you think all banks should be state run then say so.
If you think all activities should be run by the state then say so.

I won't agree but at least I'll understand what you are trying to say.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make?

Businesses do fail with consequences for their creditors.
I see this as inevitable and productive.

Some businesspeople are crooks.
Some people employed by the state are crooks.
Some politicians are crooks.
I don't believe people are crooks simply because they work in the private sector.

If you think that all healthcare should be nationalised then just say so.
If you think all banks should be state run then say so.
If you think all activities should be run by the state then say so.

I won't agree but at least I'll understand what you are trying to say.

Did banks, creditors and landlords lose money?

Does the taxpayer provide the lion share of their funding?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Who benefited from the from the sale and lease back agreements?
[/FONT]

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Did banks, creditors and landlords lose money?

Does the taxpayer provide the lion share of their funding?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Who benefited from the from the sale and lease back agreements?
[/FONT]

successful businesses produce the wealth that funds NHS, education, infrastructure, social housing, social services, the police, pensions etc

it is an inevitable (and beneficial) part of the business process that some fail

banks, the taxpayers, suppliers profit from the successful businesses and lose from the unsuccessful ones.

does that shock you? did you not know that?

in the specific example of Southern Cross, I don't know the whether the banks made an overall lose or profit from the company over the time frame of their involvement


the other creditors probably made a lose but again I don't know the overall balance

the landlords were an integral part of the business plan who willingly entered a business deal knowing the probabilities of profit or lose: as the landlord took over the running of the care homes I've no idea if they made a profit in the end.

it isn't a moral issue

it is any inevitable part of the business process: we can eliminate this by nationalising all businesses

I don't recommend this 'solution' however.

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

successful businesses produce the wealth that funds NHS, education, infrastructure, social housing, social services, the police, pensions etc

.

I would suggest that is debatable for the many businesses whose sole source of revenue is public money. As opposed to money from the public).