The credit crunch

[Mike]

Marco,

I see what you mean, but the term 'credit crunch' alludes to the problem where many people are unable to obtain credit. In some cases this may be a good thing.

IMHO the main problem with the credit crunch is where it is impossible for some people to obtain mortgages (particularly first time buyers), this could have a massive knock on effect on the the housing market. In fact it is already happening with property values falling all over the place, which ironically should benefit the first time buyers, except they can't get a mortgage!

But why have non of these high ranking bank executives been kicked up the arse? Why do they still get bonuses that make many peoples lifetime income look pathetic?... If it were up to me (and I'm sure Jeremy Clarkson would agree here) they should be 'shot in the face'!

It's all a bit daft if you ask me.

[aquapiranha]

What you say it is all true Mike. Every "chain" needs bottom feeders, wether the housing market or the food chain if the lowest denominator disappears the whole thing collapses. My brother is a chartered surveyor working for a natioonal company, and he fears for his job in the current climate, but says there are still people trying to sell their homes who cannot grasp the concept that the housing market is cooling. They think that the bit of decking at the bottom of the garden or the hanging baskets next to the porch warrant another 10K on the asking price ( blame all the DIY shows in the TV..). It is a real shame, and the reason the banks will not lend is because they have shot themselves in the foot and can see what is coming. Legislation is what is needed here perhaps?

I imagine Mr. Clarkson is too busy making bags of cash himself to worry about the credit crunch. It would seem the gravy train is approaching the end of the line.

[Marco]

But why have non of these high ranking bank executives been kicked up the arse? Why do they still get bonuses that make many peoples lifetime income look pathetic?...

I agree. Coming from a sales environment (and I've worked for some pretty big companies in the past and reaped the rewards for being successful) I can relate to this.

How it works is quite simple: if you make the company you're working for money, you're rewarded accordingly, and if it's a huge 'blue chip' company you're working for such as one of the major banks, then the rewards are massive! I wouldn't grudge anyone their bonus, or whatever, as a result of achieving their targets, or being entrepreneurial in some way. It's what being a saleperson is about.

However, if you fail in a 'hi-end' sales environment such as you have alluded to, and fail royally, then the consequences should be severe (and usually are) normally resulting in the sack. But clearly this doesn't always happen! I'm afraid that just like in many other working environments there is an odious 'jobs for the boys' situation in existence where 'indiscretions' are overlooked or covered up in some way. Usually though you only get away with it once!

Marco.

[Steve Toy]

The advice to live within your means is all well and good but for the fact that the government has borrowed recklessly even through the good times. They won't be the ones paying it all back, we will be - in higher taxes.

[Marco]

Then, as there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to budget accordingly! All politicians are as bad as each other - they're all scumbags ultimately looking after No1, although some dress this up better than others.

But the government aren't the ones making the idiots with the 'keeping up with the Jones's' mentality, or the weak-willed who succumb to peer pressure, do what they do...

It's a tough old world out there and those with gumption who plan properly, show prudence, and have confidence in their financial decision making will survive better than others.

Marco.

[Puffin]

I have only just caught up with this thread. I agree entirely with the ethos contained in the first post. Too many people believe in the "I can so I will" philosophy. They are the headless chickens who feel that both parents have to work to keep little Harrison and Jordan in "Dimboy" games so that it increases their ADHD, from which of course they suffer, to explain why they behave like ar*eh**es. They spend so much time at work making enough to pay off the minimum on the credit cards to be able to buy the children their "guilt" treats, they don't have the time to spend with their beloved darlings, and would rather fall in front of the tele. What happened to the good old value of "If I don't have the money I can't afford it"
While were on the subject of chickens, IMHO shit chicken tastes better than free range!

EDIT: Just read the above thread. Marco it is those who plan properly and show prudence who get shit on the most. Tax on earnings, Tax on savings, Tax on gains, Tax on dying. Go into a nursing home, "Oh you've got to sell that nice house you worked so hard to achieve". Those who saved nothing and paid no tax get it free!

[Mike]

So.... about 'the credit crunch'???

It's really not about that at all is it?

[Puffin]

Oooerrr, I see what you mean, maybe I just wanted a rant. I'll stick to only 3 words daily in future, more than 3 is clearly too much temptation!

[Cotlake]

Go into a nursing home, "Oh you've got to sell that nice house you worked so hard to achieve". Those who saved nothing and paid no tax get it free!

That is a good point and something many married or joint home owners are not aware of, expecting that the house will naturally form part of the estate for the inheritors.

Not so now. If you and your partner/wife are joint owners and one of you needs to go into care, the local authority can put a claim on the property for payment of the care and in real terms make the surviving partner homeless and steal the kids inheritance. This is something I'm dealing with at the moment. I've been quoted £800 to do the legal documentation but I'm working to find a cheaper way. Your property and inheritance can be protected in such situations but the joint house ownership needs to be legally severed and a new deed drawn up showing a 50% each seperate ownership of the property. In addition a trust needs to be set up so that the partner and kids get their planned inheritance which should also cover cash and investments. If one partner needs to go into care, the LA can't put a claim on 50% of the property because you can't sell half the house! The trust should protect cash and investments. If you are not aware of this, anyone in this situation should seriously look into it. Of course, thereafter, the option remains for private care to be payed for, but at least the family stakeholders remain in control.

[Cotlake]

While were on the subject of chickens, IMHO shit chicken tastes better than free range!

Clearly you have been conditioned to enjoy eating shit