Hey Gordon, pay my mortgage.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Dwarf, Oct 28, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I see that herr One-Eye has decided to go on a spree.
    And allow greater borrowing for the gov. As much as 3225quid for everyone in the country.

    Now whilst this would not benefit the country much, it also leaves the man on the street paying for it in more than one way.

    In my local paper a couple of weeks ago I read a letter that has stayed with me. Instead of bailing out the banks with a direct injection the writer said, the government could pay off our mortgages, or at least reduce them greatly. The banks would benefit from an injection of money and of course we would have greater spending power and be happier with less of a millstone around our necks. This would benefit economy and raise morale.

    OK, details we can argue about, and I am sure that lots of people would simply pile on more debt in other ways. But I liked the basic premise, it would make me a lot happier and inclined to spend a bit more into the economy rather than make my bank happy and have the wife waving bills at me every so often.

    Anybody think that the idea could be workable?
  2. Gotta be a better idea than chucking billions of quid at the banks.
    I seriously object to paying the bank twice for the pleasure of having a mortgage.
    There is something seriously at fault with this whole credit crunch bollox when it means most of us not only have to pay our mortgage (and the banks profit in it) and then be forced to conribute tax money to give the bank more money ontop of that.
  3. the problem, apparently, with giving stuff directly to people would mean that they would just end up saving more and not injecting the money into the economy... So, if your mortgage was paid off you would, arguably, just sit on the money that you would have otherwise spent on your mortgage.

    I don't know the extent to which this is true...I'm no expert. But what I do know is that economics is little more than a religion.
  4. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB LE Moderator

    Its similar tp what happened in Japan the gubment handed out money and people put it under the matrasses and not into the banks.
  5. If Economics is a religion, which I tend to agree with, then ergo:

    Man evolved from ape.
    We came down from the trees.
    We expanded across the world.
    We developed speech, leading to societies, art etc.
    We developed economies.
    So our whole reason of being is to be part of an economy and support the banks.

    I just think that there must be more to life than that. They lost me when - years ago- I heard a minister refer to the family as economic units.

    I see that people would save, but surely a large number, being habituated by the consumer society, would then aspire to bigger/newer houses, or add to them, redecorate, buy the new car, splash out a bit more on eating out thus stimulating the economy in various sectors.
  6. In some ways it makes sense, the government bring forward several schemes so that employment and money is brought into the high street. This way the government don't really waste any money as they're paying for things such as new hospitals, school, etc that are required anyway and it gives tens of thousands guaranteed work during these times.

    The problem with this though is that the philosophy is that the government should save during the good times and spend during the bad times, but our government hasn't a penny in the pot so they have to increase the national debt to do all these projects. The other problem is that PFI/PPP has become the new thing, and with no credit available these companies can't get the funds to complete the projects, so what happens, does the government pay them the money to build it as a loan then pay them an extortionate rate over the next 20/30 years or do they break up the whole PFI/PPP and do it themselves, this will bring in the whole corruption/business friends argument.

    If there had been money in the pot then it would have been a fantastic time to bring forward some projects, get the railways sorted, get schools and hospitals upto date without the millstone of PFI hanging round the NHS's neck and so on, the military would get a few more ships/aircraft/vehicles and it would be a case of hopefully lasting out the recession, but as i said above, there's just no money and no timescale to this problem, it might have worked in the industrialised 1929 and the great depression but in todays computerised money markets i doubt it would really work.
  7. Given the amount of this money that was immediately earmarked for salaries and bonuses instead of interbank lending (As was the whole point), I don't see cutting out the middle man as that much of a problem. Why not pay off our mortgages? Ultimately, it's our money after all!

    On a slight tangent, it gets right up my nose to hear of this bail out effectively guaranteeing personal payments. If I'd taken out a mortgage to buy a £250,000 house, then bought a cheaper house and spunked the rest up the wall on stuff for myself I'm pretty sure they'd have been down on me like a ton of, on the grounds that I'd misused the funds. What's the difference to what they're doing? Ah, I forgot - they're reputable institutions!
  8. Paying off my mortgage would enable me to buy an additional 350 or so pints of beer a month :D
  9. I resent paying taxes on my pensions as it is, so if you think I would like the idea of paying even more to subsidise your mortgage sunshine, think again.
  10. I resent paying taxes full stop, so even on the trivial salary I get in Central Europe I have worked out a way not to do it. Smart small boys can imitate the big ones with much less effect on society.
  11. Ok am I just being dim (yes, thank you, I usually am) But why does this 'financial crisis' just make me think of the South Sea Bubble?

    That was brought about by unregulated financiers and dodgy speculators. They were not propped up by tax payers, just allowed to go to under. Painful times, but out of it came solid, well regulated banks and investors.

    For this bunch of smuts to talk about 'spending our way out of debt' and ,an equal bunch of opposition smuts agreeing with them, is just terrifying. To put money into failing banks/morgage societies, seems plain nuts. They should sink or swim. Finance and Commerce are the only blood line any country has, they certainly shouldn't be run by governments, and the rubbish ones should certainly not be propped up.

    Well over time for a revolution, me zimmer frame is on full rev. Anyone of you financial wizards going to explain to me why I'm talking crap?
  12. As opposed to paying more to subsidise the failings of the bank?
    The argument is that we are all chucking money at the banks to compensate then for gross mis-management and perhaps they aren't the best recipient of our hard earned cash
  13. Ah, but you're forgetting one important point: they're the risk-takers, the innovators. They're the ones who've been creating wealth.

    The fact that the 'wealth' turned out to be fairy-gold is a mere technicality and shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of their raking in obscene bonuses regardless of actual performance.
  14. They created nothing but a bloody fairytale.
    That dimwit Chancellr stood there on the telly a week or two ago and said nobody could have foreseen the current mess, strange seeing as this lowly van driver saw it coming over 5 years ago.
    We taxpayers have unwillingly shovelled billions into the banking system for them to reward themselves whilst the thick cnut it Downing Street demands that they re-commence lending in the same fashion that got us into this mess in the 1st place.
    Risk takers? Damned right they are. Just a shame its our money they are taking risks with and not their own. I earn next to fook all, Mr Brown robs me a a great big chunk of it. Nobody is going to bail my arse out of the mire if I can't pay my mortgage and there is no whopping great bonus's heading in my direction.
    Bitter? I would say so.
  15. I share your pain. I'm of a naturally cynical bent, but this has left me gobsmacked at the unbelievable gall of these bastards. They've spent the best part of 2 decades smacking us round the head with their demands for deregulation, because obviously only an unrestricted market can possibly make our society better off; they've justified the salaries and bonuses as being reward for the risk they were taking; yet when the house of cards started tumbling they were the first to cry for bailout and government intervention.

    They're like kids who insist on being treated like grown-ups until the pocket money dries up and they're faced with earning their own way. Then suddenly, it becomes "just so unfair".