Us savers are being well screwed and those very people who lived on credit way beyond their means are being pandered to.

The very people who got us into this shit!

Slightly confused by your post.

Who/what do you think is responsible for the current "credit crunch"?

...edit, should have asked "root cause" rather than "responsible".

it is to pay the mortages of those who took out big mortgages on little salaries and who have now fallen behind on paying for them.

Why should anyone work - if you dont work GORDIE will bail you out - in fact the more money you spend and lose the better it is for you.

The World is on its head.

Yes Zoo; the philosophy sold to us that we should live beyond our means - those who fell for it, those who encouraged it (politicians and businessmen), those who stoked the fire (banking people on bonuses for signed up not earnings), those who pushed the morality of it (credit credit credit)...

Whereas it has always seemed to me basic common sense - spend what you have. I stacked supermarket shelves to make a demo; I produced others (Hedgehoppers, Genesis...) with royalties earned through my first hit; I bought my house with the same royalties (others bought huge mansions with mortgages, I bought a small house); I built a label with royalties already earned....

Not through any morality; just because debt made no sense.

It appears that this Government penalise those who choose to live without debt. Its the older folk who live on savings that are going to feel it now. Truly ridiculous.

You're not living in the real world jk. I work around 50 hours a week in IT, I bought a house 9 years ago and have never defaulted on the mortgage. It is relief for many ordinary people that have very little disposable income. This interest rate cut will provide us with some disposable income that will help to revitalise the economy.
Its unrealistic for people to buy a house with cash these days, when you were young in the 60's, a flat would only cost around

[i]Its unrealistic for people to buy a house with cash these days, when you were young in the 60's, a flat would only cost around

JK2006 wrote:
Yes Zoo; the philosophy sold to us that we should live beyond our means - those who fell for it, those who encouraged it (politicians and businessmen), those who stoked the fire (banking people on bonuses for signed up not earnings), those who pushed the morality of it (credit credit credit)...

Whereas it has always seemed to me basic common sense - spend what you have. I stacked supermarket shelves to make a demo; I produced others (Hedgehoppers, Genesis...) with royalties earned through my first hit; I bought my house with the same royalties (others bought huge mansions with mortgages, I bought a small house); I built a label with royalties already earned....

Not through any morality; just because debt made no sense.
I think it's quite an interesting issue of where we draw the line and who we blame.

Rather than the fools I feel the knaves are the more culpable if only because fools are individuals and the knaves acted collectively.

On a side issue your "Stacked shelves" anecdote troubles me, there's something not right about it that I can't put my finger on... yet

Foz wrote:
[quote][i]Its unrealistic for people to buy a house with cash these days, when you were young in the 60's, a flat would only cost around

It was Tylers in Cranleigh Zoo.

A mortgage is the only form of "debt" which I can appreciate and endorse, owing to difficulties with regards to getting on the property ladder.

However, I have no sympathy for the multitude of idiots who live on credit - it is disgusting that those who save are penalised.

If you can't afford something, don't buy it! Only a fool lives beyond his means.

JK2006 wrote:
It was Tylers in Cranleigh Zoo.
I assume that's where you stacked shelves?

I don't doubt you did this but there's something niggling me about the anecdote.

It could be if I was working 40 hours a week on minimum wage and lived quite frugally there wouldn't be much money left over each month once I'd paid for the necessities. To pay for a demo would take me quite a long time, in fact I don't see how I could do it.

I have a feeling there is something not representative about your anecdote, you managed it but could anyone else? There's something that doesn't quite sit right and I can't put my finger on it.

I worked for 4 weeks Zoo and saved every penny (as a teenager I was living at home with free board and lodging).

The demo (awful) was me doing It Doesn't Matter Any More and a couple of others backed by the Ted Taylor trio and recorded in his front room somewhere near Chalfont St Peters. Not hugely expensive but something to show people what a great singer I was going to be.

And Zoo; I always tell the truth.

JK2006 wrote:
I worked for 4 weeks Zoo and saved every penny (as a teenager I was living at home with free board and lodging).

The demo (awful) was me doing It Doesn't Matter Any More and a couple of others backed by the Ted Taylor trio and recorded in his front room somewhere near Chalfont St Peters. Not hugely expensive but something to show people what a great singer I was going to be.

And Zoo; I always tell the truth.
Bingo! That's it. You weremn't trying to ean a living but just get a bit of extra pocket money.

I appreciate you didn't directly claim you were earning a living but to use it as an example in context of those who are and use credit is somewhat disingenuous.

I don't think I suggested you weren't telling the truth although I do now think your truth was selective and self-serving.

No intent to deceive Zoo; just to illustrate I did what was needed, earned what I had to and never spent more than I earned.

And never will.

JK2006 wrote:
No intent to deceive Zoo; just to illustrate I did what was needed, earned what I had to and never spent more than I earned.

And never will.
Only because of your privileged position could you afford to do so.

I am certain you didn't intend to deceive but I am as certain you don't understand the reality of "ordinary" people's lives either.

I think I understand that "ordinary" people are indeed suckered into living in debt but I have never thought it made sense and I was never in a "privileged position" - just a kid with a dream, determined to make it, with a clear idea of how not to live.

JK2006 wrote:
I think I understand that "ordinary" people are indeed suckered into living in debt but I have never thought it made sense and I was never in a "privileged position" - just a kid with a dream, determined to make it, with a clear idea of how not to live.
Getting into debt makes sense if you need to.

Saying you've never been in a privileged position shows you don't appreciate you have been and thereby others have not which is why I say you fail to understand "ordinary"" people.

I think you're right Zoo; I'm "privileged" in having a brain that knows never to spend money I haven't got!