If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
:razz:
Thats correct ...keep your head down and your mouth shut ...:thumb:
People are talking about bankers lamposts and rope in the same breath ...keep your head down.
Ha, sorry i missread the 50k part my bad.
however I disagree that £22k is NOT a lot I would love to be on 22k per year, I would have a blooming life of luxary for that amount.
Oh so your the fucker who personally ruined the entire country :O :banghead:
:yippe: joking of course
You are perfectly entitled to an opinion.
Just don't expect anyone's heart to bleed for you if your bigger-than-my-annual-salary bonus gets taken away/taxed to buggery
You are benefiting now, as if we still had the 22% tax rate, you'd have less money from your salary going into your bank every month.
I agree,
I'll take your Austin Martin as compensation thank you
Sadly not being a trader, and the fact that I'm still on the graduate scheme last year's bonus stood at a mind-boggling £500. And that still gets taxed at 40% as it is and gets paid to me in three tranches.
I won't be heading down to the Porsche dealership just yet...
You might want to check the maths on that.
I earn just over £50k p.a and current pay about £300 per month in NI, your calculation would suggest a 30% increase in my contributions...
I am that person. We are that family.
I have to say that we live very comfortably, thank you very much. I've been on the dole, I know the flip side to the coin and I would much rather be where I am now.
It's come to the point TBH where my next job change won't be about earning more but gaining wider experience. We don't need more income.
That said, material possessions have never really been my thing. I don't crave a big house or umpteen foreign holidays. I want a roof over our heads (that we can all fit in) and food on our table. Anything more is luxury IMHO and should be treated as such.
If I did have to find another £100 per month then I would. It would mean being more careful with someone of my purchases, not having better quality products that we have gotten used to. But really, if I can't manage to find £100 per month then I'm living beyond my means. That isn't the Govts fault, or the bankers. It's mine.
There is obviously no justice in the banking fat cats still recieving big bonuses whilst us mere mortals end up paying more tax/NI. But...like it or not had any of the major banks gone bust the affect on the public would have been 100 times worse than it has been.
"National Insurance
There will be a 0.5pc increase in National Insurance contributions from April 2011, although those earning less than £20,000 a year will be unaffected. It means that a worker earning £50,000 a year to pay an extra £1,248 a year from the National Insurance increase." - thats about an extra £100 a month right?
i did no maths, haha - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/how-budget-affect-me/6761196/Pre-Budget-report-the-losers.html
btw, i'm not suggesting that a family can't live on £3k per month. i'm sure many many families do. my dad runs a family home (single dad - two kids still living there with him) on about £25k on and he does alright
anywayyyyy, i don't care. money is money. i'm sure i can cope with losing that little bit more out of my pay packet each month. money is nothing at the end of the day. not really. i don't really feel any better off now than i did when i was earning £3.30ph at mcdonalds! its all relative.
$60 a month for birth control (luckily I've got a coupon to get it for $24 per month for 1 year) $80 for 2 asthma medications and $40 for an SSRI and that is with health insurance that I pay $70 a month for :thumb:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6952491.ece
A survey conducted by the ONS no less about how people have no concept of saving.
The numbers: 19.3m households x £7,200 average debt on credit cards, loans and other non-mortgage borrowing = [drum roll]
£138,960,000,000 (£138 billion).
This line doesn't help matters:
"Worryingly, the data was collected over a two-year period ending in June 2008, before the recession took hold"
Anyone still think the credit crisis was caused by greedy bankers? Or perhaps it was also the greedy consumers with no concept of financial prudence, personal responsibility or restraint. I mean, if there credit's there, OBVIOUSLY it's your duty to take it. But I guess it's easier to blame a public-school educated guy in a suit than take responsibility for your own idiocy. You can always get another credit card...
Irresponsible douche-bags over-borrowing from irresponsible douche-bags looking for a quick buck.
So yes, the bankers are very, very much to blame for the crisis, even if they are not the only ones to blame.
Indeed, in many cases they actively sought to target those with mounting card debts offering yet more credit, loans and bigger overdrafts. That is not only irresponsible- it's predatory and morally abhorrent.
And you're basing that on what exactly?
While it's true that banks will offer restructuring / additional credit to those struggling with debts, it's not, as you seem to believe, to deliberately saddle them with debt. The reasoning behind it is for the customer to be able to pay off their debt and everything to return for normal. That is, as far as the bank and indeed the customer is concerned, the best way out.
Believe me, it's VERY expensive for the bank to instigate recovery proceedings as it inevitably involves third parties who charge. If we attempt to recover £1,000 of due money from a customer, we will probably only see £500 of that at best. Sometimes we won't see anything and the money has to be written off. The best way out for the banks is to restructure the debt and return the customer to normal. It's not an evil plot despite what you may believe.
And besides, just because the bank offers a loan or credit does not mean you have to take it. I'm bombarded with offers from companies to buy their products hundreds if not thousands of times every day. It doesn't mean I acquiesce and then, at the end of the month when I can't afford the rent or food, blame the companies who made me buy all their lovely goods. It's my choice and the bucks stops with me.
But as I said earlier, it's far easier to blame someone else for letting you live beyond your means and buy that new car, two foreign holidays a year and that 48" television, all on credit, than take responsibility for your own actions and live within your means.
If a brewery set out to target alcoholics and recovering alcoholics with offers and discounts for its products, they would rightly be shot down in flames, legally and otherwise. Yet we have bankers doing pretty much that to those have a proven record of getting into large debt, and not only there are no legal repercussions at all, some people actually claim there is nothing wrong with such practices.
Please! The banks have only themselves to blame. They purposedly targetted vulnerable people in order to get them into further debt. That's fucking despicable.
The public have been dumbed down beyond belief and know very little about anything anymore.
The whole system has been devised and built as a consumer society which means saving has mostly been banned ...destroyed.
If people start saving the system is fucked.
People have to consume and cheap money was provided for that purpose.
Exactly the same scenario happened in the thirties.
Years of cheap money ...easy credit and then ...the banks pulled the credit which destroyed jobs families infrastucture which then made bankers like the rockerfelers and Kennedys extremely rich.
This time it can be mostly traced back to David Rockerfeller.
...this is the reality ...more and more borrowing on a massive scale ..not by Joe Public.
If borrowing and rising debt is such a dumb thing then whats going on here?
Look at what Dubai has done in the past few years. It built an indoor ski slope in the middle of the desert. It constructed palm-shaped islands in the Persian Gulf, loaded up with overvalued property. And it borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to build the tallest tower in the world, the Burj Dubai.
This is not Joe Public trying to buy a house.
This is the public shoolboys fucking up big style ...greed greed greed and stupidity.
Did educated people stop and think about what they were investing in here?
How was this stupidity sold to people and by whom?
Despite all the evidence of rising sea levels and the very real threat of such serious water shortages that water wars are a very real prospect ...they build this.
Who sold it and how and who to?
This I reckon will be a ruin in less than a generation.
These mad investment ...opportunities ...can be seen around the world.
Everything about the modern capitalist system is built on sand and as usual ...blame the public and the public are dumb enough to believe it.
The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10.
And, as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He further announced that he would now buy at $20 for a monkey.
This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again.
Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each, and the supply of monkeys became so small that it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone catch it!
The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on behalf of him.
In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers. "Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has collected. I will sell them to you at $35, and when the man returns from the City, you can sell them to him for $50 each."
The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys. They never saw the man nor his assistant again, only monkeys everywhere!
Now you have a better understanding of how Wall Street works!!
INVESTMENT BANKER # 2: Well, it keeps about six months ahead of my income generally.
Breath taking!!!!!!!!!!
How come the banks aren't taking responsibility for their own idiocy?
Modern capitalism from a banks point of view seems to be ...if we make shit loads of money we win.
If we lose shit loads of money ...you lose so that we can still win.
Some of you seem to think that this is reasonable:crazyeyes
I think that they have a decimal out of place. The Times online calculator, interestingly, tells me there will be no difference at all and I *know* that's wrong! This Is Money suggest it's a £287 per year increase which sounds about right to me.
Which was, kind of, my point. Debts. They don't happen on their own, hell we all have a few but it's about living within your means. If you see credit as a right and not a luxury then sure as eggs is eggs you will struggle.
And you really cannot blame that bank because they leant it to you. You had to ask, you had to spend it and now comes the paying back...
You mean the idiocy of not making sure that the person they leant to was *truly* trustworthy?
Seriously, *someone* borrowed that money. Someone spent it. Why just blame the banks?
It's like the national debt. Too many voters think that they can have gold standard services and poundshop prices and so don't want to pay much tax. Well, it's won't ever work for that. It's not just Gordon to blame for the effect, we all have a share of the blame.
i agree with you but unfortunately, people find themselves getting into debt so so easily....i was in ALOT of debt this time last year...it all started when i was made redundant and didn't have any income for a short while. i was then a bit silly and for the next year, i found myself getting into quite a bit of debt by spending too much. my own fault. thankfully, i'm out of debt now. i don't own one credit card/store card. i don't trust myself with them. bad really
Not quite.
An individual's line of credit is the legal responsibility of that individual. (Of course it becomes a problem for the credit provider in the event of a default).
The national debt is different in law. What we in the legal world refer to as joint and several liability. There may be millions who have been issued their credit card (national insurance card/number) which enables them to grab the "goodies" but the repayment is a different matter. No-one and everyone could be deemed liable. The last man standing could potentially be left holding the bill.
The whole system had been loaded ...with easy money.
You think people are some how dumber than ever if they aint at any point in history going to take advantage of easy money.
Easy money has been provided before and joe ...takes it.
It aint new.
The money supply is turned off ...by design ...and the bankers coin it in again ...it really is that simple.
Fractional lending is the greatest slight of hand ever.
It should be a criminal offence but no ...it's the basis of our society ...that and the dump.
Do you think it would be acceptable for off licences and betting shops to specifically bombard people struggling with alcohol and gambling issues with offers, discounts and credit to further use their products?