chem1st Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Didn't we LOAN the banks our money? We bailed them out, we also give them the ability to create it via debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctrine Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Didn't we LOAN the banks our money? If that is the case why aren't we now out of recession if the banks are in profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Are you sure it's not called: "Morons loose their ass" People that stupid shouldn't be allowed to own property. Heart go's out to that family tho, but why were 6 living in a 1 bed flat? Nobody in this country owns property The game is rigged. Most people don't even know the rules. And that is how they are parted from the fruits of their labour. If they did, then surely there would be a revolution. With increasing wealth, we have increasing want. And falling wages! Why? Because the game of life is rigged, and property and the control of it, and the control of people via property is far more valuable than human life AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING. It need not be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 If that is the case why aren't we now out of recession if the banks are in profit? Because it is not just enough for them to just re-pay what we lent them, but for the money to also circulate for the economy to get kick started again. The loan may have stipulated re-payments over 30 years. If that was the case the taxpayer is getting interest back during that time and making money out of the loan. Also, the banks know they will not be bailed out again, which is why they are reluctant to lend our money second time round. It's a catch 22 situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 //////////////////// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 This program is making for very uncomfortable viewing. The first family took out a 100% mortgage on a £500,000 house with £2,000 mortgage payments per month, for 10 years the husbands engineering company was doing well, family ski holidays etc, for 10 years, nothing put aside for the bad times, are you kidding me. "We had two cars, we sold one which paid for Christmas." WTF? Second lady, husband left her, fell behind on her payments, sadly got cancer, house originally bought for £54k now worth £180k. Bank is going to repossess due to £9000 arrears. What about her illness policy that should have been taken out with the mortgage, that would have paid off her mortgage upon a cancer diagnosis surely? Family of 6 in a one bedroom flat I can't even comment on. No sympathy though except for those poor children. Watching this program in disbelief Investment banker on wall street, doing well for years, then a crash and he's got nothing, how can you have nothing after running a successful wall street firm for years. I must be missing something here. The programme emphasised the value of frugality,and the need to adopt a sceptical view of the future.Most of the adults should have been a fraction more cautious in their finances.I agree with you FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 A family were evicted from their council home because they were in arrears with their rent. The council were then obliged to re-house them in emergency private accomodation that cost even more. Where is the sense in that? Why can't councils get their act together and plan long term? What an absolute waste of taxpayers money. In my experience, council tenants who get into arrears are given all sorts of help to sort them out with affordable repayment plans. Eviction is only considered if a tenant doesn't engage, even then its up to the court to decide. What would you suggest social landlords do with people who don't pay? Councils have a duty to ensure children are not living on the street, one of the alternatives would be to take them into care and let the parents fend for themselves. Apart from the family breakdown, the cost of care is far more prohibitive than a hostel. But I did feel sorry for the smaller children, who (if I heard right) hadn't gone to school since the eviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 The ruling classes are still looking down from their very high untouchable pedestal and laughing at you all. They are still making the rules and you are still following like sheep and blaming each other. They are still getting richer while you squabble...it was arranged that way. Too fight -divide and rule-as advocated by Metternich and Machiovelli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 In my experience, council tenants who get into arrears are given all sorts of help to sort them out with affordable repayment plans. Eviction is only considered if a tenant doesn't engage, even then its up to the court to decide. What would you suggest social landlords do with people who don't pay? Councils have a duty to ensure children are not living on the street, one of the alternatives would be to take them into care and let the parents fend for themselves. Apart from the family breakdown, the cost of care is far more prohibitive than a hostel. But I did feel sorry for the smaller children, who (if I heard right) hadn't gone to school since the eviction. This was what surprised me, that as council tenants no suitable plan had been arranged with the council. The program did state there was a problem with their housing benefit payments which were being looked into, but it appears, too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I felt sorry for the woman who had cancer, if her home had still been rented from the council (she'd bought it) the rent would have been paid via Housing benefit. The family whose business had gone bust had traded up to that house, but they had taken out a 100% mortgage. Not really the best plan with only one source of income. Hopefully they have family members with good credit ratings who can raise a deposit on a private rental. Or I suppose they could sell the Lexus. I was impressed by the fortitude of the man sleeping in the park. He didn't blame anyone, just felt fortunate he'd got somewhere safe to sleep. Programmes like this one are good in that they show people from all walks of life can have bad luck, make bad decisions etc, however in some of the cases the reasons why they got no help with their housing costs were sketchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.