Shrinking savings put millions at risk of reposession

Seabee42

Well to be fair the debt industry i.e. banks etc has a vested interested in keeping people going in debt in perpetuity.

The other side is those in debt themselves see no reason not to keep borrowing since after all its only if you have savings that the government provides no safety net.

antrobus

Seabee42 wrote: »

Well to be fair the debt industry i.e. banks etc has a vested interested in keeping people going in debt in perpetuity. ......

It's a bit of tall order trying to keep people going in "debt in perpetuity" - as they put it so succinctly in high Valyrian; valar morghulis.

I'd suggest it was the contrary; that the debt industry i.e. banks etc has a vested interested in getting people to repay their debt at some point in the foreseeable future. On the whole I'd say that the "debt industry i.e. banks etc" seems to experience all sorts of problems when they forget that little principle.

Seabee42

Its the same as drug companies love long term treatment medicines and do not want to find cures! Getting people of debt is the same its not adding to the bottom line the same way interest payments do!

antrobus

Seabee42 wrote: »

Its the same as drug companies love long term treatment medicines and do not want to find cures! Getting people of debt is the same its not adding to the bottom line the same way interest payments do!

Of course you are 100% correct. There is no financial incentive whatsover for any pharmaceutical company to find a cure for anything. Which is why, of course, in all of human history there has never been one case of a treatment or vaccine being developed that cured or eradciated any disease whatsoever.

Apart from smallpox. Or polio. Or maybe hepatitis C, but that was only publicised in past few days, so perhaps you haven't come across it yet.:)

Seabee42

Ah but where any of those cures from drugs companies?

wymondham

Maybe this is what happens when Government policy is to get people to buy houses when in reality they can't afford it?

Thrugelmir

FCA are only just starting to get to grips with consumer debt. Something all political parties are pretending is not an issue. Always was going to take time to resolve the issue. As no country yet in history has managed to extract itself out of the financial mire without distress.

antrobus

Seabee42 wrote: »

Ah but where any of those cures from drugs companies?

Yes.

As a general rule. "drugs companies" are a better source of sundry chemical cures and vaccines than a bloke down the pub.:)

chewmylegoff

There are 5 million housing benefit claimants (presumably only one claimant per household) in the country. I would expect that the majority of these would have little or no savings and technically wouldn't be able to fund their next rent payment from their savings but they are in no danger of losing their home as the government will cough up the cash.

I wonder whether they are included in the figures assembled by this survey. It seems to look at savings and if there are none then conclude that one missed paycheck means house lost. Leaving aside the point already raised by Nikkster - ie that one missed payment does not result in repossession/eviction (you have to be 8 weeks in arrears before a landlord can seek possession for instance) - has the survey actually considered whether the people with no savings actually have a "paycheck"?

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I wonder whether they are included in the figures assembled by this survey.

No, the survey specifically looks at people who pay rent or a mortgage payment. I.e. not those who have the rent paid for them.

The results would be a lot higher if you added your 5 million reliant on benefits. The "pay check" part is relevant, as in they get paid by an employer.

Shelter's findings were based on a YouGov survey of 7,500 adults who pay rent or a mortgage.