Huggy Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 6 minutes ago, Unmoderated said: ROFL Do you tell this to people in real life and do they keep a straight face? As I mentioned in my reply to the other thread a mere 20 seconds ago, stop paying the mortgage and we can see exactly who owns what Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unmoderated Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 Just now, Huggy said: As I mentioned in my reply to the other thread a mere 20 seconds ago, stop paying the mortgage and we can see exactly who owns what That's one hell of an extension and requires a major event which is defaulting on a loan that is secured on the property. The house is offered as collateral. If I take out a business loan but own my house outright, but I secure that loan against personal assets are you now seriously suggesting I no longer own the house? Even though it's now technically at risk of repossession? Notice that word... repossession. It means seizure. How can they take something from you that you don't own lol. Tell you what, go and look at a bank's balance sheet. You can show us all where they account for houses. If they do own them it'll be under fixed assets. Anytime you're ready. Back in the real world what you're doing a terrible job of trying to highlight is an individual's net asset/(liability) position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 4 hours ago, BorrowToLeech said: Right, but my comment speaks to the argument that interest rises won’t be effective because of the small size of this group. Whether they should somehow be protected or are unfairly targeted is another matter. My view is that they are victims of a reckless policy of zero interest rates, and so their complaints against that policy are legitimate. However they were stress tested against a return to normal interest rates and therefore they were aware that this was a contingency to plan for. They took a gamble. People who took the other side of that gamble have lost much more, so far. That wasn’t an urgent crisis, and those people didn’t get bailed out. It’s ok to criticise the system that forces these choices on people, it’s not ok to protect one side against the consequences and then carry on as if the other people don’t matter. They are a subset of the group "Have Debt", that group includes individuals without mortgages and also companies that borrow to expand and employ people, it also includes consumers who use credit and overdrafts, so the net is spread quite widely (it doesn`t really touch the prudent, only tax rises would do that) Is that what you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 42 minutes ago, Huggy said: As I mentioned in my reply to the other thread a mere 20 seconds ago, stop paying the mortgage and we can see exactly who owns what This seems to come up all the time … owing a house with a mortgage secured against it is still owning a house. If you stop paying the mortgage the bank can take the house and sell it to get their money back, paying you the difference . If the bank owned the house they wouldn’t have to give you anything because it would be their house. Legally, factually, it’s isn’t the banks house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huggy Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 54 minutes ago, Unmoderated said: That's one hell of an extension and requires a major event which is defaulting on a loan that is secured on the property. The house is offered as collateral. If I take out a business loan but own my house outright, but I secure that loan against personal assets are you now seriously suggesting I no longer own the house? Even though it's now technically at risk of repossession? Notice that word... repossession. It means seizure. How can they take something from you that you don't own lol. Tell you what, go and look at a bank's balance sheet. You can show us all where they account for houses. If they do own them it'll be under fixed assets. Anytime you're ready. Back in the real world what you're doing a terrible job of trying to highlight is an individual's net asset/(liability) position. 15 minutes ago, scottbeard said: This seems to come up all the time … owing a house with a mortgage secured against it is still owning a house. If you stop paying the mortgage the bank can take the house and sell it to get their money back, paying you the difference . If the bank owned the house they wouldn’t have to give you anything because it would be their house. Legally, factually, it’s isn’t the banks house. It's simply that I prefer a few more options to describe those whose actual situation might be different from the one they might try to present. I know the legal, technical, regulatory, accounting etc definitions and so on, but I feel home"owner" simply describes the position more accurately. The Graun also use it excessively (6 times in the example below). QED. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jun/17/uk-homeowners-face-huge-rise-in-payments-when-fixed-rate-mortgages-expire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 Shared ownership? D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huggy Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 16 minutes ago, Dames said: Shared ownership? D Yeah, that could work. Probably more palatable to the masses than one I had earlier. Bank cuck 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Huggy said: Yeah, that could work. Probably more palatable to the masses than one I had earlier. Bank cuck 🤔 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unmoderated Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 3 hours ago, Huggy said: It's simply that I prefer a few more options to describe those whose actual situation might be different from the one they might try to present. I know the legal, technical, regulatory, accounting etc definitions and so on, but I feel home"owner" simply describes the position more accurately. The Graun also use it excessively (6 times in the example below). QED. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jun/17/uk-homeowners-face-huge-rise-in-payments-when-fixed-rate-mortgages-expire Back to making up definitions. 3 hours ago, Huggy said: Yeah, that could work. Probably more palatable to the masses than one I had earlier. Bank cuck 🤔 Hey, it's not my fault you don't own and you're paying someone else's mortgage off. 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.