• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

2, 3 and 5yr fixes are the norm - think you can get 10 as well, though not sure how common they are
I think 10 is pretty much non existent but you'll be offered new fix term deals at the end of your schedule but if right wing idiot crashes your economy (looking at you Liz Truss) just before your rates are due to move to tracking you'll get shitty rates. Moving to tracking at the time was scary as hell....

I think in general UK folks are more likely to move at the end of their fix terms but moving up the ladder is usually what happens as you build equity. Housing being way more unaffordable and most people start in property with nowhere near enough space.
Adjustable rate mortgages were very popular until the 2008/2009 downturn.
Yeah because you guys gave them to people who couldn't afford them and crashed the world markets when the bubble burst! Does no one actually know what happened? The US subprime mortgage system collapsed.
 
Yeah because you guys gave them to people who couldn't afford them and crashed the world markets when the bubble burst! Does no one actually know what happened? The US subprime mortgage system collapsed.
We can thank Obama in a large part for that. I know the house I bought in 2005 for $233,000 was only worth about $125,000 by 2015 after values in my area plummeted due to so many foreclosures. I was "lucky" to sell it for $195,000 in 2017. Not fun

 
We can thank Obama in a large part for that. I know the house I bought in 2005 for $233,000 was only worth about $125,000 by 2015 after values in my area plummeted due to so many foreclosures. I was "lucky" to sell it for $195,000 in 2017. Not fun

I think it was a similar thing over here as it was in the states. It was more to do with the dismantling of regulatory frameworks going back to the 80s. In our case Thatcher in your case Reagan.

Obama obviously carried on the trend but to say it's largely down to him is unfair in my humble opinion. The lenders themselves obviously have to take a lot of the blame and earlier administrations for creating the culture in which they operated in as well as the creation of certain products that enabled toxic debt to be packaged up in other forms and sold on.
 
We can thank Obama in a large part for that. I know the house I bought in 2005 for $233,000 was only worth about $125,000 by 2015 after values in my area plummeted due to so many foreclosures. I was "lucky" to sell it for $195,000 in 2017. Not fun

You as in America

Also how was the financial crash of 2007-8 caused by a guy who took power in 2009?
 
I think it was a similar thing over here as it was in the states. It was more to do with the dismantling of regulatory frameworks going back to the 80s. In our case Thatcher in your case Reagan.

Obama obviously carried on the trend but to say it's largely down to him is unfair in my humble opinion. The lenders themselves obviously have to take a lot of the blame and earlier administrations for creating the culture in which they operated in as well as the creation of certain products that enabled toxic debt to be packaged up in other forms and sold on.
It wasn't deregulation here, it was government intervention in the housing market. In the 90s under Clinton, the wealth gap between black and white Americans wasn't budging. Because housing equity was the biggest factor in net-worth difference, the Clinton Administration essentially used private entities like Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac to backstop mortgage underwriting. This transferred all the risk from mortgage underwriters and banks to the Federal Government. So, naturally, these two entities went nuts to take advantage of a government-approved arbitrage. People who previously would have never been approved for a mortgage were getting one.

The George Bush administration continued this program- in case anyone accuses me of partisanship - and once the economy faltered even a little bit, the whole house of cards collapsed. Then Obama bailed out the banks but left homeowners to wither on the vine.

So 30+ years after Clinton started the program, black and white wealth is higher now than before the program because the 2008/2009 crushed black homeowners' equity.
 
We can thank Obama in a large part for that. I know the house I bought in 2005 for $233,000 was only worth about $125,000 by 2015 after values in my area plummeted due to so many foreclosures. I was "lucky" to sell it for $195,000 in 2017. Not fun

What a load of cobblers, that recession started in Bush's presidency, Obama had to dig you out.
 
You as in America

Also how was the financial crash of 2007-8 caused by a guy who took power in 2009?
Because him, and others like him before he was president, sued banks to force them to give people loans who by all rights should not have been allowed to get home loans. The home values were up but then these people got the loans and purchased the homes but then could not make the payments going into foreclosure which then drove down the value and prices of the homes around them. The town I was in at that time was especially hard hit by these loans and foreclosures.
 
Massive Deregulation leads to massive opening of abuses as people get rich quick.

No it's lefty lawyers that are the problem!
 
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimates another 250,000 people - including 50,000 children - could be pushed into relative poverty in the financial year ending 2030.

No ideal for a Labour government.
 
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimates another 250,000 people - including 50,000 children - could be pushed into relative poverty in the financial year ending 2030.

No ideal for a Labour government.
I'm baffled to why this government has tied itself it knots over tax. Stems from the risk adverse election that led to a massive majority but now it feels like like their grappling issues with their hands tied behind their backs.

It feels ideological but not that they are anti-tax but anti breaking that promise.
 
I'm baffled to why this government has tied itself it knots over tax. Stems from the risk adverse election that led to a massive majority but now it feels like like their grappling issues with their hands tied behind their backs.

It feels ideological but not that they are anti-tax but anti breaking that promise.
Got to stick with the Fiscal Rules. Hearing Raynor say she's happy with the amount the rich pay was a surprise.

If they ditch the digital services tax in a trade off with the US it'll be disappointing. Potentialy letting X off the hook whilst kids are in poverty sticks in the throat some what. Still it's weighed up with what do we get in return I guess.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top