Anyone into cars but not credit?

[Devil2575]

johnwilliams77 said:

Devil2575 said:

This is the first link I found...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/...

Not far higher then is it? 3% estimate

3% is 3 x the average. I'd say that is far higher. A 30k car is far more expensive than a 10k car.

This one says 3-25%
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success...

The point is that wealth should not be used as a measure of a persons worth.

[DonkeyApple]

johnwilliams77 said:

Devil2575 said:

This is the first link I found...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/...

Not far higher then is it? 3% estimate

Maybe it varies by industry as well? My line of work has a very high number of clear psychopaths and I realised in my early 30s that there was no way of directly competing against them and have been fortunate enough to both realise this and to work around it and still earn a living.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

It wasn't really meant in that vein to be honest. What I more meant is that most people would want their children to have the same or better quality of life then they have and that generally means investing in them with time and almost certainly some money. So I am in firm agreement with you.

My post was really a reaction to those who speak of yolo and the negative implications of thinking like that. The children of many people today will simply not be enjoying the same quality of life as their parents and this is a stark reversal of the post war trend that most of us have benefitted from so for people to try and counter this Weatern effect we must probably invest more than parents in the past have needed to.

Given that we have moved so far from the starting point of this yet another car credit thread to broader issues of economic philosophy I'd like you to expand upon this view DA.

How are you determining quality of life ?

I infer from your posts that you see it as having a direct link to the accumulation of wealth or am I misreading you ?

I

[DoubleD]

[DonkeyApple]

RSK21 said:

DonkeyApple said:

It wasn't really meant in that vein to be honest. What I more meant is that most people would want their children to have the same or better quality of life then they have and that generally means investing in them with time and almost certainly some money. So I am in firm agreement with you.

My post was really a reaction to those who speak of yolo and the negative implications of thinking like that. The children of many people today will simply not be enjoying the same quality of life as their parents and this is a stark reversal of the post war trend that most of us have benefitted from so for people to try and counter this Weatern effect we must probably invest more than parents in the past have needed to.

Given that we have moved so far from the starting point of this yet another car credit thread to broader issues of economic philosophy I'd like you to expand upon this view DA.

How are you determining quality of life ?

I infer from your posts that you see it as having a direct link to the accumulation of wealth or am I misreading you ?

I

Slightly misreading. For me quality of life is about being content but not at the expense of others. That means a certain level of prudence when it comes to being wholly self-sufficient and viewing the welfare state as an amazing safety net as opposed to the future lifestyle choice that very many are making with their choice of consumer lifestyle. It also means ensuring my children have the benefit of at least the same quality of life that I have benefitted from. This is why I often question many people's concept of what is 'affordable' because for some this calculation is at the expense of being self sufficient in retirement which obviously means it isn't affordable in the least. It's of no concern to me what people buy or rent but having worked in debt finance one way or another all my life I do repeatedly see on PH that very few people truly understand both the purpose of consumer debt or the long term damage of it, despite all the big data that is being published and broadcast daily. Consumer debt simply strips wealth and prospects as well as happiness from a society and accelerates social divides so I am not a fan of the post 80s trend of excess lending. All things in moderation but we are well beyond that point in this regard.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

Slightly misreading. For me quality of life is about being content but not at the expense of others. That means a certain level of prudence when it comes to being wholly self-sufficient and viewing the welfare state as an amazing safety net as opposed to the future lifestyle choice that very many are making with their choice of consumer lifestyle. It also means ensuring my children have the benefit of at least the same quality of life that I have benefitted from. This is why I often question many people's concept of what is 'affordable' because for some this calculation is at the expense of being self sufficient in retirement which obviously means it isn't affordable in the least. It's of no concern to me what people buy or rent but having worked in debt finance one way or another all my life I do repeatedly see on PH that very few people truly understand both the purpose of consumer debt or the long term damage of it, despite all the big data that is being published and broadcast daily. Consumer debt simply strips wealth and prospects as well as happiness from a society and accelerates social divides so I am not a fan of the post 80s trend of excess lending. All things in moderation but we are well beyond that point in this regard.

Hmmmm

I understand and indeed agree with your underlying view about helping the next generation.

Your assertion / belief that use of consumer debt in earlier life is linked to treating the welfare state as a safety net in later life is at face value an incredible leap and hugely sweeping.

On a more provocative note as somebody who has clearly attained a comfortable financial position in life through a career built in the industry of finance can you appreciate that people may well see your view as somewhere between ivory tower and hypocritical ?

[Granfondo]

RSK21 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Slightly misreading. For me quality of life is about being content but not at the expense of others. That means a certain level of prudence when it comes to being wholly self-sufficient and viewing the welfare state as an amazing safety net as opposed to the future lifestyle choice that very many are making with their choice of consumer lifestyle. It also means ensuring my children have the benefit of at least the same quality of life that I have benefitted from. This is why I often question many people's concept of what is 'affordable' because for some this calculation is at the expense of being self sufficient in retirement which obviously means it isn't affordable in the least. It's of no concern to me what people buy or rent but having worked in debt finance one way or another all my life I do repeatedly see on PH that very few people truly understand both the purpose of consumer debt or the long term damage of it, despite all the big data that is being published and broadcast daily. Consumer debt simply strips wealth and prospects as well as happiness from a society and accelerates social divides so I am not a fan of the post 80s trend of excess lending. All things in moderation but we are well beyond that point in this regard.

Hmmmm

I understand and indeed agree with your underlying view about helping the next generation.

Your assertion / belief that use of consumer debt in earlier life is linked to treating the welfare state as a safety net in later life is at face value an incredible leap and hugely sweeping.

On a more provocative note as somebody who has clearly attained a comfortable financial position in life through a career built in the industry of finance can you appreciate that people may well see your view as somewhere between ivory tower and hypocritical ?

I would think that someone who makes their living from debt and warns of the dangers is better than one who does and tells people to crack on!

[twoblacklines]

olly-robinson said:

My real world figures are as below:

Net Earnings - £3750

Car - £560
fuel - Covered by company fuel card £0
Insurance - £50
Phone - £40
Food / day to day expenses - £600
Mortgage and bills - £1100
Pension/share scheme - taken at source before Net - £0

This leaves me with approximately £1400 which goes into a savings account which i then draw down as needed for servicing, tyres, holidays and big ticket clothes/consumables purchases. I also receive on average a 15% bonus this again goes straight into the savings account.

How in any way is this not affordable or can anybody think is reckless spending!!

I have no family to provide for but I do have a girlfriend with a taste for Mulberry.

Edited by olly-robinson on Wednesday 19th October 15:49

"In business, net income (total comprehensive income, net earnings, net profit, informally, bottom line) is an entity's income minus cost of goods sold, expenses and taxes for an accounting period."

So according to your calculation, you earn £3750 a month and you pay 0% tax on it ????

[anonymous-user]

Granfondo said:

I would think that someone who makes their living from debt and warns of the dangers is better than one who does and tells people to crack on!

And ?

[Granfondo]

RSK21 said:

Granfondo said:

I would think that someone who makes their living from debt and warns of the dangers is better than one who does and tells people to crack on!

And ?

[Devil2575]

DonkeyApple said:

It wasn't really meant in that vein to be honest. What I more meant is that most people would want their children to have the same or better quality of life then they have and that generally means investing in them with time and almost certainly some money. So I am in firm agreement with you.

My post was really a reaction to those who speak of yolo and the negative implications of thinking like that. The children of many people today will simply not be enjoying the same quality of life as their parents and this is a stark reversal of the post war trend that most of us have benefitted from so for people to try and counter this Weatern effect we must probably invest more than parents in the past have needed to.

Ah, ok. I jumped to a conclusion there, appologies. In general I agree. I think though that it is the yolo generation that will be the first to suffer when they realise that they can't afford to retire. If anything it was the previous generation, the baby boomers, who will be the high point in living standards.
Exactly who or what is to blame and what should be done about it however is a very complicated question

[anonymous-user]

Granfondo said:

No seriously what is your point ?

[DonkeyApple]

RSK21 said:

Hmmmm

I understand and indeed agree with your underlying view about helping the next generation.

Your assertion / belief that use of consumer debt in earlier life is linked to treating the welfare state as a safety net in later life is at face value an incredible leap and hugely sweeping.

On a more provocative note as somebody who has clearly attained a comfortable financial position in life through a career built in the industry of finance can you appreciate that people may well see your view as somewhere between ivory tower and hypocritical ?

I can see that people's prejudices would lead them to stereotyping all too easily.

If anyone can find any evidence from the entire history of mankind that disproves the fact that excess consumer debt leads to increased poverty and social unrest in the long term then I would certainly be interested. Likewise the impact of consumer debt in the early stages of a working life versus in the latter stages. Or genuine data that disproves that those who are spending today the money that they will need to be self diffident after their working life will not be a drain on society I would be very keen to see it. As it stands all the data very clearly shows that as people borrow more they save less and steadily lose the ability to self finance in old age. It isn't an incredible leap or hugely seeeping but just a mathematical fact that all those who are spending today what they need to be saving for tomorrow will be reliant on the welfare of others, subject to the anomalies of firing young, winning the lottery etc.

Obviously we have to live and we have to be happy and make the most of life but it is a balance as life is long for most but the period when you can earn a living is actually quite short and the data shows that we are clearly on the wrong side of the scales andbit will hugely impact very many people.

The only people who are free of such burden are the many very poor and the few very wealthy. For the poor their level of lifestyle won't change when they stop working, nor will it for the very rich but everyone in the middle who wishes to maintain a similar quality of life that their working years have afforded them need to ensure above and beyond anything else that enough of their income now is put aside somehow to create a sufficient income later.

For example, the average private pension in the U.K. Is, I believe, closer to £50k than £100k but an income of around £10k requires a pot to be at least £200k and closer to £250k. So the question with regards to being able to afford the lease payments is whether that calculation is being made post contribution or at the expense of being able to self finance in the future?

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

I can see that people's prejudices would lead them to stereotyping all too easily.

If anyone can find any evidence from the entire history of mankind that disproves the fact that excess consumer debt leads to increased poverty and social unrest in the long term then I would certainly be interested. Likewise the impact of consumer debt in the early stages of a working life versus in the latter stages. Or genuine data that disproves that those who are spending today the money that they will need to be self diffident after their working life will not be a drain on society I would be very keen to see it. As it stands all the data very clearly shows that as people borrow more they save less and steadily lose the ability to self finance in old age. It isn't an incredible leap or hugely seeeping but just a mathematical fact that all those who are spending today what they need to be saving for tomorrow will be reliant on the welfare of others, subject to the anomalies of firing young, winning the lottery etc.

Obviously we have to live and we have to be happy and make the most of life but it is a balance as life is long for most but the period when you can earn a living is actually quite short and the data shows that we are clearly on the wrong side of the scales andbit will hugely impact very many people.

The only people who are free of such burden are the many very poor and the few very wealthy. For the poor their level of lifestyle won't change when they stop working, nor will it for the very rich but everyone in the middle who wishes to maintain a similar quality of life that their working years have afforded them need to ensure above and beyond anything else that enough of their income now is put aside somehow to create a sufficient income later.

For example, the average private pension in the U.K. Is, I believe, closer to £50k than £100k but an income of around £10k requires a pot to be at least £200k and closer to £250k. So the question with regards to being able to afford the lease payments is whether that calculation is being made post contribution or at the expense of being able to self finance in the future?

Nobody but the wilfully ignorant would doubt the economic theory, underpinned as you say by plenty of data, of what you say.

My point is that you bring, in my opinion, a very binary point of view. A choice to use a consumer finance product is not a de facto choice (conscious or otherwise) to be irresponsible about one's future financial commitments, responsibilities or legacy.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 22 October 14:02

[DonkeyApple]

RSK21 said:

Nobody but the wilfully ignorant would doubt the economic theory, underpinned as you say by plenty of data, of what you say.

My point is that you bring, in my opinion, a very binary point of view. A choice to use a consumer finance product is not a de facto choice (conscious or otherwise) to be irresponsible about one's future financial commitments, responsibilities or legacy.

Absolutely. But that isn't what I've been saying. Quite the opposite. It's when it is abused, a good example being when money that must be saved to replicate an income when employers stop employing you instead being used to buy non essential goods now. Ie, the money simply being there does not define affordability. It does define purchasing power but not affordability as many continue to claim. Affordability is what is left after all obligations are met, not just current obligations such as rent or food etc but also future, known obligations.

[DonkeyApple]

Devil2575 said:

Ah, ok. I jumped to a conclusion there, appologies. In general I agree. I think though that it is the yolo generation that will be the first to suffer when they realise that they can't afford to retire. If anything it was the previous generation, the baby boomers, who will be the high point in living standards.
Exactly who or what is to blame and what should be done about it however is a very complicated question

I believe that even some Boomers are struggling in retirement having not invested enough in their future when they could. The upside for most thoughbis that in the current market they can still cashbin the value in their home (although note that they seem to be opting to do so via debt and the dreaded equity release timebomb). But if the wealthiest generation that has ever lived have elements that cannot support themselves in retirement then God help Generation X and worse, the Millenials who are spending far more and face far higher home costs. At least most of Gen X had an opportunity to get on the housing ladder at fair value!

Another interesting aspect is that a lot of Millenials I speak to will complain that they now have to work until they are 70 but are negating the fact that that is the age that they can draw State pension not the age that they will be retired at which will almost certainly be much earlier. Most will be forced into retirement in their late 50s and 60s as employers move them out for more efficient, younger workers and they fail to find replacement jobs of the same standing. For someone going to university today they are predicted to live to over 80 but most will stop working as early as 60 so are likely to have at least 20 years of needing to generate an income around 50% of their average lifetime income to be self sufficient.

As you say, there's no real upside to any blame game and the solutions to the impending situation are pretty hard to implement etc.

[MWM3]

twoblacklines said:

olly-robinson said:

My real world figures are as below:

Net Earnings - £3750

Car - £560
fuel - Covered by company fuel card £0
Insurance - £50
Phone - £40
Food / day to day expenses - £600
Mortgage and bills - £1100
Pension/share scheme - taken at source before Net - £0

This leaves me with approximately £1400 which goes into a savings account which i then draw down as needed for servicing, tyres, holidays and big ticket clothes/consumables purchases. I also receive on average a 15% bonus this again goes straight into the savings account.

How in any way is this not affordable or can anybody think is reckless spending!!

I have no family to provide for but I do have a girlfriend with a taste for Mulberry.

Edited by olly-robinson on Wednesday 19th October 15:49

"In business, net income (total comprehensive income, net earnings, net profit, informally, bottom line) is an entity's income minus cost of goods sold, expenses and taxes for an accounting period."

So according to your calculation, you earn £3750 a month and you pay 0% tax on it ????

Wow! Net earnings means after the tax and NI has been taken off.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

Absolutely. But that isn't what I've been saying. Quite the opposite. It's when it is abused, a good example being when money that must be saved to replicate an income when employers stop employing you instead being used to buy non essential goods now. Ie, the money simply being there does not define affordability. It does define purchasing power but not affordability as many continue to claim. Affordability is what is left after all obligations are met, not just current obligations such as rent or food etc but also future, known obligations.

Unfortunately I think your posting style causes people to miss the facts as you outline them above and then others who aren't able to demonstrate your clarity of thought amplify the position such that what people hear is a distorted version akin to "using credit is stupid" or "using credit is reckless" .

I

[ChasW]

RSK21 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Absolutely. But that isn't what I've been saying. Quite the opposite. It's when it is abused, a good example being when money that must be saved to replicate an income when employers stop employing you instead being used to buy non essential goods now. Ie, the money simply being there does not define affordability. It does define purchasing power but not affordability as many continue to claim. Affordability is what is left after all obligations are met, not just current obligations such as rent or food etc but also future, known obligations.

Unfortunately I think your posting style causes people to miss the facts as you outline them above and then others who aren't able to demonstrate your clarity of thought amplify the position such that what people hear is a distorted version akin to "using credit is stupid" or "using credit is reckless" .

I

What alternative posting style would you recommend? I find DA's point of view well articulated. His sentiments are quite clear. For many the "live now, pay later" approach, characterised by massive consumer debt, may translate to "live now, suffer later" if you take into account the factors of increased life expectancy, low saving rates and shorter careers. I'd agree that the underlying message is that credit comes with a health warning.

[anonymous-user]

ChasW said:

RSK21 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Absolutely. But that isn't what I've been saying. Quite the opposite. It's when it is abused, a good example being when money that must be saved to replicate an income when employers stop employing you instead being used to buy non essential goods now. Ie, the money simply being there does not define affordability. It does define purchasing power but not affordability as many continue to claim. Affordability is what is left after all obligations are met, not just current obligations such as rent or food etc but also future, known obligations.

Unfortunately I think your posting style causes people to miss the facts as you outline them above and then others who aren't able to demonstrate your clarity of thought amplify the position such that what people hear is a distorted version akin to "using credit is stupid" or "using credit is reckless" .

I

What alternative posting style would you recommend? I find DA's point of view well articulated. His sentiments are quite clear. For many the "live now, pay later" approach, characterised by massive consumer debt, may translate to "live now, suffer later" if you take into account the factors of increased life expectancy, low saving rates and shorter careers. I'd agree that the underlying message is that credit comes with a health warning.

I think you have have confused tone and style with content and point of view.

As regards that posting style I am not recommending one at all and neither am I accusing DA of being in any way inarticulate in his views.

Take your words about a health warning - It's all about "may" and not "will". Now I'm happy to admit that I might be reading it all wrong, but in my mind I see some of the commenst from DA as inferring "will" not "may" and that the only way to cushion oneself for later life is to save for a pension thus leading to a very binary POV which then says "You can't afford X on a credit agreement because x is entirely proportionate to what you should be putting away each month". It's no doubt statistically valid but doesn't reflect everybody's reality.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 22 October 15:50

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 22 October 15:56