More people 'falling through austerity net'

York Press: Stamp Out Poverty Stamp Out Poverty

MORE people than ever are “slipping through the net” in York as they struggle to deal with the Government’s austerity drive, it has been claimed.

York Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) said it has seen a marked increase in contact from the under-35s struggling to cover private rental costs as a result of benefit reforms and from people new to the benefit system – due to redundancy or ill-health – struggling to access help.

Peter Finlay, the project leader for family money advice at York CAB, said changes to the benefit system are preventing some in York from “keeping a roof over their heads”.

He said: “York is seen as quite affluent and a lot of that is down to the kind of social housing you get. The council estates are very well maintained.

‘‘When you get in through the front door you find levels of poverty.

“In our experience people can get themselves into quite a bit of difficulty because they are not familiar with the benefit system and what they are entitled to.

“It’s these people who can fall through the net.

“The measures that are being taken, the changes that are being made, are preventing some people from keeping a roof over their heads.

“These changes have been introduced recently, people have entered into rental agreements in the private sector and their housing housing benefit has been slashed. Those are the people who are finding it difficult and bewildering.”

Mr Finlay said York CAB is working to give advice in advance of a raft of benefit changes due for 2013.

A report released by the new Economics Foundation (NEF) this week, which has tracked how the cuts have hit some of the most deprived wards in England, has said the vulnerable and those with genuine needs are not being protected from the cuts.

Joe Penny, a co-author of the report, said about benefit reductions alongside the soaring cost of bills: “Society is getting to the point where anyone can have a crisis which pushes them down a spiral so precipitous that it is almost impossible to recover.”

Changes to housing benefit include the introduction of the local housing allowance which groups together York and Selby, meaning housing benefit will only cover the lowest 30 per cent of rental prices appropriate to family size.

An additional change means single people under 35, can only claim rent of £281 a month, which can prove a challenge in York where private rented property is in high demand, and landlords can make more money through renting to students, a spokesman for York CAB said.

Westfield councillor and disabilities campainer Lynn Jefferies said: “I see evidence that people in York are struggling more than they have in the past.

‘‘For those people who lost their entitlement to care support, there’s a danger of them falling into poverty if they have not already.”

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:02pm Fri 23 Nov 12

bob the builder says...

As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely.
As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely. bob the builder
  • Score: 0

12:25am Sat 24 Nov 12

yorkborn66 says...

bob the builder wrote:
As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely.
A man devoid of conscience, making money from other peoples miss fortunes.
If dept is acceptable and repayment unlikely, how come you have this odious job then?
[quote][p][bold]bob the builder[/bold] wrote: As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely.[/p][/quote]A man devoid of conscience, making money from other peoples miss fortunes. If dept is acceptable and repayment unlikely, how come you have this odious job then? yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

11:38am Sat 24 Nov 12

Guy Fawkes says...

It's difficult to comment on this without seeming to make ill-informed judgments about people's individual circumstances, but there is an underlying assumption to this whole Press campaign, which is to me a worrying one. It is, as H.G. Wells put it in 'The Shape of Things to Come', that '...the state is your mother, your father and the totality of your interests'. In other words, the economic issues we're currently facing are all the government's fault, it's the government's job to fix them for us and we are simply helpless bystanders in the whole process.

In America there is a popular prime-time personal finance show, 'The Suze Orman Show', in which people ring in and ask her for advice on financial problems or planning issues. One piece of advice she repeats all the time is that your no. 1 priority should be building up a reserve of savings sufficient to get you through eight months' total loss of income (the average amount of time it takes an American who loses his job to find a new one). If you haven't done that, she says, then you can't afford that new car, holiday, eating out at restaurants, cable TV or even to start a family. In the US, that message is seen as uncontroversial. However, if a high profile personality came out with that suggestion here (that you shouldn't have children until you've made contingency plans to deal with a sudden loss in income), they'd be crucified. That's taking away our 'ewman rights, people would cry, and much else besides. The idea that we should aim to be self-sufficient is now considered fundamentally to be politically incorrect.

That is the down side of 65 years of the welfare state. There were, of course, down sides that were just as bad before it existed, but you only need to look across the Channel to see that the course we're on cannot work for much longer. Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Greece funded lavish welfare states throughout the '00s through a combination of sky high taxation and huge borrowing (most of which they were able to conceal by being in the euro). Now, the credit card is maxed out and the bill has arrived, and what is happening? Wealth generating, taxpaying high earners are emigrating by the planeload, unemployment is at 50%, countries barely able to feed themselves, the return of fascism in Greece and the prospect of another civil war in Spain if Catalonia votes for independence shortly.

In this country, the governments (of all three parties) have done all they can to make the situation worse: they've kept down interest rates, thereby discouraging saving causing a house price bubble, allowed virtually unlimited inward economic migration of low skilled workers, and created a bloated, and overpaid (especially at the top end) public sector and created a benefits system so lavish that employers can get away with paying low and medium-skilled workers fundamentally less than it costs to live.

All that has to change if we're to get out of this hole. But as long as discussions about the economy and its impact at grass roots level take it as given that only the government can do anything about this, the risk is increased that we're going to end up in the same place as our European neighbours.
It's difficult to comment on this without seeming to make ill-informed judgments about people's individual circumstances, but there is an underlying assumption to this whole Press campaign, which is to me a worrying one. It is, as H.G. Wells put it in 'The Shape of Things to Come', that '...the state is your mother, your father and the totality of your interests'. In other words, the economic issues we're currently facing are all the government's fault, it's the government's job to fix them for us and we are simply helpless bystanders in the whole process. In America there is a popular prime-time personal finance show, 'The Suze Orman Show', in which people ring in and ask her for advice on financial problems or planning issues. One piece of advice she repeats all the time is that your no. 1 priority should be building up a reserve of savings sufficient to get you through eight months' total loss of income (the average amount of time it takes an American who loses his job to find a new one). If you haven't done that, she says, then you can't afford that new car, holiday, eating out at restaurants, cable TV or even to start a family. In the US, that message is seen as uncontroversial. However, if a high profile personality came out with that suggestion here (that you shouldn't have children until you've made contingency plans to deal with a sudden loss in income), they'd be crucified. That's taking away our 'ewman rights, people would cry, and much else besides. The idea that we should aim to be self-sufficient is now considered fundamentally to be politically incorrect. That is the down side of 65 years of the welfare state. There were, of course, down sides that were just as bad before it existed, but you only need to look across the Channel to see that the course we're on cannot work for much longer. Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Greece funded lavish welfare states throughout the '00s through a combination of sky high taxation and huge borrowing (most of which they were able to conceal by being in the euro). Now, the credit card is maxed out and the bill has arrived, and what is happening? Wealth generating, taxpaying high earners are emigrating by the planeload, unemployment is at 50%, countries barely able to feed themselves, the return of fascism in Greece and the prospect of another civil war in Spain if Catalonia votes for independence shortly. In this country, the governments (of all three parties) have done all they can to make the situation worse: they've kept down interest rates, thereby discouraging saving causing a house price bubble, allowed virtually unlimited inward economic migration of low skilled workers, and created a bloated, and overpaid (especially at the top end) public sector and created a benefits system so lavish that employers can get away with paying low and medium-skilled workers fundamentally less than it costs to live. All that has to change if we're to get out of this hole. But as long as discussions about the economy and its impact at grass roots level take it as given that only the government can do anything about this, the risk is increased that we're going to end up in the same place as our European neighbours. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

9:09am Mon 26 Nov 12

Gary Gilmores Eyes says...

‘bob the builder wrote:
As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely.’

Spot on…
That’s exactly why they are in debt, because they cannot see the difference between what is essential and a luxury, also when CAB advise people that luxury items are essential the circle of debt gets worse.

So typical!

I’m afraid the problem will not get better until the debtors can see the cause and true effect on themselves!




‘yorkborn66 says... 12:25am Sat 24 Nov 12

A man devoid of conscience, making money from other peoples miss fortunes.
If dept is acceptable and repayment unlikely, how come you have this odious job then?’

The misfortune is self-inflicted as they took out the debt, debt is not compulsory, how about going without the ‘essentials’ that actually are luxuries.

If you cannot repay the debt that you initiated that is your problem and are fully liable for any remedies, obviously the remedies are dealt with in many different ways depending on where the debt was sourced!

I would suggest that the debtors are ‘devoid of conscience’ by borrowing other people’s money without intention of repayment!
‘bob the builder wrote: As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely.’ Spot on… That’s exactly why they are in debt, because they cannot see the difference between what is essential and a luxury, also when CAB advise people that luxury items are essential the circle of debt gets worse. So typical! I’m afraid the problem will not get better until the debtors can see the cause and true effect on themselves! ‘yorkborn66 says... 12:25am Sat 24 Nov 12 A man devoid of conscience, making money from other peoples miss fortunes. If dept is acceptable and repayment unlikely, how come you have this odious job then?’ The misfortune is self-inflicted as they took out the debt, debt is not compulsory, how about going without the ‘essentials’ that actually are luxuries. If you cannot repay the debt that you initiated that is your problem and are fully liable for any remedies, obviously the remedies are dealt with in many different ways depending on where the debt was sourced! I would suggest that the debtors are ‘devoid of conscience’ by borrowing other people’s money without intention of repayment! Gary Gilmores Eyes
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Mon 26 Nov 12

yorkborn66 says...

So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment.
He also takes out a small private pension. Takes care of his family and does not spend more than he can afford.
Suddenly his employer announces that is going into administration or Bankruptcy and you finish on Friday.
The man looks for another job, which is temporary until Christmas, but is told if he takes this job he will automatically loose the 12 weeks pay he will recieve maybe in a few months time. Because this was been paid to him for the 12 weeks notice he did not receive. Even though the work would be temparary for 5 weeks.
He goes to the job centre for advise and explains his situation regarding working 5 weeks but loosing the other 7 weeks, also he enquires about the interest been paid on his mortgage. He is told he has to wait al least 13 weeks and after that period only half the interest on his mortgage would be considered to be paid about 3.2 %.
He has never claimed any benefits in his life, paid tax and nat. Insurance all his working life and now because he will have to wait at least 3 months to see any statuary redundancy, he has been in a financial mess. The mortgage company will not give him a one-month holiday on his payment
He was not that well paid in employment but lived by his means.
Now the threats of bailiffs etc have started because he still has not received any money. Is this right? , Are you happy for this man to go to the wall through no fault of his own, it was actually the Government indirectly that finished his employers business.
So whilst you think you may be at the top of your ladder, remember the only way is down, and it will happen without notice.
That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor.
This man is a friend of mine.
I stick by my previous comment.
So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment. He also takes out a small private pension. Takes care of his family and does not spend more than he can afford. Suddenly his employer announces that is going into administration or Bankruptcy and you finish on Friday. The man looks for another job, which is temporary until Christmas, but is told if he takes this job he will automatically loose the 12 weeks pay he will recieve maybe in a few months time. Because this was been paid to him for the 12 weeks notice he did not receive. Even though the work would be temparary for 5 weeks. He goes to the job centre for advise and explains his situation regarding working 5 weeks but loosing the other 7 weeks, also he enquires about the interest been paid on his mortgage. He is told he has to wait al least 13 weeks and after that period only half the interest on his mortgage would be considered to be paid about 3.2 %. He has never claimed any benefits in his life, paid tax and nat. Insurance all his working life and now because he will have to wait at least 3 months to see any statuary redundancy, he has been in a financial mess. The mortgage company will not give him a one-month holiday on his payment He was not that well paid in employment but lived by his means. Now the threats of bailiffs etc have started because he still has not received any money. Is this right? , Are you happy for this man to go to the wall through no fault of his own, it was actually the Government indirectly that finished his employers business. So whilst you think you may be at the top of your ladder, remember the only way is down, and it will happen without notice. That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor. This man is a friend of mine. I stick by my previous comment. yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Mon 26 Nov 12

yorkborn66 says...

Gary Gilmores Eyes wrote:
‘bob the builder wrote:
As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely.’

Spot on…
That’s exactly why they are in debt, because they cannot see the difference between what is essential and a luxury, also when CAB advise people that luxury items are essential the circle of debt gets worse.

So typical!

I’m afraid the problem will not get better until the debtors can see the cause and true effect on themselves!




‘yorkborn66 says... 12:25am Sat 24 Nov 12

A man devoid of conscience, making money from other peoples miss fortunes.
If dept is acceptable and repayment unlikely, how come you have this odious job then?’

The misfortune is self-inflicted as they took out the debt, debt is not compulsory, how about going without the ‘essentials’ that actually are luxuries.

If you cannot repay the debt that you initiated that is your problem and are fully liable for any remedies, obviously the remedies are dealt with in many different ways depending on where the debt was sourced!

I would suggest that the debtors are ‘devoid of conscience’ by borrowing other people’s money without intention of repayment!
So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment.
He also takes out a small private pension. Takes care of his family and does not spend more than he can afford.
Suddenly his employer announces that is going into administration or Bankruptcy and you finish on Friday.
The man looks for another job, which is temporary until Christmas, but is told if he takes this job he will automatically loose the 12 weeks pay he will recieve maybe in a few months time. Because this was been paid to him for the 12 weeks notice he did not receive. Even though the work would be temparary for 5 weeks.
He goes to the job centre for advise and explains his situation regarding working 5 weeks but loosing the other 7 weeks, also he enquires about the interest been paid on his mortgage. He is told he has to wait al least 13 weeks and after that period only half the interest on his mortgage would be considered to be paid about 3.2 %.
He has never claimed any benefits in his life, paid tax and nat. Insurance all his working life and now because he will have to wait at least 3 months to see any statuary redundancy, he has been in a financial mess. The mortgage company will not give him a one-month holiday on his payment
He was not that well paid in employment but lived by his means.
Now the threats of bailiffs etc have started because he still has not received any money. Is this right? , Are you happy for this man to go to the wall through no fault of his own, it was actually the Government indirectly that finished his employers business.
So whilst you think you may be at the top of your ladder, remember the only way is down, and it will happen without notice.
That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor.
This man is a friend of mine.
I stick by my previous comment.
[quote][p][bold]Gary Gilmores Eyes[/bold] wrote: ‘bob the builder wrote: As a debt collector I dealt with CAB regularly in the 80's, they defined people's budgets to include cigarettes, alcohol, TV rental and Sky TV, then offer 10p a week towards the clients debt. I always refused pointing out that poor people can't afford luxuries and will never get out of debt by spending on what they can't afford. The CAB response, they need something to enjoy! Nothing has changed in 25-30 year apart from debt is acceptable and repayment is unlikely.’ Spot on… That’s exactly why they are in debt, because they cannot see the difference between what is essential and a luxury, also when CAB advise people that luxury items are essential the circle of debt gets worse. So typical! I’m afraid the problem will not get better until the debtors can see the cause and true effect on themselves! ‘yorkborn66 says... 12:25am Sat 24 Nov 12 A man devoid of conscience, making money from other peoples miss fortunes. If dept is acceptable and repayment unlikely, how come you have this odious job then?’ The misfortune is self-inflicted as they took out the debt, debt is not compulsory, how about going without the ‘essentials’ that actually are luxuries. If you cannot repay the debt that you initiated that is your problem and are fully liable for any remedies, obviously the remedies are dealt with in many different ways depending on where the debt was sourced! I would suggest that the debtors are ‘devoid of conscience’ by borrowing other people’s money without intention of repayment![/p][/quote]So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment. He also takes out a small private pension. Takes care of his family and does not spend more than he can afford. Suddenly his employer announces that is going into administration or Bankruptcy and you finish on Friday. The man looks for another job, which is temporary until Christmas, but is told if he takes this job he will automatically loose the 12 weeks pay he will recieve maybe in a few months time. Because this was been paid to him for the 12 weeks notice he did not receive. Even though the work would be temparary for 5 weeks. He goes to the job centre for advise and explains his situation regarding working 5 weeks but loosing the other 7 weeks, also he enquires about the interest been paid on his mortgage. He is told he has to wait al least 13 weeks and after that period only half the interest on his mortgage would be considered to be paid about 3.2 %. He has never claimed any benefits in his life, paid tax and nat. Insurance all his working life and now because he will have to wait at least 3 months to see any statuary redundancy, he has been in a financial mess. The mortgage company will not give him a one-month holiday on his payment He was not that well paid in employment but lived by his means. Now the threats of bailiffs etc have started because he still has not received any money. Is this right? , Are you happy for this man to go to the wall through no fault of his own, it was actually the Government indirectly that finished his employers business. So whilst you think you may be at the top of your ladder, remember the only way is down, and it will happen without notice. That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor. This man is a friend of mine. I stick by my previous comment. yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Gary Gilmores Eyes says...

yorkborn66 says... 5:42pm Mon 26 Nov 12
So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment.’


He should also have been saving something for the inevitable rainy day that may well come whilst in regular work over the years!
Also paying off the mortgage as fast as possible whilst in work ensures the smallest time exposed to the debt and the consequences of not being able to meet payments.

Many people expand/extend the original mortgage to include car loans, bigger houses, extension, house improvements, freeing up money for holidays etc. The bankers trick to keep them in debt for longer and higher levels and therefore making them more money by interest and keeping them under their control.

Golden rule number 1: Take out minimum debt and pay off as fast as possible to keep the monkeys off your back!
That’s what savings are for! An umbrella in time of rain!





‘That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor.’


Bailiffs are only doing a job, not a particularly nice one admittedly, however it is not the Bailiffs fault or the banks that the individual cannot pay his debt!

The debtor asked for the loan by their own free will, they are responsible for paying it back, if you do not think that you can do that then do not borrow in the first place.

What is so hard for most people to understand about personal responsibility about this?
yorkborn66 says... 5:42pm Mon 26 Nov 12 So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment.’ He should also have been saving something for the inevitable rainy day that may well come whilst in regular work over the years! Also paying off the mortgage as fast as possible whilst in work ensures the smallest time exposed to the debt and the consequences of not being able to meet payments. Many people expand/extend the original mortgage to include car loans, bigger houses, extension, house improvements, freeing up money for holidays etc. The bankers trick to keep them in debt for longer and higher levels and therefore making them more money by interest and keeping them under their control. Golden rule number 1: Take out minimum debt and pay off as fast as possible to keep the monkeys off your back! That’s what savings are for! An umbrella in time of rain! ‘That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor.’ Bailiffs are only doing a job, not a particularly nice one admittedly, however it is not the Bailiffs fault or the banks that the individual cannot pay his debt! The debtor asked for the loan by their own free will, they are responsible for paying it back, if you do not think that you can do that then do not borrow in the first place. What is so hard for most people to understand about personal responsibility about this? Gary Gilmores Eyes
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Tue 27 Nov 12

yorkborn66 says...

Gary Gilmores Eyes wrote:
yorkborn66 says... 5:42pm Mon 26 Nov 12
So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment.’


He should also have been saving something for the inevitable rainy day that may well come whilst in regular work over the years!
Also paying off the mortgage as fast as possible whilst in work ensures the smallest time exposed to the debt and the consequences of not being able to meet payments.

Many people expand/extend the original mortgage to include car loans, bigger houses, extension, house improvements, freeing up money for holidays etc. The bankers trick to keep them in debt for longer and higher levels and therefore making them more money by interest and keeping them under their control.

Golden rule number 1: Take out minimum debt and pay off as fast as possible to keep the monkeys off your back!
That’s what savings are for! An umbrella in time of rain!





‘That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor.’


Bailiffs are only doing a job, not a particularly nice one admittedly, however it is not the Bailiffs fault or the banks that the individual cannot pay his debt!

The debtor asked for the loan by their own free will, they are responsible for paying it back, if you do not think that you can do that then do not borrow in the first place.

What is so hard for most people to understand about personal responsibility about this?
He did not have any loans, lived by his means, but raising a family on his wage, he was not in the position to have the disposable income to put money away to significantly help in this situation. “An umbrella in the rain “ only goes so far on a low wage.
Personal reasonability I agree, but Banks that make millions of pounds and contributed heavily to the collapse of our economy, big bonuses that still happen at tax payers expense, and a government that throws money away to the EU, and foreign aid when genuine families are loosing their homes and starving through no fault of their own in the UK.
This government brainwashers people to fight between themselves regarding these issues, to take away the moral obligation they have to solve a problem they and the previous government created with the financial institution’s in the first place.
What are my political views? , I don’t trust any politician and never will regardless of Party. They all line their own pockets.
This country is in a total mess, nearly all the state assets sold off or in foreign control.
Manufacturing exports at a minimum, massive amount of cheap Chinese imports, the list goes on.
As long as our government can find the money to spend on another war or “conflict “ or humanitarian effort, give away millions of pounds to other EU countries, have an open door policy on EU immigrants that rape the benefit system and the NHS, that will be fine, cos we don’t want to loose face!
Government statistics regarding employment etc, totally incorrect.
I am disgusted to be British, when we have so much poverty in this country,
This country has been sold down the line and our government seems to think they are the colonial power of yesteryear. We have ended up the laughing stock of the world, Fact. If you don’t believe me get out of York and travel a bit.
My view on bailiffs still remains but I agree, when the situation is correct they do have a role in recovering assets , it is not a job that I could do on moral grounds .
[quote][p][bold]Gary Gilmores Eyes[/bold] wrote: yorkborn66 says... 5:42pm Mon 26 Nov 12 So working on your principle. A man works for an employer for 26 years, tries to better himself. Buys a house with a deposit and then a mortgage repayment.’ He should also have been saving something for the inevitable rainy day that may well come whilst in regular work over the years! Also paying off the mortgage as fast as possible whilst in work ensures the smallest time exposed to the debt and the consequences of not being able to meet payments. Many people expand/extend the original mortgage to include car loans, bigger houses, extension, house improvements, freeing up money for holidays etc. The bankers trick to keep them in debt for longer and higher levels and therefore making them more money by interest and keeping them under their control. Golden rule number 1: Take out minimum debt and pay off as fast as possible to keep the monkeys off your back! That’s what savings are for! An umbrella in time of rain! ‘That is why I do not like bailiffs, they do not discrinate between those people in desperate need through no fault of their own and those who don’t give a dam, as long as they get there cut and the creditor.’ Bailiffs are only doing a job, not a particularly nice one admittedly, however it is not the Bailiffs fault or the banks that the individual cannot pay his debt! The debtor asked for the loan by their own free will, they are responsible for paying it back, if you do not think that you can do that then do not borrow in the first place. What is so hard for most people to understand about personal responsibility about this?[/p][/quote]He did not have any loans, lived by his means, but raising a family on his wage, he was not in the position to have the disposable income to put money away to significantly help in this situation. “An umbrella in the rain “ only goes so far on a low wage. Personal reasonability I agree, but Banks that make millions of pounds and contributed heavily to the collapse of our economy, big bonuses that still happen at tax payers expense, and a government that throws money away to the EU, and foreign aid when genuine families are loosing their homes and starving through no fault of their own in the UK. This government brainwashers people to fight between themselves regarding these issues, to take away the moral obligation they have to solve a problem they and the previous government created with the financial institution’s in the first place. What are my political views? , I don’t trust any politician and never will regardless of Party. They all line their own pockets. This country is in a total mess, nearly all the state assets sold off or in foreign control. Manufacturing exports at a minimum, massive amount of cheap Chinese imports, the list goes on. As long as our government can find the money to spend on another war or “conflict “ or humanitarian effort, give away millions of pounds to other EU countries, have an open door policy on EU immigrants that rape the benefit system and the NHS, that will be fine, cos we don’t want to loose face! Government statistics regarding employment etc, totally incorrect. I am disgusted to be British, when we have so much poverty in this country, This country has been sold down the line and our government seems to think they are the colonial power of yesteryear. We have ended up the laughing stock of the world, Fact. If you don’t believe me get out of York and travel a bit. My view on bailiffs still remains but I agree, when the situation is correct they do have a role in recovering assets , it is not a job that I could do on moral grounds . yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree