Keep a low profile if the Eurozone breaks up?

[just john]

No doubt they'll understand and agree after they've read the report[Www]

[Alan Zoff]

Doubtless a lot of people posting on here - me included - have done very nicely over the years out of the Welfare State, property and wage inflation, etc. If it was flawed, it was no more justified then than now.

[NickP]

[quote user="Frederick"]

This lifted from the  "Armagedon  " atricle on the other post

 

An early objective for government
should be to put an end to the state of
national denial over the true condition
of the economy, and to undercut
the delusory sense of individual and
collective ‘entitlement’ that was
fostered in the Labour years. Britain
has no automatic entitlement to high
living standards or a welfare state.
Rather, these benefits have to be
earned, not borrowed.

And how are the government going to get that message over to those dependent on the state for their wages or benefits    And how will they get change implemented peacefully if financial turmoil results in wage and benefits reduction  

[/quote]

Of course Maggie and her mates never encouraged anybody to buy  houses and borrow money that they couldn't afford did they? [Www]

 

[woolybanana]

Actually no!

 

[Russethouse]

 My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.

 Margaret Thatcher 1981

[woolybanana]

Me and mine had bugger all from the Welfare State and when we went abroad to earn for ourselves the fatherless people tried to screw us for tax.

In fact, thanks to the scum that ran the country, my dad had to pay 102% tax. So, I've no sympathy for anyone who takes a penny off the taxpayer without having worked for it in a real job.

[NickP]

[quote user="woolybanana"]

Me and mine had bugger all from the Welfare State and when we went abroad to earn for ourselves the fatherless people tried to screw us for tax.

In fact, thanks to the scum that ran the country, my dad had to pay 102% tax. So, I've no sympathy for anyone who takes a penny off the taxpayer without having worked for it in a real job.

[/quote]

Well done you for being the hero who paid to send our children to school and keep the hospitals afloat, if you would like to further your kindheartedness PM me and I will send you my address so you can send me more money, as I am finding it quite difficult at the moment as the old château needs a lick of paint and the Merc is now over six months old. [:P]

[NormanH]

[quote user="woolybanana"]

Me and mine had bugger all from the Welfare State and when we went abroad to earn for ourselves the fatherless people tried to screw us for tax.

In fact, thanks to the scum that ran the country, my dad had to pay 102% tax. So, I've no sympathy for anyone who takes a penny off the taxpayer without having worked for it in a real job.

[/quote]

Such as Dave and Gideon the Bullingdon bullies?

[woolybanana]

No, it started with Wilson and that load of shiftless servile breakers of wind, then Maggie improved things a bit, then that stoopid Blair and the unspeakable One Eyed Jackass who could not even run a dustcart, and the so-called Bullingdon boys who have to try and stick their fingers in the d yke when the ship is raddled with worm, and you wonder I am forced to leave a small place I loved simply to live.

Grrrrrr!

[just john]

[quote user="NickP"] [quote user="Frederick"]  lifted from the  "Armagedon  "  [/quote]

Of course Maggie and her mates never encouraged anybody to buy  houses and borrow money that they couldn't afford did they? [Www][/quote]

Don't lets confuse people who borrow to buy property then fail to repay banks

with

People who don't work and claim money from the State . . . 

[woolybanana]

The cluce is in the word 'anybody'. You only borrow if you have a chance of repaying.

[Alan Zoff]

It was such hard work to buy a house in the 70s for £8,000 with a 95% mortgage and pay modest premiums on an endowment policy on which you received tax relief and find yourself 30 years later with a £200,000 house, no mortgage and a wadge of cash from the policy (even after the thieving insurance company had taken a chunk). Eee. Times was 'ard.

[Russethouse]

Lucky you !

Our first house in 1979 was £16,500 - we had to have an endowment in order to get a mortgage at all as they were pretty much rationed if you didn't...we then paid something like 15.75% on the loan, in fact our monthly payments in that little terrace were more than in this 4 bed semi......which cost considerably more. You may have been OK, but it wasn't easy for us. I worked full time and my OH worked full time and did another job in the evenings, sometimes until the early hours.

And if you got anything out of the endowment policy you were in the minority, I thought myself lucky that it did in fact cover the amount it was supposed to, just !

[idun]

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]It was such hard work to buy a house in the 70s for £8,000 with a 95% mortgage and pay modest premiums on an endowment policy on which you received tax relief and find yourself 30 years later with a £200,000 house, no mortgage and a wadge of cash from the policy (even after the thieving insurance company had taken a chunk). Eee. Times was 'ard.[/quote]

 

I realise that your post is light AZ, but the poor young 'uns today are expected to pay 7 times their pay for a house and the rest, if they can ever get the deposit together. That was us too in the 70's I remember well. 'ard, it wasn't.We used to get a weeks shopping for about £7 or £8 quid.

My neice is a hospital techinician specialising in brain scans, degree and £15k a year. She could have been a radiologist or trained in other specialities. No chance of a raise. Can a well qualified professional afford a house these days, apparently not a chance in hell. What a legacy we have left.

[Alan Zoff]

OK, we bought our first house a few years earlier so did even better. And we had very little to spare then after paying bills. We had to wait a few years for the bonanza.

But what was a house bought for £16,500 in 1979 worth 30 years later? A heap more than £200,000. Fixed mortgage debts and rising house prices made people like us far wealthier in asset terms than those starting out now can hope to achieve, even if they work hard. (Unless they are talented footballers or often talentless musicians.) We've already reaped the rewards and they will pay the inflated price. It was largely the luck of being there at the right time.

[Russethouse]

  I think houses in that street are around £200,000 some a bit more, some a bit less. I remember being told the house was worth more because it was in such good decorative order LOL, when we moved in we noticed that they had wallpapered around corners into other rooms instead of just trimming the paper.

My mother has probably done the best, her house was £2750 in 1957, now in good order it would be £325,000 even as it is, its probably £300,000. No one knows whats going to happen re property prices, unless you are a developer or a buy to let investor, you buy so you have a home.... 

[idun]

I think that I have had a very lucky, privileged  life really. How easy it has been compared to my all the generations before me. 

[Quillan]

Having been on holiday and just returned and read this thread there is one point I would like to raise. Mortgage repossessions are now at the lowest for the last 8 years having peeked around 2002/3 (source at bottom of post).

The problem however with these figures is that they don't show the full picture and it's very difficult to find the data in the public domain to show this. Most people have their property repossessed not because they have failed to pay the mortgage but because they have had a secondary loan as a second charge. All those people who borrowed money to buy new cars, go on holiday etc from those lending companies that used to advertise on TV borrowed knowing they could not really afford to pay the money back. The lending companies knew this and the government knew this but nobody did anything to stop it from happening. The lending companies would force the sale of the property, the mortgage companies would get their money back (no mortgage default thus not technically a mortgage repossession) and what was left went to the lending company often leaving, in some cases, the person still owing money. This is why the figures do not show the whole picture.

There may be some justice for this. It is anticipated that next year (2012) that there will be a court case over the banks using third parties who mis-sold loans. I am referring to the telesales companies employed by banks to sell these loans working on a commission only fee. This was supposed to have happened this year (2011) but has been delayed because of the precarious position of the banks and that the money involved may not be affordable for some banks if ordered to pay compensation or in some cases cancel the loan.

Repossession data - http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/civil-justice/mortgage-possession.htm you need to click on the appropriate table format on the right hand side.

[Pickles]

[quote user="Quillan"]The problem however with these figures is that they don't show the full picture and it's very difficult to find the data in the public domain to show this. Most people have their property repossessed not because they have failed to pay the mortgage but because they have had a secondary loan as a second charge. All those people who borrowed money to buy new cars, go on holiday etc from those lending companies that used to advertise on TV borrowed knowing they could not really afford to pay the money back. The lending companies knew this and the government knew this but nobody did anything to stop it from happening. The lending companies would force the sale of the property, the mortgage companies would get their money back (no mortgage default thus not technically a mortgage repossession) and what was left went to the lending company often leaving, in some cases, the person still owing money. This is why the figures do not show the whole picture.[/quote]

IIRC, there is another aspect to this: some of these loans were originally "unsecured" (thereby potentially justifying the higher interest rates) but then became secured because of action taken by the loan companies to subsequently secure the charge when the person repaying the loan got into difficulties.

Regards

Pickles

[Edward Trunk]

"My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.

Margaret Thatcher 1981"

I find this unbelievable. Mrs Thatcher married a millionaire; she could afford to preach frugality to others. What really takes my breath away is the fact that she presided over an unsustainable credit boom - "the Lawson boom" - whose collapse caused the recession of the early 90's. It was her deregulation of the markets in the 80s - the "Big Bang" - which has led us directly to where we are today. Russethouse has a short memory.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Edward Trunk"]"My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police. Margaret Thatcher 1981" I find this unbelievable. Mrs Thatcher married a millionaire; she could afford to preach frugality to others. What really takes my breath away is the fact that she presided over an unsustainable credit boom - "the Lawson boom" - whose collapse caused the recession of the early 90's. It was her deregulation of the markets in the 80s - the "Big Bang" - which has led us directly to where we are today. Russethouse has a short memory.[/quote]It is unbelievable. Margaret Thatcher was fully committed to following the monetarist policies of Milton Freidman. But like all good politicians she knew what would appeal to the voters and tailored her remarks to project the right image

[Alan Zoff]

Invariably two sides to a story; two ways of looking at the same "facts".

My point was not to knock RH, etc or to condone spongers.

But we live in a different world now. I wonder how many of us might have behaved similarly to those we find easy to criticise if we had been born into a world with a much more pessimistic outlook than we enjoyed, even if we did not have a lot of material trappings at the time.

[Russethouse]

What is unbelievable is that over 20 years later people are still blaming Thatcher, some while enjoying a life they could not have done without some of her policies!

Like Ed Balls saying 'isn't it time they (the Conservatives) took some responsibility' today when throughout all of their time in government they blamed the previous tory government for their woes.....

[just john]

The lady was not for turning but she turned the course of history when unlike Wislon or Ted she stood up to the unions and for that (and other things besides) Britain become better along a different course. Neither Harold nor the other labour governments through to Gorgon created wealth to motivate the country, but instead used the country's wealth to create a social state above its means.

[idun]

I find it hard to find a word that describes how I feel about Thatcher and all the rest. Smug, doesn't  do it, but I do feel above it all as I didn't live it. A horrified observer was I and always put down if I dared try and break the spell everyone appeared to be under.

Do I criticise Margaret Thatcher, yup I certainly do, she cast her evil eye and most fell before her,even her dissenters joined in, be it grudingly.

 

I speak purely from what I have seen happening with people who are usually good souls but were led astray. And it lingers on the effects of the madness. Incidentally good friends of ours voted for Blair as they thought he was just like Thatcher....

Even when she is dead and buried she corrupted at least one generation and I doubt that the influence of her time in office will dissipate for some time to come.