GBdamo Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 So you are in fact saying we all contributed and not just the banks and politicians. Since the products they spend the money on also prey on people. Snapple phones, ABMW's and cruises around the world. They all sold the image of the life you should want and most also offered low or free credit to get it outside of the banking system. And since we all in some way supported this tripe we are all in it together. Don't just focus on one element, being houses and mortgages, the whole lifestyle TV programming since childhood setup this predictable outcome and we all played a part in it. Thatcher was a major component with the yuppie get rich quick picture and everyone got greedy. I guess in the same way as a murder victim contributed to a murder, i.e. by being there. The banks needed a receptive victim, the government provided that through education and the lax controls on advertising standards coupled with television programming. This was a long play by both banks and government, they both had their own agenda and goals. Full time should have been called in 2005 where we would have seen the usual fleecing of the people by the banks but governments had got too used to the tax take and had started to believe their own 'no more boom and bust' rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 (edited) "We all ate together" He forgot the last bit: "But some of us came back for seconds, thirds, fourths..." Yep. It was one of those meals where everyone ate together but most only had the cheap prix fixe menu while a privileged few went a la carte with a full range of starters,lobster thermidor, a sweet, a nice bottle of bolly, some vintage Burgundy, the cheeseboard, coffee, cognac and monetcristo cigars Of course, when the bill came in the latter were the first to suggest that the tab be shared equally amongst all diners regardless of what they had ordered.. Edited April 28, 2012 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 We all ate together, maybe but if you accept this premise then maybe we should all pay back in proportion to the amount we benefited. I don't see many bankers losing out or paying back the millions they fleeced from others. The problem is, it is a rigged game the average person isn't that bright and they do have essential needs one being housing. Ufortunately the system has raised the cost of housing to such an extent that people had to play the game whether they wanted too or not. You could argue that people voted for the politicians, but when was the last time a politician ever honoured any of their pledges or worked for the interest of the country as a whole. Blame has to be apportioned fairly and squarely to those in charge the government and the banks, they are supposed after all to be the professionals and know what they are doing. In addition the media needs to take a huge dollop of the flack given their property ramping madness of the past decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Yep. It was one of those meals where everyone ate together but most only had the cheap prix fixe menu while a privileged few went a la carte with a full range of starters,lobster thermidor, a sweet, a nice bottle of bolly, some vintage Burgundy, the cheeseboard, coffee, cognac and monetcristo cigars Of course, when the bill came in the latter were the first to suggest that the tab be shared equally amongst all diners regardless of what they had ordered.. +1 Then just to sit at another of the tables and to pay the bill those on the cheapo stuff borrowed from those on the luxury stuff sitting along the table. Those on the luxury stuff paid the bill for their meal with the fees and interest etc from lending to those on the cheap stuff. When the meal was finished the luxury eaters walked away scot free and the cheap meal eaters still had to pay them for the cheap meal. Because the cheapo eaters were having difficulty paying the bill the luxury eaters pals are subbing the luxury eaters from money they've filched from the cheapo eaters. But yeah "we all ate together" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 29, 2012 Author Share Posted April 29, 2012 +1 Then just to sit at another of the tables and to pay the bill those on the cheapo stuff borrowed from those on the luxury stuff sitting along the table. Those on the luxury stuff paid the bill for their meal with the fees and interest etc from lending to those on the cheap stuff. When the meal was finished the luxury eaters walked away scot free and the cheap meal eaters still had to pay them for the cheap meal. Because the cheapo eaters were having difficulty paying the bill the luxury eaters pals are subbing the luxury eaters from money they've filched from the cheapo eaters. But yeah "we all ate together" As the saying goes, "I'm still a virgin, it only went in a little bit." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Perhaps we should introduce a 'Financial Unawareness' card, like organ donor cards. It could say, "Don't lend me anything as I don't understand the concept of being required to pay it back". So: Two people are engaged making a decision, one a highly paid expert in the field, the other a complete novice with little or no understanding of the subject. In addition the expert is concealing or has failed to glean relevant information concerning the downside risks involved in that decision either because they stand to gain personally by doing so or are not as 'expert' as they claim to be. In addition the novice is under the mistaken impression that regulations exist to protect him from bad advice or predatory behaviours on the part of the expert and that these regulations are in fact enforced- which is not the case. Are you seriously claiming that the novice is as much to blame as the expert in this scenario should that decision turn out to be an error? People were entitled to rely on the advice of their IFA's and Bankers regarding the viability of the loans that these entities approved. Just as you are entitled to rely on the expert advice of your medical professional in matters of health. If it should turn out that your doctor is a fool or a crook and as a result you suffer a catastrophic outcome- to claim that you are just as much to blame for your predicament as that doctor is absurd. If Bankers are no more qualified in matters of risk assessment than the ladies who empty their office bins why is there such a massive difference in pay between the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 So: Two people are engaged making a decision, one a highly paid expert in the field, the other a complete novice with little or no understanding of the subject. In addition the expert is concealing or has failed to glean relevant information concerning the downside risks involved in that decision either because they stand to gain personally by doing so or are not as 'expert' as they claim to be. In addition the novice is under the mistaken impression that regulations exist to protect him from bad advice or predatory behaviours on the part of the expert and that these regulations are in fact enforced- which is not the case. Are you seriously claiming that the novice is as much to blame as the expert in this scenario should that decision turn out to be an error? People were entitled to rely on the advice of their IFA's and Bankers regarding the viability of the loans that these entities approved. Just as you are entitled to rely on the expert advice of your medical professional in matters of health. If it should turn out that your doctor is a fool or a crook and as a result you suffer a catastrophic outcome- to claim that you are just as much to blame for your predicament as that doctor is absurd. If Bankers are no more qualified in matters of risk assessment than the ladies who empty their office bins why is there such a massive difference in pay between the two? Like it's not bl00dy written all over the contract you are supposed to read and then sign. Oh that's right, people don't read them so it's still the fault of the lender. Too fecking lazy to read it more like. All the regs require disclosure to the umpteenth degree, like "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments." Heard of that one? It's always everyone else's fault. Like Lemmings over a cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Like it's not bl00dy written all over the contract you are supposed to read and then sign. Oh that's right, people don't read them so it's still the fault of the lender. Too fecking lazy to read it more like. All the regs require disclosure to the umpteenth degree, like "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments." Heard of that one? It's always everyone else's fault. Like Lemmings over a cliff. +1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 So: Two people are engaged making a decision, one a highly paid expert in the field, the other a complete novice with little or no understanding of the subject. In addition the expert is concealing or has failed to glean relevant information concerning the downside risks involved in that decision either because they stand to gain personally by doing so or are not as 'expert' as they claim to be. In addition the novice is under the mistaken impression that regulations exist to protect him from bad advice or predatory behaviours on the part of the expert and that these regulations are in fact enforced- which is not the case. Are you seriously claiming that the novice is as much to blame as the expert in this scenario should that decision turn out to be an error? People were entitled to rely on the advice of their IFA's and Bankers regarding the viability of the loans that these entities approved. Just as you are entitled to rely on the expert advice of your medical professional in matters of health. If it should turn out that your doctor is a fool or a crook and as a result you suffer a catastrophic outcome- to claim that you are just as much to blame for your predicament as that doctor is absurd. If Bankers are no more qualified in matters of risk assessment than the ladies who empty their office bins why is there such a massive difference in pay between the two? I prefer my earlier analogy of a barman. The relationship with an IFA, or the low paid bank staff should be seen as like that rather than a doctor. In any case, what sort of viability test is required for a mortgage or a loan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Like it's not bl00dy written all over the contract you are supposed to read and then sign. Oh that's right, people don't read them so it's still the fault of the lender. Too fecking lazy to read it more like. All the regs require disclosure to the umpteenth degree, like "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments." Heard of that one? It's always everyone else's fault. Like Lemmings over a cliff. Also although I do agree banks share much of the blame the analogy of a few people feasting at everyone's expense is too simplistic. Many people aged 40 and over have seen appreciation of one or more assets, the like of which has outstripped all other savings they have made over their life. Meanwhile those under 35 have been forced to pay for that appreciation and have very little or nothing to show for it. If we did all eat together then I must have been the guy who got to the buffet last and had to have lettuce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Also although I do agree banks share much of the blame the analogy of a few people feasting at everyone's expense is too simplistic. Many people aged 40 and over have seen appreciation of one or more assets, the like of which has outstripped all other savings they have made over their life. Meanwhile those under 35 have been forced to pay for that appreciation and have very little or nothing to show for it. If we did all eat together then I must have been the guy who got to the buffet last and had to have lettuce. I was on a diet, honest EDIT: I would ask... did you benefit from free / subsidised University? NHS? Benefits from Gov of any kind? In fact many of the subsidised benefits aren't that obvious, but we all took them. I agree some had lettuce whilst others had the smoked salmon and caviar. But we all snuck a plate from the free buffet. Edited April 30, 2012 by Redcellar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I was on a diet, honest EDIT: I would ask... did you benefit from free / subsidised University? NHS? Benefits from Gov of any kind? In fact many of the subsidised benefits aren't that obvious, but we all took them. I agree some had lettuce whilst others had the smoked salmon and caviar. But we all snuck a plate from the free buffet. Subsidised uni: yes, part - I paid a few K but not as much as now NHS - yes I've used this Benefits - child benefit These are largely paid for by the taxes from the state. Yes we have a deficit in recent years so in this I have helped to contribute to the deficit. In the meantime I pay well over the average salary in tax every year - I'm certainly putting more in that I take out. However, I have not had 200K worth or much more just land in my lap. This is a massive difference and shows how silly analogies about eating detract from the real numbers. Those on one side of the fence have enough for a comfortable long retirement. Those on the other side have a life of hard work and no prospect of retirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Subsidised uni: yes, part - I paid a few K but not as much as now NHS - yes I've used this Benefits - child benefit These are largely paid for by the taxes from the state. Yes we have a deficit in recent years so in this I have helped to contribute to the deficit. In the meantime I pay well over the average salary in tax every year - I'm certainly putting more in that I take out. However, I have not had 200K worth or much more just land in my lap. This is a massive difference and shows how silly analogies about eating detract from the real numbers. Those on one side of the fence have enough for a comfortable long retirement. Those on the other side have a life of hard work and no prospect of retirement. Have you worked out how much you have had from the system? I bet I can count on one hand the number of people who have, and I would call them a liar. And until then it's pure speculation to assume your costs have been more than covered by your payments. For example do you know how much payments were for the loans that subsidised 'building' the NHS yet alone running it everday? We all use it and want it available. Just one example. Stating that they are largely paid for by the taxes from the state would suggest we have a deficit of Zero. Well we all know we don't. So you and I have both been enjoying these benefits and we all have to pay some day. An analogy of food is a fair one. We've all eaten and we all need to settle up or run out on the bill. But the food was eaten, and we did all eat and continue to want to eat. EDIT: I recognise you said we did have a deficit and that is my point. We all benefited to some extent and putting a $ figure on it is night on impossible. If you're trip to the hospital saved your life then how would you value that? Difficult to cash it all in. Edited April 30, 2012 by Redcellar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Subsidised uni: yes, part - I paid a few K but not as much as now NHS - yes I've used this Benefits - child benefit These are largely paid for by the taxes from the state. Yes we have a deficit in recent years so in this I have helped to contribute to the deficit. In the meantime I pay well over the average salary in tax every year - I'm certainly putting more in that I take out. However, I have not had 200K worth or much more just land in my lap. This is a massive difference and shows how silly analogies about eating detract from the real numbers. Those on one side of the fence have enough for a comfortable long retirement. Those on the other side have a life of hard work and no prospect of retirement. In percentage terms very few in the country have £200k or more just land in their lap, whether bankers or not. Look at the HMRC figures for the number of people who pay 50% tax, and not all of these people are bankers. The fact is we all enjoyed some benefits from the credit boom; we all ate together, some just got their snouts deeper into the trough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) In percentage terms very few in the country have £200k or more just land in their lap, whether bankers or not. Look at the HMRC figures for the number of people who pay 50% tax, and not all of these people are bankers. The fact is we all enjoyed some benefits from the credit boom; we all ate together, some just got their snouts deeper into the trough. What about someone who is 16 now? Given that everyone alive in the UK was born under the NHS let's forget the "they wouldn't be alive" bit. Plus everyone went to school, albeit some to a later age than others. They will be facing a country on it's knees, unlikely ever to be out of debt. Balance that with someone retiring at 60 on a final salary pension and a 500K house they paid well under 100K for. Is that kid in the trough but not quite a deep? He might have inhaled the fumes but that's it. Meanwhile millions of his "betters" are living a life he never will, all in the same country. Edited April 30, 2012 by bmf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 What about someone who is 16 now? Given that everyone alive in the UK was born under the NHS let's forget the "they wouldn't be alive" bit. Plus everyone went to school, albeit some to a later age than others. They will be facing a country on it's knees, unlikely ever to be out of debt. Balance that with someone retiring at 60 on a final salary pension and a 500K house they paid well under 100K for. Is that kid in the trough but not quite a deep? He might have inhaled the fumes but that's it. Meanwhile millions of his "betters" are living a life he never will, all in the same country. Pedantic I know, but the NHS came into being on 5 July 1948. Millions of people were born before the NHS existed, and some people were born abroad. Someone who is 16 may face a tough time for a few years. When house prices fall to realistic levels, as inevitably they must as the economic fundamentals start to play their part, things will not appear as bad for them. The tag, "We all ate together", should you actually read the article to which I referred, wasn't saying we're all equally culpable, just that none of us can say, "Not me , squire." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Pedantic I know, but the NHS came into being on 5 July 1948. Millions of people were born before the NHS existed, and some people were born abroad. Wow - that abroad bit really is scraping the barrel. Someone who is 16 may face a tough time for a few years. When house prices fall to realistic levels, as inevitably they must as the economic fundamentals start to play their part, things will not appear as bad for them. The tag, "We all ate together", should you actually read the article to which I referred, wasn't saying we're all equally culpable, just that none of us can say, "Not me , squire." Tough time for a few years? People who are mid 20s now are seeing the start of their lives disappear. This won't be fixed in 5 years by a long shot. In fact if they continue trying to prop up the status quo at the behest of core voters we are looking at 10 years and then some. I think you underestimate the size of the mess. This isn't a blip or even a trough. It's a disaster. All whilst many carry on living the life of Riley. Heating and travel? No problem! Downsize and cash in? More money than they've saved in their lives. All things in life have a continuum. That guy off top gear is an absolute c0ck but I wouldn't lump him in with Mussolini because they have both annoyed people in their time. Placing all carbon life in the UK in the bucket marked "benefited from the boom" is poor logic and frankly it's insulting to the young, having to deal with this mess, whilst others carry on as they where, as we sink further into the mire. Edited April 30, 2012 by bmf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Wow - that abroad bit really is scraping the barrel. How dare you attempt to play the race card. You stated that everyone in the UK was born under the NHS. Also I am not scraping the barrel - for example, Matthew Parris, the columnist, lives in the UK and was born in Jo'burg. Also many bankers, the pigs who have their snouts in the trough, remember, are actually foreign citizens, paying UK taxes. Edited April 30, 2012 by mfs1959 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) How dare you attempt to play the race card. You raised the everyone born under the NHS. Also I am not scraping the barrel - for example, Matthew Parris, the columnist, lives in the UK and was born in Jo'burg. Also many bankers, the pigs who have their snouts in the trough, remember, are actually foreign citizens, paying UK taxes. Harriet Harperson, is that you! Not sure how you inferred that. I'm saying that the number of people who moved from abroad is not a big number relative to the population as a whole. Anyhow let's not let that detract from the point. God - how depressing the UK is that anyone starts on about race cards. Who even thinks about crap like that? The uk is one sick place. Edited April 30, 2012 by bmf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Harriet Harperson, is that you! Not sure how you inferred that. I'm saying that the number of people who moved from abroad is not a big number relative to the population as a whole. Anyhow let's not let that detract from the point. Ok - if you did not intend that I apologise. In actual fact, there are millions of British subjects and others, living in the UK, who were born abroad, I can accept that a 16 year-old did not eat with the rest of us. That apart, we have all enjoyed some benefits from the unsustainable credit and spending boom. If you have been treated in a PFI hospital, or on equipment financed by government borrowing, accepted child benfit or tax credits, put children through school and/or university you have partaken of the boom. Even the line, "I never voted for them" does not exonerate you if you took the Brown shilling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I can accept that a 16 year-old did not eat with the rest of us. That apart, we have all enjoyed some benefits from the unsustainable credit and spending boom. If you have been treated in a PFI hospital, or on equipment financed by government borrowing, accepted child benfit or tax credits, put children through school and/or university you have partaken of the boom. Even the line, "I never voted for them" does not exonerate you if you took the Brown shilling. Isn't that like throwing someone a few scraps from the banquet table then insisting that they split the bill equally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Ok - if you did not intend that I apologise. In actual fact, there are millions of British subjects and others, living in the UK, who were born abroad, I can accept that a 16 year-old did not eat with the rest of us. That apart, we have all enjoyed some benefits from the unsustainable credit and spending boom. If you have been treated in a PFI hospital, or on equipment financed by government borrowing, accepted child benfit or tax credits, put children through school and/or university you have partaken of the boom. Even the line, "I never voted for them" does not exonerate you if you took the Brown shilling. As I said where is the logic in taking all people on a continuum from Clarkson (I've remembered his name now) to Mussolini? You are throwing a net over people who have simply been born in this country and .... that's it. The way to measure this is the outcome: * poor their whole life and work until they die. age less than 35 * retire at 60 with plenty of cash How is this happening to people in the same country at the same time? The young have no voice at all other than people stuffing words into their mouths about how "we all benefited" even though the young have not. PFI isn't even paid for. We will all be paying for PFI for years and years thanks to idiots voting for hospitals we could not afford because they thought it would be great if we had a good healthcare system irrespective of whether we could pay for it or not. Basic state functions such as schooling and roads are well within the means of this country to pay for. There is no argument that our tax receipts could easily cover these. The young should not be bending over backwards to thank people for these. Again this is comparing apples and oranges and insulting to the young. Here is what we cannot afford that the young have not benefited from: * 30 year pensions after working for 45 years - absurd * tripling of house prices which benefits those who owned before who are "bought out" by the young in a generational wealth transfer To compare a youngster visiting the doctors for antibiotics vs a 30 year holiday is unbelievable. And please do not use the "he would have died without them" logic as the cost of the medicine is the issue. Many people in their mid 20s are absolutely stuffed by this mess. We did not "all eat together", any more than Cameron is "all in it together" with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 Isn't that like throwing someone a few scraps from the banquet table then insisting that they split the bill equally. I could quote Matthew 15:27. But no, it isn't. Going on about how well bankers did out of their lending spree doesn't excuse the rest of the populace. You can't just say that bankers are 'special', an elite who should have perceived the effects of their actions. In fact too many of them, perhaps in the folly of their relative youth, and their arrogance, fell for the 'new paradigm" argument; that it was different this time because we had entered an era of permanently low rates. The blame lies also with the rest of us who let our greed have free reign. All cons rely on the greed and cupidity of the individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 * retire at 60 with plenty of cash * 30 year pensions after working for 45 years - absurd * tripling of house prices which benefits those who owned before who are "bought out" by the young in a generational wealth transfer Many people in their mid 20s are absolutely stuffed by this mess. We did not "all eat together", any more than Cameron is "all in it together" with us. I was never saying everyone benefitted equally. In fact, I know people who retired at 60 and later and are on the breadline. I know people who are coming up to 60 who will regard their state pension as a welcome increase in income. I agree that it is ludicrous to expect a 30 year holiday. I do not regard the rise in house prices above inflation as anything to applaud. I am just using the words of the Greek Deputy PM, and I would urge you to read the article, to point out that it is not all the fault of the bankers and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I could quote Matthew 15:27. But no, it isn't. Going on about how well bankers did out of their lending spree doesn't excuse the rest of the populace. You can't just say that bankers are 'special', an elite who should have perceived the effects of their actions. In fact too many of them, perhaps in the folly of their relative youth, and their arrogance, fell for the 'new paradigm" argument; that it was different this time because we had entered an era of permanently low rates. I know you are in part agreeing but even here I'm going to be a pain :-) The blame lies also with the rest of us who let our greed have free reign. All cons rely on the greed and cupidity of the individual. The next generation could have been 100% sensible and not fallen for it. We will never know because stuffing debt down the generations has changed their lives forever. And for what? Not fighting fascism. Nothing but a few wide screen TVs. For shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.