3rd thread on financial situation- a solution for you which saved me over £150 monthly on interest (1 Viewer)

[crabman]

the interest rates on payday loans its ridicules, put money in a bank get sod all back, get a loan and they will make you pay like muther%ucker, best thing is inherent 9 billion odd and become a Duke and to rub salt into the wound no inheritance tax to boot, you will not worry about the million odd then let alone a penny,

 

[Camdoon]

I still have a mortgage as I extended the length of my loan. Now paying about 0.6% while lending much of the money back to Santander at 3%. I used public transport until I could afford to buy a car then you start saving for the next one. In 3 or 4 years you can afford to change if you want while the borrower needs to borrow again. Getting ahead of the game and some spare for emergencies makes life simpler; saving allows you to plan - long term saving allows you to retire. Definitely in the save then spend rather than borrow camp.

 

[EX51SSS]

Way above my head that is I'm afraid , does it mean you are for loans or against them

I'm neither for or against them. Personally I have been in situations in my life where I've had to use loans, finance and mortgages. Ideally, I would have liked to buy everything cash but to get the cash I needed to invest for example in a car to enable me to travel. When I was in my 20's, the busses and other forms of transport didn't run all night. If you had to be at work earlier than 6.00 am or finished later than 23.00, your only option was to walk, maybe cadge a lift or get a car. Inevitably, all things considered, a car was my only option as is many peoples.
Actually, I applied for a job on the buses in Scunthorpe and would get free travel but because I lived in Barton, there was, at that time, one bus out on a Wednesday and one back in. Not hourly. Once on a Wednesday. On a Saturday, there were two each way. Now, I could have the job but how do I get there? Too far to walk twice a day and too dangerous on those roads. Only option was a car of my own. Didn't take the job because I couldn't get a car because I couldn't get a loan.
I'd have loved to go through life without ever having to get finance or a loan but I've had them. I admit it openly, probably to my shame but I also had a mortgage because I couldn't afford to save up for a house and pay it off. I also used a CC too much. I learnt by my mistakes. I don't have any loans, finance or mortgage now and the 2 credit cards I have are settled every month but there are people who aspire to be able to do that eventually. If you need finance and you honestly believe you can repay it, then I think its good. If you need finance and know you cannot afford it then I'm against it.
Its a matter of need and desires.
People take out loans whether we agree with it or not and no matter how much a section of people vehemently disagree with finance, it'll still go on. People will still take out loans and mortgages no matter how many people disagree. Its their choice, not mine to say whether I agree or disagree with borrowing

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chaser]

Life is very strange isn't it, how one set of people think one thing and another set the opposite, as in this thread and you have to stop and think who has got it right , some spend everything they have before they get it , and have things that the other side can only dream of , then when it comes to old age it mostly ends the same the ones that have spent just draw off the state and the ones that scrimped and saved have the same but provided by their own savings, which one is right, no idea but I know which side I'd be on for piece of mind.

 

[EX51SSS]

I still have a mortgage as I extended the length of my loan. Now paying about 0.6% while lending much of the money back to Santander at 3%. I used public transport until I could afford to buy a car then you start saving for the next one. In 3 or 4 years you can afford to change if you want while the borrower needs to borrow again. Getting ahead of the game and some spare for emergencies makes life simpler; saving allows you to plan - long term saving allows you to retire. Definitely in the save then spend rather than borrow camp.

Totally commendable if there is public transport to the place where you live. As I said in my earlier reply, I lived in a village and it had public transport on 2 days of the week to Scunthorpe.
I did have a job about 4 miles away and I had to walk there and back most days. That was fine when I was 19 but not at 60.
Youth is wasted on the young!

 

[crabman]

heck you were lucky I had to wait for a granddad to die so I could get his shoes, then walk to work 6 mies a day 3 miles each way, my original shoes had holes in the soles

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[EX51SSS]

My brother worked day shift and I worked night shift so we shared each others shoes. Our other brother complained tgatvwe had shoes so it ended up a 3 way split so 3 times a week we had to hop to work. I hated hopping on my left foot.

 

[crabman]

ex51sss, well in my schools day I had to walk bare foot to school up hill both ways,

 

[EX51SSS]

ex51sss, well in my schools day I had to walk bare foot to school up hill both ways,

Love it. We were so poor, me mam hung a kipper on the door and we wiped our bread on it as we walked past. We were called privaliged because we had bread AND a kipper.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[crabman]

that's not poor that's a privileged life having a kipper, my dad held me under water until I had collected a handful of winkles, the winkles were for him and we had the caps as a main course, 7 of us fighting each other just to get a cap end of the winkle, my oh my you were well done by, you had bread as well, hells bells luxury, wish I had lived at your house it would be like Christmas every day

 

[Snowbird]

You may scoff, but as a boy we lived in the small village of Kent Green on the Staffordshire-Cheshire border. It was not unlike parts of Appalachia. Most of the men worked in either the futrell or the North Staffordshire coal field. Times were far from easy for most living there, and credit was only got from the local shop who charged exorbitant prices. Busses with wooden seats collected each shift for work in the mines, those that worked in the futrell which was 4 miles away walked or rode a bike. We learned at a very early age that credit was not a good idea. When my great grandmother died the family smallholding was put up for auction and years later I asked my mother why she had not bought it. Her reply was, "and where on earth did you think I was getting £1200 from". That place today without the land is possibly worth 1.5 million. I often wish she had taken some credit back in the day.

 

[crabman]

so many things we wished we had or our parents had done in the past. it was so difficult for people snowbird,

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vwalan]

i remember my parents looking at house in the early 60,s . they didnt buy then . years later i asked my dad why . ,he said the rent he was paying was 2 quid a week. the mortgage was 3 quid a week. he only earnt 5 quid a week. .
mind we did used to get away most winters for 6weeks 2 months to spain or even drive to turkey back then.
its my parents fault i have been a traveller most of my life .
mind they are in the sky looking down from their white and black pony pulling a bow top caravan smiling and laughing at us .
my dad always said he didnt want a black n white pony every one had them . i know where he was coming from .

 

[glastry]

youth doesnt really come in to it .
you only have to watch more food for less on tv .
how many have remortgaged on the same house time and time again . owe more now than they did 40 yrs ago. loads .
i save 3 grand for my winter travels . the week before i go i win 10,000 on the lottery.
how much have i got to spend this winter?
as little as possible . simple that hasnt changed .

I LIKE your style,and agree with your principles.
i think we met briefly in villa real da st antonio,you were sort of parked up between the "aires" and the bus station.
about 3 years ago.
how much you have to spend and how much you need is so often
mistaken for thrift!

 

[vwalan]

I LIKE your style,and agree with your principles.
i think we met briefly in villa real da st antonio,you were sort of parked up between the "aires" and the bus station.
about 3 years ago.
how much you have to spend and how much you need is so often
mistaken for thrift!

could be guilty , sorry i cant remember.
was a bright purple truck in the same group?

but it amazes me how folk have x amount to spend and must spend it .
noticed it at things like run to the sun years ago.
i ran a garage on site . folk had a clutch slipping ..100 quid .
they needed 30 for go carts . 30 for discos . 30 for this or that etc . but might not be able to pay for the clutch fitted .
its always been like it . its not new.
i think my parents taught me to think low then you get a good time , think high you get disappointed .
accept a little get alot . want alot get little . just be happy with what you have.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Robin McHood]

Nothing wrong with a mortgage as the asset over time is going up on value. .

If only that were true, won't go into details but for a multitude of reasons we had a house/mortgage we could just afford and when things went pearshaped we lost a huge amount on the house, took us years to recover. So yes, houses in general over very long periods may increase in monetary value but that increase is illusory if you have to live in the house.

What I mean is that you may buy a house at say 150,000 and in a few years time sell it at 200,000 so you made 33% profit right? No you didn't because it now costs you £200,000 to buy the same house, so the asset in real terms (i.e. what it represents in shelter value) hasn't gone up in value, it's still one house, one roof over your head and if you want a bigger one you are back on the mortgage treadmill to buy a more expensive house which also will not really appreciate in value. When you are dead your inheritors will get something of course but as long as you need it to live in you get nowt other than that.

I'm ignoring the fact that the original 150,000 house probably cost you a good deal more than that due to your mortgage interest.

This was the great "ownership" scam used to decimate the UK's housing supply market in the 80's and mostly responsible for the position we are in today with insufficient houses to shelter our population and average prices reaching five times or more of an average UK salary, when we used to think that 3 times average salary was pushing it.

The only time you might make money is where a property isn't one you need for shelter, i.e. a second house. Now it becomes an asset, providing of course that the notional increase in value outstrips general inflation. Unfortunately I learned that lesson way too late in life, like most other life lessons

Fortunately my kids, who are way smarter than me, learned from Dad's mistakes, thank goodness....

 

[CWH]

If only that were true, won't go into details but for a multitude of reasons we had a house/mortgage we could just afford and when things went pearshaped we lost a huge amount on the house, took us years to recover. So yes, houses in general over very long periods may increase in monetary value but that increase is illusory if you have to live in the house.

What I mean is that you may buy a house at say 150,000 and in a few years time sell it at 200,000 so you made 33% profit right? No you didn't because it now costs you £200,000 to buy the same house, so the asset in real terms (i.e. what it represents in shelter value) hasn't gone up in value, it's still one house, one roof over your head and if you want a bigger one you are back on the mortgage treadmill to buy a more expensive house which also will not really appreciate in value. When you are dead your inheritors will get something of course but as long as you need it to live in you get nowt other than that.

I'm ignoring the fact that the original 150,000 house probably cost you a good deal more than that due to your mortgage interest.

This was the great "ownership" scam used to decimate the UK's housing supply market in the 80's and mostly responsible for the position we are in today with insufficient houses to shelter our population and average prices reaching five times or more of an average UK salary, when we used to think that 3 times average salary was pushing it.

The only time you might make money is where a property isn't one you need for shelter, i.e. a second house. Now it becomes an asset, providing of course that the notional increase in value outstrips general inflation. Unfortunately I learned that lesson way too late in life, like most other life lessons

Fortunately my kids, who are way smarter than me, learned from Dad's mistakes, thank goodness....

The 'like' is obviously not about your situation @Robin McHood but because I so agree with your interpretation of increasing house prices!

 

[JJ]

I blame Thatcher...

JJ

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vwalan]

if the population had stayed the same , then the housing crisis would be just the same as it was or wasnt back in the 80,s . who owns the houses doesnt really matter.
yes having two houses . is different . but only if one is a holiday home and for most of the year is empty.
that was going on in cornwall in the 60,s . many beach front /cliff top houses were upcountry owners as the local used to say.
it was a shame more houses werent built by councils after the selling in the 80,s but neither conservatives or labour did build any more in quantity .
i know in the 90,s i worked for our district council and was told the money had been kept by them in a separate account waiting for permission to buy land and build . it never happened . i imagine the money got swallowed up when the district council got swallowed up as well.
population restrictions might be what is required but that goes against our way of life in uk.

 

[Derbyshire wanderer]

This was the great "ownership" scam used to decimate the UK's housing supply market in the 80's and mostly responsible for the position we are in today with insufficient houses to shelter

The only time you might make money is where a property isn't one you need for shelter, i.e. a second house. Now it becomes an asset, providing of course that the notional increase in value outstrips general inflation.

Whilst I can understand that some people can have circumstances change and cause issues with paying the mortgage, I cannot see why you say it was an 'ownership' scam?
For my first house (1984) I had to show I could afford the repayments and over time the house value and my wages increased with inflation. Apart from the interest changes, the mortgage repayment stayed the same and 10 years in was a lot smaller percentage of my income so I was definitely better off.
This is where I 'made' money on property.
A close family member on the other hand got their first house (after proving to the building society they could make the payments etc) and filled it with new everything and then a flash motor till they were hand to mouth. The interest rate went up by 2 or 3% and they sunk in the debt they couldn't afford. The house was affordable but the rest was not affordable or needed.
Also when we bought the first house the developer tried like mad to sell it is on an endowment mortgage. No matter how many times they explained how rich it would make us, I could not see how it was possible so following what dad always said 'if it sounds too good to be true - it probably isn't', we had a repayment mortgage.
The reason we are short of housing and sky high prices today is more to do with foreign investment and immigration IMV.

 

[vwalan]

Whilst I can understand that some people can have circumstances change and cause issues with paying the mortgage, I cannot see why you say it was an 'ownership' scam?
For my first house (1984) I had to show I could afford the repayments and over time the house value and my wages increased with inflation. Apart from the interest changes, the mortgage repayment stayed the same and 10 years in was a lot smaller percentage of my income so I was definitely better off.
This is where I 'made' money on property.
A close family member on the other hand got their first house (after proving to the building society they could make the payments etc) and filled it with new everything and then a flash motor till they were hand to mouth. The interest rate went up by 2 or 3% and they sunk in the debt they couldn't afford. The house was affordable but the rest was not affordable or needed.
Also when we bought the first house the developer tried like mad to sell it is on an endowment mortgage. No matter how many times they explained how rich it would make us, I could not see how it was possible so following what dad always said 'if it sounds too good to be true - it probably isn't', we had a repayment mortgage.
The reason we are short of housing and sky high prices today is more to do with foreign investment and immigration IMV.

just thought others might benefit from reading your post again . it does take along time for facts to sink in on many .
i have friends just like your family member , then on top of it they change their furniture and car just because they are fed up with it . or its two year old now .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Robin McHood]

The great ownership scam was the forcing of councils to sell off publicly owned housing at knock down rates, in many many cases to people who could not actually afford to pay for them.
If you look at the figures of initial take up of council house ownership and who actually ended up owning them over time, that illustrates my point perfectly. All its done over time is swap council controlled rented housing for privately controlled rented housing, a lack of housebuilding, a shortage of homes and a country increasingly polarised into have and havenots. It started decades ago, and never had anything to do with immigration, joining the EU and all the other smokescreen excuses.

The money raised from the sale of what was public property, ie owned by all of us, was much less than what their actual value was. It was never used to build more public housing, the governments of the day (and I make no distinction between either of the major parties, one was as bad as the other) actively prevented the councils from using the money for that purpose.

It lost us as a country two things:-
The idea that no one in a civilised society should be homeless, otherwise how can you define yourself as a society, never mind civilised.
Money which should have been saved and invested in productive businesses that actually produced something of value was instead soaked up in effectively spurious land ownership.

In any normal world it was a scam, exactly as the sale of the other puiblicly owned assets was a scam.

And by the way I bought my first house (not a council house) in the mid 70's and have lived through two major housing recessions and I suspect I'm about to live through another one so there are no rose tinted glasses in front of my eyes.

The fact that due to rampant inflation, which destroyed the value of many peoples savings, worked for a few to raise the notional value of their property, doesn't alter the argument that as long as its the only roof you own, its monetary worth is pretty immaterial to you.

 

[EX51SSS]

that's not poor that's a privileged life having a kipper, my dad held me under water until I had collected a handful of winkles, the winkles were for him and we had the caps as a main course, 7 of us fighting each other just to get a cap end of the winkle, my oh my you were well done by, you had bread as well, hells bells luxury, wish I had lived at your house it would be like Christmas every day

Not always a kipper mate, especially Sunday morning and it looked remarkably like my orders sisters underwear but same taste.

 

[crabman]

lol very good reply

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[camperlove]

Apparently, they only charge when the account is active, so if you close it, it is then inactive. The amount outstanding is a debt to be repaid and you can agree a figure to pay and because the account is closed (following this?) , they cannot add interest to a closed account.

another good alternative...wish I had known about it. However would this not reflect on your credit report. ? Only in that, I owed a large mobile phone bill. I refused to pay it until they gave me an explanation on how this is possible. I cancelled the direct debit, and offered to pay £50 a month. This DID reflect on my credit report.

 

[camperlove]

Think banks just want to make money any way they can. Talk of them maybe charging to keep money on deposit as its almost down to zero interest.

If you're interested in debt clearance you might like http://www.sixfiguresunder.com Ametican, but Stephanie and her husband cleared over €120,000 of debt in a few years.

many thanks for the input. I hope your link helps someone. Fortunately, my debit only sits on between 4 to 6 grand, which is manageable. I just don't see why I should pay interest if I don't have to. This is quite a new thing for me to transferring debt around, and wished I knew about it long ago. But unless you know about it, you don't know you can do it.

 

[camperlove]

I follow Martin money-saving expert. For lots of advice and tricks.

Im quite new to him, and advise persons to sign up to him. saved me money on glasses, broadband, someone I know got 4 years 0 percent interest on debt. well worth reading his advice.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[camperlove]

Seems like a lot of work to me all this transferring money and debt from one bank to another and then back again. Its much simpler to just spend what you have in your pocket and not spend what you dont have.

slightly true, but my debt is from kids extra uni bills, and they paying me off S L O W L Y. Plus to be honest, I didn't discuss with the kids interest on top of the debt. The extras were their car insurance. They could have gone by bus or train. After all I did, when I had 3 kids and travelled by public transport to same colledge/uni. I kept them, so they didn't have to claim the keep loan which they would still need to repay, but keeping them in car repairs and insurance is a luxury which I expect to be repaid. Its not too much bother trf the debt either. less than half an hour.

 

[camperlove]

Maybe its just my way of looking at things, but if you cannot afford it today, why would you think you can afford it tomorrow.

Well, the idea was, once the kids graduated, got a good job, they could afford to pay me off quick. It didn't go easily for each child.

 

[camperlove]

What did people do before credit cards and pay day loans

lol, ice in the larder, as there was no fridge, people worked 9 to 5 locally, and went home at 12 noon for dinner. Now you are expected to travel 1 and a half to 2 hours to get to work, and then do the return journey. Lunch in summer, is sarnies on a park bench as the canteens no longer exist, winter, expect to eat in a restaurant to keep warm during break time. Laundry wasn't so expensive, I read, as people wore their undies more than one day.....

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}