youreavinalaff

I agree.

If I borrow money and cannot pay it back, it is between me and the lender to sort it out, not the government or tax payers. Lenders have made it quite clear they are ready for any borrower to contact them to speak about issues with payments. Just as local councils have been doing with regards to council tax and energy companies have about bills.

From your own experience, I would agree. That is mot to say others experience the same

You keep telling me I have nothing. You don't even know me. Little do you know. Still. I like the idea you are concerned about my wellbeing. Much appreciated.

No insults. Just an observation, based on your questions. I'm not having an arguement, at least I wasn't aware I was. My confidence is not misplaced, as can be shown in my own life situation.

Its really not my fault if you don't understand fundamental economics. I do, and it has served me well.

I wasn't. I was answering someone's question. However, it is a good idea to check historical figures, why they were such and how did they fluctuate. It gives a fundamental knowledge of economics. Something everyone should have prior to saddling themselves with a 6 figure, 25 year loan. That's the approach I've always taken and it has served me well, along wirh many others i know. Evidence it works.

Interest rates are not " Nearly 8%". That's an exaggeration. My maths was that the smaller the figure the easier it is to double as increases are generally. 25% or .5% so, NO, it does not mean that I think they could be 8% in a years time, although you claim they already are. Those that budgeted correctly, looked at how interest rates fluctuate and understand that after a 2 year economy shutdown things get worse rather than better are notvstruggling. Too many people go head on thinking if things go wrong someone will bail them out.

Irrelevant post. My comment about average interest rates was in reply to another poster, therefore meaningful.

Anyone getting a mortgage should have thought about it or should at least have been shown it by their lender at time of application. All the indicators were there for economy issues, inflation rise and interest rate rises. The issue is simple maths. If borrowing at such low rates, such as 2%, it's not in any way inconceivable for rates to double in a short space of time. Then at 4%, it's still conceivable to increase by half in a short space of time. Interest rates were too low for too long. At 1-2% base rates there is only one way they were going to go. I know people who used low rates to their financial advantage by increasing their mortgage payments and paying off most or all of their mortgage many years early. I also know people who used low rates as an excuse to spend. Lavish overseas holidays, IPhone upgrades as soon as they came out, one or more brand new cars on finance, borrowing more for expensive but not required home decor. Only one of those groups are struggling now.

Average interest rates since 1970, 8%.

Good idea.

Did you read the OP's comment below? Sangkha is approx 160kms from Ubon. Hardly " not too far".

There is no point replying. You have your, incorrect, assessment in your head and you are not going to change. I did ask you for evidence they stole Windsor Castle and Tower of London, as examples. You didn't reply.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. You just don't get the simple theory of the Sovereign Grant. I've tried to explain but you won't accept the fundamental concept.

Oh dear. You clearly do not check before you speak. Income tax is in the link. Inheritance tax is not applicable as Charles inherited crown possessions as he is the next monarch. He can't sell what he inherited. Look at the link again. 3 billion pounds in 10 years. Easily pays for the renovations to Buckingham Palace. Less than money paid on renovating council houses. Are those living in council houses privileged? It would be logical for you to provide evidence that the likes of Windsor Castle and Tower of London, as example, were stolen from the British people, in order to back your claim.

You obviously didn't read the link. The monarchy are net contributors to the UK economy by circa 200m per year. 200 million isn't alot of money?

I don't have a boy. The inquiry was released. That was sufficient. The rest was a waste of time. Just egos on steroids.

The vote was inconsequential. The only result being the removal of Boris's parliamentary pass. So what. The whole of yesterday's parliamentary session was a waste of time. The 300 non voters did the correct thing by avoiding getting involved in the knife twisting charade. They must have had more important things to be getting on with.

And the opposition didn't want to waste time by pushing and pushing for an inquiry and inconsequential vote, did they? Did I hear Starmer say " let's not worry about it. Boris has resigned as PM and MP. Let's leave it at that and get on with more important things, like the economy". No, I didn't think so.

The Monarchy does not cost the country a lot if money, as you claim. Have a read. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

Slightly incorrect. He was recalled to prison for approaching and trying to chat to young women. Not young girls. The recall did not mention anything about hanging about outside schools.

No. Bellfield is on a "whole life tarriff".

A change of heart. Good. I hope your PM included an apology.

Really? @Daab unlikely you'll find anyone whilst in a Muay Thai hotbed. Why not expand your knowledge and skills by going to the local Muay Thai gym?