Ghozer Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 So, what would you do instead? I would clear off everyones debts, based on a percentage scale. up to £xxx ammount of debt = 100% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 80% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 60% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 50% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 40% Cleared ... etc Maybe those 10k and below get 100% cleared, 20k or below get 80% cleared etc... this would make everyones pockets fuller, and would encourage more spending (as people would have more money) which would mean more in the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomataheeed Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 That is so short sighted and brainless i cant belive anyone is stupid enough to come up with that! what happens after everyone spent the 5k? Thats ok. Its worse news if no one spends it....which is what would actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 So our monthly self-fulfilling prophesy has happened again and interest rates have come down. When will Brown learn that it isn't working? I foresee major problems with civil unrest in years to come. As the pool of people working, and therefore contributing, to welfare benefits shrinks and the armies of people claiming grows, where is the money going to come from? Furthermore, we have been told for years that the basic state pension will not be sufficient and that we must all 'get saving'. Who on earth will save with the near non-existent interest rates? Still, it won't concern Brown and co. Their future is assured. The basic state pension is nowhere near enough as it stands. Anyone who only gets the basic pension (with no other income and little savings) will get pension credit - and subsequently should qualify for council tax & housing benefits. Those who've contributed small amounts to a company/private pension aren't likely to be much better off than people who haven't saved a penny. If people are guaranteed a decent company or private pension - then its a good idea to save just for the tax incentives. However, if they are in short term employment, or are low earners, they might as well just enjoy the money while they've got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I would clear off everyones debts, based on a percentage scale. up to £xxx ammount of debt = 100% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 80% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 60% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 50% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 40% Cleared ... etc Maybe those 10k and below get 100% cleared, 20k or below get 80% cleared etc... this would make everyones pockets fuller, and would encourage more spending (as people would have more money) which would mean more in the economy. And also encourage people to borrow more money as they'll think they'll get bailed out next time they're struggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 That is so short sighted and brainless i cant belive anyone is stupid enough to come up with that! what happens after everyone spent the 5k? Christ, I was only trying to throw something in the mix. It can't possibly be any worse than the way they're handling it at the moment. Anyway, why should I or anybody else have a solution? What do we pay that fat retard and his puppet for? Also, innit funny how the 'experts' are saying it 'will take several months/years for the current measures to work their way through the system.'? By which time Brown will be on the Euro gravy train, the fat cats at the banks will have retired in utter luxury and the rest of us will be screwed. I have never seen such an instance of 'Emperor's new clothes' as Brown. While times were good, he used to stand up at his (lying) budgets spouting about 'prudence', 'moral compass', 'son of the manse' etc - all accompanied by his retarded jaw-drop - now it's everyone's fault but his. Honestly, I'd rather have that 'baby MD' off the ads in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Christ, I was only trying to throw something in the mix. It can't possibly be any worse than the way they're handling it at the moment. Anyway, why should I or anybody else have a solution? What do we pay that fat retard and his puppet for? Also, innit funny how the 'experts' are saying it 'will take several months/years for the current measures to work their way through the system.'? By which time Brown will be on the Euro gravy train, the fat cats at the banks will have retired in utter luxury and the rest of us will be screwed. I have never seen such an instance of 'Emperor's new clothes' as Brown. While times were good, he used to stand up at his (lying) budgets spouting about 'prudence', 'moral compass', 'son of the manse' etc - all accompanied by his retarded jaw-drop - now it's everyone's fault but his. Honestly, I'd rather have that 'baby MD' off the ads in charge. Ha ha! Completely. And yet a lot of people will still vote for the fat sack. Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I would clear off everyones debts, based on a percentage scale. up to £xxx ammount of debt = 100% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 80% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 60% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 50% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 40% Cleared ... etc Maybe those 10k and below get 100% cleared, 20k or below get 80% cleared etc... this would make everyones pockets fuller, and would encourage more spending (as people would have more money) which would mean more in the economy. Pardon me if I'm feeling midly offended by this scheme, having opted to save and live within our means, rather than keeping up with the Joneses at any cost. Why should I bail out those who threw caution to the wind, however fully or partially, with my tax dollars? Right now, I should be lording like a one-eyed king in the land of the blind, same as should any other person who chose to exercise a bit of financial common sense in the past few years. Thanks to our imbecilic overlords (whom I never welcomed!), I'm not and, in fact, feeling rather punished for it just likebrianthedog above A lot of people would be best advised to dust off their classics, and read up on Jean de la Fontaine, particularly the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. Written in the 18th Century, and already all there for anyone with a modicum of common sense to understand: live within your means, live with the consequences if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Ha ha! Completely. And yet a lot of people will still vote for the fat sack. Incredible. It could just be a case of better the devil you know..... There doesn't seem to be much confidence that any of the alternative parties would be any better. Anyway, there are only a few tens of thousand people who can actually vote for him. Everyone else will be voting for someone else based on all sorts of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Pardon me if I'm feeling midly offended by this scheme, having opted to save and live within our means, rather than keeping up with the Joneses at any cost. Why should I bail out those who threw caution to the wind, however fully or partially, with my tax dollars? Right now, I should be lording like a one-eyed king in the land of the blind, same as should any other person who chose to exercise a bit of financial common sense in the past few years. Thanks to our imbecilic overlords (whom I never welcomed!), I'm not and, in fact, feeling rather punished for it just likebrianthedog above A lot of people would be best advised to dust off their classics, and read up on Jean de la Fontaine, particularly the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. Written in the 18th Century, and already all there for anyone with a modicum of common sense to understand: live within your means, live with the consequences if you don't. The problem with your stance is that everything is relative - and subject to change. I work, I earn money, I have outgoings, I have a mortgage, I live within my means (up to my means, I have to confess - I have little real savings, despite my best efforts; having three young children is, I'm afraid, expensive). Now, if I lose my job, I lose most of my income and, within a single stroke, I suddenly cannot live within my means (through no fault of my own bar being expendable and a drain on my employers). In such circumstances, therefore, I should just accept the situation, lose my home and everything I have worked for over the last 20+ years and 'learn' my lesson (so that I don't do it again). Not so much the country of the blind as the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. This is a situation that is facing many, many people - and may even face me (who knows?). While everything's balanced, it's fine - tip that balance due to external influences, and it's a different story altogether. But, should it happen, I will take comfort from knowing how smug and comfortable you are in your own little world. It's good to know there are those like you we lowly, pathetic individuals can look up to and aspire to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopsie Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Exactly what I think mate! My savings are getting a pittance in interest, so reward the ones that went out buying on tick and we get screwed for it! People with credit are not getting rewarded. In terms of personal finance, those with unsecured loans will be paying a fixed interest in the region of 7-15% interest depending on when/how much they borrowed. This will be unchanged despite interest rates coming down so drastically. People with credit cards are probably paying more in the region of 20% interest on their debt, so I fail to see how they're being rewarded. Some people with variable rate mortgages will benefit, but the majority won't because either a) their bank won't reduce their base rate in line with the cut or b) there is a 'collar' on how low their rate will go, which is likely to be around the 3% mark - so in reality, a handful of mortgagors are going to benefit, not those that 'went out buying on tick'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.