Damo-Leeds wrote:The rest of the world manages just fine? Are you that deluded, that ignorant and that detached from current affairs in the world that you can come in and make sweeping statements like this? Perhaps you could have a look at these Americans that aren’t doing fine and are struggling to pay off debt: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/archive You see mortgages aren’t the only financial noose that people take a risk with to improve their lives and in many cases improve the world. I think you’ll find that you’re looking at things from a very narrow angle. Here’s some non-English websites set up in other countries because things aren’t fine whatsoever. http://revolutionsweden.wordpress.com/ http://www.onesolutionrevolution.de/ http://revo.revoluce.info/ There’s even more out they if you want to educate yourself about the struggles of the world. We were talking about mortgages, Damo, not the global economic crisis. Go and educate yourself about the living arrangements in the majority of Europe. They rent, or remain living with family. Some buy, but they are the minority. The UK is almost unique in its obsession with home ownership. Oh, and I make it a rule never to read a website with the word 'revolution' in the url. The usual loony paranoid conspiracy obsessed manics are sure to be lurking in some guise or other, and a glance at that '99' site proves me correct. Damo-Leeds wrote:With this misguided body of writing you put together by seeing my name and going on a cliché rant against me. I don’t think you even read what I put. You just fancied having a pop. Let me make things clear. My mate got evicted from his old flat because his housemate (who wasn’t very nice) couldn’t afford to pay his bills. So my mate got chucked out of that flat through no fault of his own. I was just giving an example of how most things can be out of people’s hands when it comes to things like this. Well diddums to your mate. Again, I ask you, who do you think should cover these bills? The government (and therefore the taxpayer)? Charity? Should the landlord bear the cost indefinitely until he can find a suitable tenant? I assume your mate signed a tenancy agreement, did he check the terms in that before being ruthlessly evicted?

Damo-Leeds wrote:The rest of the world manages just fine? Are you that deluded, that ignorant and that detached from current affairs in the world that you can come in and make sweeping statements like this? Perhaps you could have a look at these Americans that aren’t doing fine and are struggling to pay off debt: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/archive You see mortgages aren’t the only financial noose that people take a risk with to improve their lives and in many cases improve the world. I think you’ll find that you’re looking at things from a very narrow angle. Here’s some non-English websites set up in other countries because things aren’t fine whatsoever. http://revolutionsweden.wordpress.com/ http://www.onesolutionrevolution.de/ http://revo.revoluce.info/ There’s even more out they if you want to educate yourself about the struggles of the world. We were talking about mortgages, Damo, not the global economic crisis. Go and educate yourself about the living arrangements in the majority of Europe. They rent, or remain living with family. Some buy, but they are the minority. The UK is almost unique in its obsession with home ownership. Oh, and I make it a rule never to read a website with the word 'revolution' in the url. The usual loony paranoid conspiracy obsessed manics are sure to be lurking in some guise or other, and a glance at that '99' site proves me correct. Damo-Leeds wrote:With this misguided body of writing you put together by seeing my name and going on a cliché rant against me. I don’t think you even read what I put. You just fancied having a pop. Let me make things clear. My mate got evicted from his old flat because his housemate (who wasn’t very nice) couldn’t afford to pay his bills. So my mate got chucked out of that flat through no fault of his own. I was just giving an example of how most things can be out of people’s hands when it comes to things like this. Well diddums to your mate. Again, I ask you, who do you think should cover these bills? The government (and therefore the taxpayer)? Charity? Should the landlord bear the cost indefinitely until he can find a suitable tenant? I assume your mate signed a tenancy agreement, did he check the terms in that before being ruthlessly evicted?

Well if 'quite a lot' of public sector employees earn £60k+, that seems like an excellent reason to shaft the majority who earn a lot less than that.

I haven't had time to research the numbers, but in 2009/10 there were 481 public sector workers in Leicesterhire earning more than £100,000 of which 122 earned more than £142,000. So earning £60,000 there will be many thousands nationally. If there were just 10,000 on £60,000 pa that would be 10,000 would be millionaires in the pipeline with pension assets of £10 billion.

If we're using inaccurate figures, let's say 10000 public sector workers on a salary over £60000 out of 2m public sector workers (figures claimed for the strike last week) = 0.5% of the public sector workforce. If we assume that the population of the UK is 65m, that is 0.01% of the population. If the working age population is assumed to be 35m (and I haven't got a figure for that) its still only 0.03%

Hardly worth losing sleep over is it? I've certainly got better things to direct my ire at.

I'd like to replay RGX's reply to you again.
i.e. Why shaft the low-paid?

Please don't talk down to me.

The situation you describe isn't foreign to me. I graduated in 2007, I took on a 'real job' in September that year on a lowly wage. I bought house August 2008, and had a 10% pay reduction by Xmas 2008 (right when I was due a pay rise), the (small) business then had to make redundancies early 2009. All through which I have had no problems repaying my mortgage and other debts.

How is it some people can't plan and manage their own finances, like I have had to?

So yes it is that simple, the only other valid point is if you are made redundant and I know there is insurance for that, I took it out late on in 2008.

Yes it is because poorer are subsidising this ludicrous situation. Small businesses struggle to survive with the burden of rates, employers NI, etc. But the key point is a society where pay and conditions in the public sector are better than in the private sector will stagnate because logically bright people will tae the risk free option unless there's an incentive to do otherwise. That's part of what's happening.

Time was when life was much simpler.

If you wanted to own your own house, you first started saving with a building society and once you'd proved to them that you were responsible with money and you'd managed to save the requisite 20% for a deposit, they'd usually grant you a mortgage. If you wanted a loan to buy anything else, you went to a bank or a finance company and borrowed from them, assuming that they thought you were a suitable risk. Similarly, if you wanted to insure your house or your car, you'd go to an insurance company and if you had lots of spare cash and wanted to invest in the stock exchange, you sought out a stockbroker. If you were happy renting or thought that you couldn't afford to own your own home, you rented, usually a decent, sound property from your local council, at an affordable rent.

Then someone had the bright idea of enabling building societies to demutualise and become banks, they'd still offer morgages (as would the banks now) but they'd also offer you loans, insurance, loan-insurance, a stock-trading facility and all other sorts of bollox that nobody knew they needed until these new banks convinced us. These new banks also encouraged people to become property magnates by offering £buy to let" mortgages and houses stopped being somewhere to live but became an "investment for the future"

We also had an old-age pension from the state that offered a comfortable standard of living, especially to a pensioner who rented an old-aged person's bungalow from the council. They still have a similar thing in Norway and they fund it from the revenues generated by Statoil. Now the Norwegians sit on this big pile of gas and oil under the North Sea, when it was first discovered and divvied up, although a few other countries got a look in, the biggest part was shared between the UK and Norway. Round about the time that the bright spark decided that deregulating banks was a good idea, they also thought that flogging off our state-owned oil & gas licensor would also be good for us all. So while the Norwegians now have a sustainable (and will be so for many decades to come), state pension that is underwritten by Statoil, we are engaged in a blame game and a race to the bottom, just to get a few quid into the back pockets of politicians' chums.

No prizes for guessing who was responsible for the deregulation and the fire-sale of state assets

Enicomb wrote:Please don't talk down to me. It is what it is. I can't help how you take it. If it distresses you, maybe you should have taken out CBT cover before venturing out on a public forum. Enicomb wrote:The situation you describe isn't foreign to me. I graduated in 2007, I took on a 'real job' in September that year on a lowly wage. I bought house August 2008, and had a 10% pay reduction by Xmas 2008 (right when I was due a pay rise), the (small) business then had to make redundancies early 2009. All through which I have had no problems repaying my mortgage and other debts. How is it some people can't plan and manage their own finances, like I have had to? Because obviously you are paid enough, and some are not. Millions have nothing left at the end of the week, and a high percentage of them have no mortgage as they are in rented. Enicomb wrote:So yes it is that simple, So no, it really isn't. Enicomb wrote: the only other valid point is if you are made redundant and I know there is insurance for that, I took it out late on in 2008. Oh yeah. http://www.lovemoney.com/news/scams-and-rip-offs/rip-offs/1905/avoid-rip-off-redundancy-insurance. Plus as I mentioned ealier, not only were you paid enough to cover the above, clearly you had even enough surplus dosh to pay redundancy insurance premiums. Self explanatory, really. You have been fortunate in many respects, and seem oblivious to the existence of the millions that are not so lucky.

Enicomb wrote:Please don't talk down to me. It is what it is. I can't help how you take it. If it distresses you, maybe you should have taken out CBT cover before venturing out on a public forum. Enicomb wrote:The situation you describe isn't foreign to me. I graduated in 2007, I took on a 'real job' in September that year on a lowly wage. I bought house August 2008, and had a 10% pay reduction by Xmas 2008 (right when I was due a pay rise), the (small) business then had to make redundancies early 2009. All through which I have had no problems repaying my mortgage and other debts. How is it some people can't plan and manage their own finances, like I have had to? Because obviously you are paid enough, and some are not. Millions have nothing left at the end of the week, and a high percentage of them have no mortgage as they are in rented. Enicomb wrote:So yes it is that simple, So no, it really isn't. Enicomb wrote: the only other valid point is if you are made redundant and I know there is insurance for that, I took it out late on in 2008. Oh yeah. http://www.lovemoney.com/news/scams-and-rip-offs/rip-offs/1905/avoid-rip-off-redundancy-insurance. Plus as I mentioned ealier, not only were you paid enough to cover the above, clearly you had even enough surplus dosh to pay redundancy insurance premiums. Self explanatory, really. You have been fortunate in many respects, and seem oblivious to the existence of the millions that are not so lucky.