howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#2
agreed
#3
Absolutely.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
yes
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
#5
One Hundred per cent
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#6
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
no need to go to these people, there is a bloke down the road to me, big fellow he is goes about with a dog.
everyone seems to pay him on time.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#8
That's not the point Howard! Having access to easy, but expensive, money only makes matters worse for those least able to afford it. The whole escapade should be shut down. If you want more money then go out and damned-well earn it!
[Sorry, this is an issue that really annoys me.]
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
To be frank Phil - this does not give anyone more money, it just gets money a bit earlier at great cost, so they end up with less disposable rather than more. Better for people to learn to budget and/or wait to buy something.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
barryw
I AGREE WITH YOU !!!!
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#11
kieth,you need to go to the docters and have those pills changed,any one would think your a tory.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#12
now now brian, thats one thing i will never be
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#13
come on keith, you could always save up to be one.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#14
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#15
There should be a State-run lending scheme for people in need of of a loan for essential expenses. Each case would be considered by an authorised person, and the interest rate would be equal to inflation, at present about 5% a year.
All loan-sharking should be banned by law, and there should be a maximum interest rate set out through legislation.
One should not forget that to try to intimidate a person into repaying a loan is strictly against the law.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
Loan sharking is against the law Alexander along with intimidation.
The issue is about how the regulation works and how some types of lender operates.
Your idea is again unworkable and would be costly to operate and the State should stay well away from it, best never to trust governments.
This is also about people who fail to budget on one hand and others who refuse to wait and save for purchases often of luxuries. It is a matter of education and self-control.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#17
There are Community Banks - Credit Unions, one was set up in Dover sometime ago, but they have now merged with "Kent Savers".
www.kentsavers.co.uk.
They are based in Gravesend, Phone no. is: 0333 321 9050 (Mon-Fri 9am - 5pm)
They didn't promote themselves at all, that I can remember.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#18
I'll research into community banks, Roger, out of curiosity.
Barry, the key note in my idea is the wording: essential expenses.
Many people take out a loan to cover exactly that, often they have children who need school clothes, books, or people who MUST pay the rent or mortgage, or pay for household bills such as electricity or gas.
If they fail in, say, rent or mortgage, they could find themselves leaving their home and applying for housing benefit, at the fantastic cost of the State, even if they had been working for an average salary.
To add up the pro and contra of abandoning people to extortionate interest rates could take up some time, but generally it means that the State ends up footing many bills, and that the general economy loses out, as people who must pay high interest rates often shop less.
A payday loan, according to Sky News, is something like 38% a month. Sheer insanity!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#19
Roger made the point about credit unions and that is where such people are better off going but far better they budget properly instead, that is why I refer to education being an issue.
The state has no role and must not have a role in lending.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#20
No of-course not, Barry
. The State should not have a role in lending you say, but it was alright for the State to lend money to a couple of - and perhaps a couple more - British banks back in 2008!
You know this money was lent to the banks, Barry, and must be paid back. Until such time, those banks are partly State owned.
Considering this, I fully reassert my claim that the State should lend money to people in general when a need for covering essential expenses arises, and at an interest rate not superior to inflation.
Your last line, Barry, deserves some of the quotes that I have been receiving from you on (ignorance) of economic affairs. Of-course I will spare you these
By the way, Barry, how much does the State charge these banks on interest for the money the State lent them?