Tory welfare cuts

[salou4]

The Daily Mail's treatment of David Milliband in this last election has been disgraceful,

 

I think Ed Millibands treatment of David was much worse than anything the Daily Mail said.

[Mister M]

I think Ed Millibands treatment of David was much worse than anything the Daily Mail said.

 

Why what did Ed do? They both contested the Labour leadership, and David Miliband lost. What's so terrible about that? I thought Tories were supposed to believe in competition.

Meanwhile the Daily Mail lived up to its reputation as an attack dog, and vilified his dead father.

[I1L2T3]

So because the public wanted to go to the casino of the housing market and fund their new home from a bank loan and move into a new home for £99 deposit.........errr, if it sounds too good to be true .........you know the rest,

Where was personal responsibility in all this..........or was it all the banks fault?...........no borrowers = no banks!

 

In many cases the banks haven't done anything illegal in extending these dodgy loans. A lot of the loans at the height of the boom were self-certs and people were 'encouraged' to stretch the truth on their applications. All the terms and conditions, all the risk was loaded onto the applicants. It was the applicants that committed fraud to take out their mortgages.

 

This must be galling for the next generations of prospective homeowners who cannot get on the ladder. They see people who lied to get on the housing ladder sitting on huge capital gains and propped up by ultra-low interest rates and non-foreclosure agreements negotiated between government and the banks.

 

And yes, I think it's time some responsibility was taken. for every person/couple/family working and saving hard to get on the housing ladder there is another who committed financial fraud to get there. Track some of them down and make them face up to what they did through the courts, and prioritise their properties for others who have done nothing wrong.

[apelike]

I'm afraid it's true my friend. The evidence is splashed everywhere in the media and places like this forum that people have negative views towards those who seek/need help.

 

British people have some of the highest levels of personal debt in the world. And it's getting worse.

 

When you are one step away from the gutter then the gutter is the thing you fear most. People know it might be them next.

 

Its been a deliberate bit of social engineering as I have said before. Get rid of social housing and tell people that they need to get on the housing ladder in order to have a home. That way they will be in debt with a big mortgage and loans to furnish the home. When that happens people become afraid of losing their jobs as their home and security is now at risk. With social housing that was never a problem as whatever happened you were secure.

 

As you have said those are the very people who were once classed as working class, and now because of being hard up through debt dont like people getting any benefits that they cant get.

[-Boomer-]

Its been a deliberate bit of social engineering as I have said before. Get rid of social housing and tell people that they need to get on the housing ladder in order to have a home. That way they will be in debt with a big mortgage and loans to furnish the home. When that happens people become afraid of losing their jobs as their home and security is now at risk. With social housing that was never a problem as whatever happened you were secure.

 

As you have said those are the very people who were once classed as working class, and now because of being hard up through debt dont like people getting any benefits that they cant get.

 

 

Good luck getting a mortgage if you're over 40

[apelike]

Good luck getting a mortgage if you're over 40

 

Ah but those over 40 will probably have saved up enough to put down a fairly good deposit. Not forgetting also that some lenders also factor in the new retirement ages. I think you will also find that the 35-45 age group are currently the ones with the most mortgages at the moment.

 

But.. At 50 would probably be harder.

[Bob Arctor]

In many cases the banks haven't done anything illegal in extending these dodgy loans. A lot of the loans at the height of the boom were self-certs and people were 'encouraged' to stretch the truth on their applications. All the terms and conditions, all the risk was loaded onto the applicants. It was the applicants that committed fraud to take out their mortgages.

 

This must be galling for the next generations of prospective homeowners who cannot get on the ladder. They see people who lied to get on the housing ladder sitting on huge capital gains and propped up by ultra-low interest rates and non-foreclosure agreements negotiated between government and the banks.

 

And yes, I think it's time some responsibility was taken. for every person/couple/family working and saving hard to get on the housing ladder there is another who committed financial fraud to get there. Track some of them down and make them face up to what they did through the courts, and prioritise their properties for others who have done nothing wrong.

 

I don't think that's quite true. There was a big incentive for lenders to lend, even to people who they knew would struggle to repay. Not just the immediate bonuses for the sales people but because the lenders would immediately sell the debt to someone else, so why would they care that the risk of default was high? Now you might reasonably think that no-one would buy such a risky debt, but you'd be wrong because of 'securitization'. Have a read on it, it's basically where debts of different levels of risk get packaged together and sold on. Securitzed debts are so complex it is difficult to accurately assess how risky they are but that didn't stop people buying them.

 

Securitized debts stemming from the sub-prime mortgage market were the main cause of the 2008 financial crisis and by extension the recession and by extension the deficit. People really need to understand this better, especially when the austerity hits those hardest who had nothing at all do with creating the crisis.

 

This is well worth a read on it http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Age-Instability-Global-Financial-x/dp/1846683106

[I1L2T3]

I don't think that's quite true. There was a big incentive for lenders to lend, even to people who they knew would struggle to repay. Not just the immediate bonuses for the sales people but because the lenders would immediately sell the debt to someone else, so why would they care that the risk of default was high? Now you might reasonably think that no-one would buy such a risky debt, but you'd be wrong because of 'securitization'. Have a read on it, it's basically where debts of different levels of risk get packaged together and sold on. Securitzed debts are so complex it is difficult to accurately assess how risky they are but that didn't stop people buying them.

 

Securitized debts stemming from the sub-prime mortgage market were the main cause of the 2008 financial crisis and by extension the recession and by extension the deficit. People really need to understand this better, especially when the austerity hits those hardest who had nothing at all do with creating the crisis.

 

This is well worth a read on it http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Age-Instability-Global-Financial-x/dp/1846683106

 

Read a lot about securitisation, and you are right about incentives for the banks. That doesn't change the fact that to keep the whole show going the banks needed a constant flow of suckers to lay their backsides on the line. Importantly, the suckers are the ones who carry the risk. If it came to it the banks and authorities would not think twice about punishing these borrowers but not one banker would set foot in the dock.