Noooooo :^O
That's exactly how it was in 1984 when I applied for my first mortgage, my wife was in a low paid job, I was a student, I was on my third bank before I could have a sensible conversation about a mortgage. Anyway I arrange a mtg with bank and who pops up ? Not a bank employee but a sales rep for "Friends Provident" - it turned a bit ugly as I had no idea who Friends Provident were and I felt duped into meeting them. When I said I was not interested in a mortgage where my payments were not guaranteed to pay off the mortgage, her replies were to attack my decision by stating "i was selfish for not adding life insurance" - I have since been attacked for being "in-consistent" in my investment strategy by not taking out an endowment. I would always counter "Why would I risk the roof over my head with investments I do not personally control and would require 25 years to find out if they were any good."Endowment policies took off in an era when interest rates were decent or even in double figures, 11% or 12%, and modest savings in a basic building society account brought a nice little return for a few hundred pounds saved over 12months. So potential returns from endowment polices were sold on the basis of ('this will pay off your mortgage at the end of 25 years and give you a nice little lump sum toward a car or a holiday'. Even when they started to go pear shaped when interest rates were dropping to single figures 5% and lower, the letters of advice were still saying, do not cash in your policy, keep paying into it, but also start something else to pay off your mortgage. (We had two polices, both gave similar worded letters, from reputable companies Standard Life and Legal & General. The average man on the street believed these "experts". We ignored the advice in the letters and made suitable alternate arrangements, after we realised the value of one policy was worth less than what had been paid in.)
The biggest fundamental mistake that has messed up the modern economy for the average worker was not insisting upon bog standard repayment mortgages, with limits on the lending around three and half times annual salary of the highest wage earner, not counting any bonuses or overtime. (Thats pretty much what the rules were about 35-40ish years ago). If the limits on lending had been more realistic basic supply and demand would have controlled the value of 90%+ of the housing market. (There will always be that 10%+ of high earners who can push the value up of a handful of properties). And we would not be in the stupid place we are now where the average worker earning an average wage cannot afford to buy his or her own home, unless they have a loan based on five or six times two incomes including bonuses on an endowment mortgage.
As you say Kurt, basic common sense suggests these type of practices are daft. yet somehow "experts" in the financial industry calculated that these were actually viable realistic products that should work. Probably the same people who decided; Banks should be building societies, Building Societies should be banks, Supermarkets should be both bank building society and energy supplier and petrol stations, and John Lewis, or Tesco should be everything, bank, insurance, food, department store, broadband. Probably trips to the moon and sex workers before 2020. If the housing market had been more realistically controlled more workers would have more disposable income to spend buying goods from more industries to keep more manufacturing going. As it is 95%+ of the population have sod all left each month for personal pampering to a level that can keep other businesses, shops, and services buoyant. Personal savings and disposable income are the key signs of a healthy economy, not the level of spending from cheap debt. It doesn't matter what industries you have in your country if the bulk of the population cannot afford to buy its products.
Doc H.
Paid for by who and with what!!!!!!!!I think everyone is missing the big picture here. Three extra paid holidays each year.
Paid for by who and with what!!!!!!!!
And it is 4 bank holidays that comrade Corbyn is offering
Looks like the great uncosted labour giveaway is on offer again
This is where media reporting and "spin" come in.Paid for by who and with what!!!!!!!!
And it is 4 bank holidays that comrade Corbyn is offering
Looks like the great uncosted labour giveaway is on offer again
Well St Patricks Day is already a holiday in Ireland north and south, so there is no benefit there then. Hence why I said three extra holidays and not four.This is where media reporting and "spin" come in.
It was reported on the news there would be "4 extra bank holidays" But if I am reading it correctly if you drill down into the details, it is ONE extra bank holiday. But England, Wales, Scotland and NI will each have their extra BH on a different day.
I am not sure if this is just poor journalism, or just a sick attempt to get some of the lesser intelligent working class folk to vote for 4 more days holiday, then be somewhat disappointed?
I've always wondered why St Georges' day wasn't a bank holiday.
Also interesting is that our continental colleagues have more leave then we do, and are supposedly more productive and happier.
Bank holidays mean very little to me as I run my own business, but some forced time off would probably do me good :^O
Really simple isn't it go away and have a look at how many PFI's the last labour government signed up to all those new hospitals and schools they built us with tomorrow's money and the day afters in fact for the best part of the next 30 years. The NHS safe with labour tell me another one my local trust is paying out circa £30m a year for two hospitals and is struggling to find the cash to pay itFACT, since the tory idiots have been in power, despite all their pidgeon-poop, they have DOUBLED the national debt. They have spent more money that they never had than labour ever have...
Now, if you think that is not true, you show me figures to prove otherwise... You cannot, end of...
View attachment 8037
john...
FACT, since the tory idiots have been in power, despite all their pidgeon-poop, they have DOUBLED the national debt. They have spent more money that they never had than labour ever have...
Now, if you think that is not true, you show me figures to prove otherwise... You cannot, end of...
View attachment 8037
john...
Really simple isn't it go away and have a look at how many PFI's the last labour government signed up to all those new hospitals and schools they built us with tomorrow's money and the day afters in fact for the best part of the next 30 years. The NHS safe with labour tell me another one my local trust is paying out circa £30m a year for two hospitals and is struggling to find the cash to pay it
Corrected that for youPFi, a continuation of a little used Tory policyfromsince used extensively by Tory Blair and Prudence Brown. Short term gain, massive long term pain, as per mostTorylabour spending policies.
Osbournes recovery plan destabilised the economy and nearly caused a depression. The joy of public sector workers is that they are mostly low(ish) payed jobs, a trade off for having a stable position. So when you de-stabilise several millions workers jobs, it has serious knock on affect on the overall economy, which in turn reduces tax income and in turn increases government borrowing. What Osbourne should have done is devalue the £ to stimulate manufacturing and reduce imports, exactly what I have been saying for decades. Look how Brexit has boomed the economy
Enter your email address to join: