Why o why!?

[Phube]

How come for the past 5 years (since homebuying) me and the wife have paid out about £50-100 (no idea wife does finances!!) a month to insure ourselves against loss of income, illness etc...

And yet now all those people who haven't will now get a free ride (on me (us the tax payer)!!) for 2 years...

Same as the floods, why bail out uninsured homeowners... It seems unfair to me...

But hey, that's life

[hairy]

How come for the past 5 years (since homebuying) me and the wife have paid out about £50-100 (no idea wife does finances!!) a month to insure ourselves against loss of income, illness etc...

And yet now all those people who haven't will now get a free ride (on me (us the tax payer)!!) for 2 years...

Same as the floods, why bail out uninsured homeowners... It seems unfair to me...

But hey, that's life

Phube you should read your insurance policy closely. You may find that they dont cough up for the first six months.

Its a way of making sure the house market doesn't go into free fall so really all homeowners are benefiting.

[Phube]

Phube you should read your insurance policy closely. You may find that they dont cough up for the first six months.

Its a way of making sure the house market doesn't go into free fall so really all homeowners are benefiting.

I know that!! But after that I'm covered...

But I want to buy a nice cheap, reposessed house...

[davieG]

In this pampered society everyone now expects to be bailed out of / get compensation for every little or big hiccup in life.

I see the big 3 car manufacturers in the USA are looking for additional bail out money along with many companies here, what I would ask is why don't they or why aren't they forced to keep a reserve from all the billions they make in the good years to tide them over the bad times, that's what I'm expected to do with my meagre income.

If we going to have so many rules dictating how we live at least lets have one that makes it compulsory for every individual/business to put aside a proportion of their income for a rainy day.

[Jon the Hat]

Because our Prime minister is a control freak and hard line socialist who is gleefully taking every opportunity to make as many people as possible dependent on the state.

Nationalise Banks.

Insure Mortgages.

Tax and give back in the form of tax credits what shoud not be taken in the first place.

Spending ever more of our money to limit a crisis he is responsible for to try and cling on to power.

ID Cards.

Never ending intrusion.

Happy to condone the police intimidating opposition MP's who make him look a fool by pointing out his failures.

[Jon the Hat]

In this pampered society everyone now expects to be bailed out of / get compensation for every little or big hiccup in life.

I see the big 3 car manufacturers in the USA are looking for additional bail out money along with many companies here, what I would ask is why don't they or why aren't they forced to keep a reserve from all the billions they make in the good years to tide them over the bad times, that's what I'm expected to do with my meagre income.

If we going to have so many rules dictating how we live at least lets have one that makes it compulsory for every individual/business to put aside a proportion of their income for a rainy day.

Suggest you read this excellent article by Mitt Romney on the Big car manufacturers. Essentially they are stuffed due to the unions in the 70's and the consequential unaffordable pension burden which makes them inherently unable to match their competitor pricing.

Times online article

[Jon the Hat]

If we going to have so many rules dictating how we live at least lets have one that makes it compulsory for every individual/business to put aside a proportion of their income for a rainy day.

You make a good point there. The Australian system of complusory pension contributions from employers and employees has massively increased their pension provision since it was introduced. Jobs are quoted as cash + Superannunation so really you don't notice it.

[Phube]

Suggest you read this excellent article by Mitt Romney on the Big car manufacturers. Essentially they are stuffed due to the unions in the 70's and the consequential unaffordable pension burden which makes them inherently unable to match their competitor pricing.

Times online article

Bloody Unions!!!!

[davieG]

Suggest you read this excellent article by Mitt Romney on the Big car manufacturers. Essentially they are stuffed due to the unions in the 70's and the consequential unaffordable pension burden which makes them inherently unable to match their competitor pricing.

Times online article

I'm well aware of the impact of the unions in the 70's but it's fair to say we've gone to the other extreme with global businesses now dictating to governments how they should behave.

Oh and the burden you mention hasn't stopped them making millions of dollars profit in the intervening years so I see the problem as just an excuse after all it wouldn't be theirs and their government's mismanaging of the economy that's the problem would it. I suspect the money already used to bail out the failing banks is a drop in the ocean compared to this pension burden.

[Thracian]

In this pampered society everyone now expects to be bailed out of / get compensation for every little or big hiccup in life.

I see the big 3 car manufacturers in the USA are looking for additional bail out money along with many companies here, what I would ask is why don't they or why aren't they forced to keep a reserve from all the billions they make in the good years to tide them over the bad times, that's what I'm expected to do with my meagre income.

If we going to have so many rules dictating how we live at least lets have one that makes it compulsory for every individual/business to put aside a proportion of their income for a rainy day.

As, unlike the banks, I don't get any bail outs in a crisis, so there's no public risk with my problems, and as the Great Britain plc is going into greater debt by the day, I don't think the Government is in any position to dictate what I should do with any of my earnings. Especially if it benefits thieving banks who have already shown how irresponsible they are with everyone else's money.

My stock levels are my "insurance" but then my stock is all bought and paid for. What you're really saying is that I should lend my money to make notional profits for a bank which then pays the taxes to help pay for Gordon Brown's irresponsibility. Having already paid who knows what in taxes.

[davieG]

As, unlike the banks, I don't get any bail outs in a crisis, so there's no public risk with my problems, and as the Great Britain plc is going into greater debt by the day, I don't think the Government is in any position to dictate what I should do with any of my earnings. Especially if it benefits thieving banks who have already shown how irresponsible they are wiuth everyone else's money.

I get the impression that you are a self reliant person and would already try to cover yourself, the suggestion I'm making is to force those profligate amongst us to do likewise so that in the event of personal, business and/or national crisis the tax payer doesn't end up bailing them out - so the effect would be a prevention of governments and banks thieving our money.

[Jon the Hat]

I'm well aware of the impact of the unions in the 70's but it's fair to say we've gone to the other extreme with global businesses now dictating to governments how they should behave.

Oh and the burden you mention hasn't stopped them making millions of dollars profit in the intervening years so I see the problem as just an excuse after all it wouldn't be theirs and their government's mismanaging of the economy that's the problem would it. I suspect the money already used to bail out the failing banks is a drop in the ocean compared to this pension burden.

Business has to make profit to attract investment. As someone recently said on another thread, they are not there to provide employment. As a result of the need to make profit and the need to pay the pensions the only thing has kept them afloat is patriotism of the US consumer. Their product is rubbish in comparison to say Toyota, and has thousands of dollars less value for the same price. Something major has to change. A Bailout is not it though.

[Ric Flair]

This is good news. I've been contemplating getting my flat repossessed for a while, now I can stop paying my mortgage and i'll have 6 months before they start legal proceedings to save the cash up and hide it for a tear up somewhere next summer.

[Thracian]

I get the impression that you are a self reliant person and would already try to cover yourself, the suggestion I'm making is to force those profligate amongst us to do likewise so that in the event of personal, business and/or national crisis the tax payer doesn't end up bailing them out - so the effect would be a prevention of governments and banks thieving our money.

Governments and banks who spend/gamble money they don't have or which isn't theirs will always thieve our money.

[breadandcheese]

An extra liability on the government's books.

It seems to me we're creating a nasty cycle of loading debt upon taxpayers.

The government is imploring banks to lend at low interest rates, so that the loans don't truly represent the risk of loan default. The government then basically guarantees these bad debts, courtesy of us.

Effectively, the banks seem to be being forced to lend out, only to then have to return to the government later on to be bailed out again and possibly further nationalised.

If this goes on, surely the government could find itself in the same position as the banks, with too many liabilities and no effective way to recapitalise, neither from us nor foreign lenders. How smug this government was when Iceland crashed, I just hope we don't get into something similar because this government's economic management is reckless, based on the same assymetric values as investment bankers and hedgefund managers. I can't help feel that with Brown behind in the polls by a considerable margin, he's able to take big bold unfunded positions, as it's the only chance he has of being elected. He has nothing to lose by making these big gambles and everything to gain.

[breadandcheese]

I get the impression that you are a self reliant person and would already try to cover yourself, the suggestion I'm making is to force those profligate amongst us to do likewise so that in the event of personal, business and/or national crisis the tax payer doesn't end up bailing them out - so the effect would be a prevention of governments and banks thieving our money.

I think the government is trying the good old fashioned solution of trying to inflate the problem away. I can't help feel that this deflation scare is a bit of a smokescreen and that in 2 years, we'll have a major global problem with inflation. You only have to look at the current money supply figures to see there is a big problem brewing as it starts to filter through into the system. Typically, it will be bondholders and savers who will lose out, effectively being robbed of the real value of their savings.

[Thracian]

Because our Prime minister is a control freak and hard line socialist who is gleefully taking every opportunity to make as many people as possible dependent on the state.

Nationalise Banks.

Insure Mortgages.

Tax and give back in the form of tax credits what shoud not be taken in the first place.

Spending ever more of our money to limit a crisis he is responsible for to try and cling on to power.

ID Cards.

Never ending intrusion.

Happy to condone the police intimidating opposition MP's who make him look a fool by pointing out his failures.

Do you mean the fast emerging UK version of the War Veterans who are also deemed to be not acting "unlawfully" in pumping an innocent man full of bullets.

What next?

What's to stop an assault team turning up at the football, based on supposedly accurate "inside" information and so-called surveillance, cornering a few fans who they don't like the look of and giving them what for? Anyone go the last time we played Derby away?

Pity no-one ever asks the policemen involved in the De Menezes case how they would have felt and reacted had it been one of their sons who'd been blasted to bits.

I trust they'd be philosophical and put it all down to bad luck based on bad information. And be calmly accepting as the Establishment raced to the defence of those responsible. Feck me the whole thing was totally beyond belief, totally unacceptable and totally beyond excusing.

As for the MP, the police have clearly involved themselves in politics.

Leaking information was food and drink to the Labour Party when in Opposition and I don't remember any such thing happening in those days. Every way I look a this there must have been labour sympathisers involved in prompting the police actiion either within government or within the security services. And either way it stinks.

[Jon the Hat]

As for the MP, the police have clearly involved themselves in politics.

Leaking information was food and drink to the Labour Party when in Opposition and I don't remember any such thing happening in those days. Every way I look a this there must have been labour sympathisers involved in prompting the police actiion either within government or within the security services. And either way it stinks.

All and any information available to the government should be available to all MP's subject to national security requirements. Then it would not be possible to even start this case.

A nice link for you to see a smug young Gordon admit to having an mole in the treasury on National Television.