no but seriously.....

Leave your remarks about life in South Shields / South Tyneside

Moderator: andysfootball

Post Reply
baldy.smith

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by baldy.smith »

I have very little money to get by on, but I manage what I do get very carefully.
One thing I don't have is debt, I can get by without it, the rule is very simple,
"if you can't afford to pay for it, don't buy it). That of course would not apply
if you were taking out a morgage, that would be an investment, although that
is on shaky ground at the moment with lots of people in negative equity.

8)
baldy.smith

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by baldy.smith »

I have no interest in the revolutionary views or policies of the TPUC.

8)
baldy.smith

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by baldy.smith »

heezhere wrote:fair comment......would you like to expand at all on that responce and its reasons..?
No!

8)
baldy.smith

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by baldy.smith »

heezhere wrote:again, fair comment.....as has been pointed out by the notorious mr angry, " silence speaks volumes "
Ah Mr A, now theres a man who may benefit from a little eye opening on. the real world. :wink:

8)
User avatar
sherri
Full Time Gobber
Full Time Gobber
Posts: 25232
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14 am
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by sherri »

Hmm, I think the best way-the very best way, to get rid of debt isn't to follow that scenario in the link.
You will get a bad credit rating that way and maybe won't be able to get a home loan etc down the track.
The best way to make life a bit simpler is
-don't put anything else on credit cards
-gradually pay off anything that is already on a credit card
-from there on in, as Baldy mentioned,only buy what you can pay cash for

The trick is-no money, go without, or else buy second hand OR
try lay by.
I haven't got a fancy car or a lot of expensive stuff but at least what I have, is mine and it is easier to sleep at night not having the worry of debt.

The way some businesses try to encourage borrowing is really not right. We live in a commercialised world, for sure, and we don't need half the stuff the media tries to hoist on us.

Know something funny? Was reading a magazine, they were talking about 'recession dressing' and how even the stars were having to economise.
The example? Some star who was seen wearing the same dress twice..... in 5 years. :lol:

That's not my definition of recession dressing. :lol:
User avatar
sherri
Full Time Gobber
Full Time Gobber
Posts: 25232
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14 am
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by sherri »

My reading of the link would have led me to think it was suggesting some fancy moves to try to wriggle out of having to face debt.
For those very people who might be 'entwined in devilish set ups'.
I am not sure how much benefit would be obtained by people 'going the extra yard' and following all the advice. I am not saying it wouldn't work-just saying you would need some fancy lawyers I think to make it stick, and people who can afford good legal advice aren't usually broke.

But hey, I look forward to seeing someone get in there and try it. :D
User avatar
sherri
Full Time Gobber
Full Time Gobber
Posts: 25232
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14 am
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by sherri »

I understand where you are coming from, but i think the law, as a whole, should be tightened up against some practices so most people don't get into trouble in the first place.
For example, when it comes to mortgages, there should be a lot more plain English contracts and maybe a rule (as there used to be years ago) that the size of a loan was not only related to income but to the amount saved over eg a 12 month period and ability to repay. I have also heard of people being caught out in mobile phone contracts and ending up with big debts, sometimes from those telemarketer type companies.

Most of the successful ventures against the usual laws though, seem to be carried out by people with money eg i read of a man who had speeding fines-going about 180 in a 60 zone, driving unlicensed. He had money and managed to not only avoid a fine but also avoid any consequences at all, because of technicalities. But his dad was a milionaire and I am noit sure the rest of us could have managed it.

I guess in some ways I am in two minds. I can see that there are some unfair things out there that entrap people but I can also feel for some companies. If people recklessly do borrow or use services or products (and we live in a 'must have immediately, regardless of if i can afford it' type culture) then there are some times they should have to face the consequences. I have heard of some people etc who don't pay rent or utility bills for months, but the law can do nothing against them for months and others end up out of pocket.
User avatar
sherri
Full Time Gobber
Full Time Gobber
Posts: 25232
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14 am
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by sherri »

I agree the case against the van driver was tough. The first question that comes to mind is.. did they in fact test the van, to find out if it had been faulty and could have contributed to the accident?
because if they did not, then basing a charge on what anyone 'thinks' seems a bit ridiculous.
I am not 100% certain of the law as it applies here in Aust but think that if a truck is dangerously faulty, the company is found negligent. The driver could also be in trouble if he knowingly breaks the law.
Now utility bills. I think (and again I am not sure) that there is-or was- a provision here where people can pay into a utility account on a regular basis so they are in credit. I am pretty sure my sis in law used to do this-pay a certain amount each fortnight out of her pension so she knew there would be approximately the right amount in there when the bill was due and she didn't have to come up with a big amount all at once.
That sort of thing might work better than a meter, but it does put the responsibility on the person.

For those who get behind, maybe if they were forced to pay a small amount fortnightly in order to keep that service, that might help them more. At least they would be getting it at the same rate as everybody else.
I don't know that everything needs to be disbanded, that sounds so pessimistic, probably your country is not that bad. Just certain unfair things need to be tweaked a little.
Nothing is ever 100% perfect in the world, it's a work in progress I think.
User avatar
sherri
Full Time Gobber
Full Time Gobber
Posts: 25232
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:14 am
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: no but seriously.....

Post by sherri »

Even in communist countries, there are and have always been perks for those in power and there were always the haves and the have nots.
Huge discrepancies too, not small ones.
Part of what makes leaders into leaders is their drive and tenacity and they seem to apply some of that energy into pushing for better perks than everyone else.
I agree, they need to be watched and loopholes shut on the more rampant cases of greed.
There are quite a few greedier leaders in the corporate sector, too.

But I think I must be more cynical than you are. :D I don't think we are ever going to stop it completely.
As for what we think of as essential for living- that changes too. I once read a definition of what society is supposed to provide-the min requirements. It went something like, 'A roof over your head, food and access to s*x." That was it.
Post Reply