Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 February 2009
23:2815153I have just read an interesting point based on some home truths.
There is a lot of very clear statistical eveidence to say that co-habiting couples are less stable than married ones.
Banks, in responding to the 'inclusiveness' policies of the present Government, have to treat co-habiting couples on an equal basis in assessing a mortgage as with married couples. They were/are not allowed to discriminate against what may be less stable relationships and when/if they fail the chances of default are higher.
I would not suggest that this is a major contributing factor but may well have had an impact on the problem.
Another case, perhaps, of unintended consequences from what may well be initially well motivated legislation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 February 2009
23:3715162i would be surprised if that was true barry.
in a lot of cases marriage binds a relationship, in other cases it puts undue pressure on.
i have experience of both and cannot see that any set style of relationship is better than another.
just as an example my sister had various rekationships when she was younger, had 3 children, very time they moved, they signed in at a new school with 3 different surnames.
they have all grown up, well adjusted, highly educated adults that have their own families now.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2009
07:5415174I take your point Howard but there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the relative instability of co-habiting. Largely its the commitment thing, those unwilling to commit can live together but still get a mortgage on equal terms with a couple who make a legal commitment. I have seen this directly.
Sid Pollitt
11 February 2009
12:5715184Didn't they try this sort of thing in Germany in the 1930s?
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
11 February 2009
17:5915208Surely getting a joint mortgage is a form of legal commitment?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2009
19:0615226Only to pay the loan or lose your house Chris. It is not a commitment to a relationship and if a relationship breaks down it can be difficult to maintain payments on a mortgage.
11 February 2009
21:4515257At the risk of being slapped around the ankle area - I agree with BarryW (dammit). Howard, I have a sister in law in similar circs - 5 lovely kids, fragmented but loving home, sensible and loving Mother who has done the right thing by them so they have turned out well - with considrable support from her family it has to be said. Sadly not usual or common. Evidence does show that marrying changes relationships positively and tends to create a more committed and stable family - I recognise the variables, but the evidence , when viewed, is very clear.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
11 February 2009
21:5315259bern concider youre ankles slapped just say 3 hail marys and alls forgiven.back to main subject it is getting harder for get things these days,evan harder if you lose your main income.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
14 February 2009
17:4815468I suspect little or no impact unless of course you are talking about the US and the sub prime mortgages that are at the root of the current crisis
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
14 February 2009
21:4115483Ross - I look forward so much to your postings - you root us right back into the strata of the ideas. We all contribute so much to the discussion in different ways, it's fascinating!
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
14 February 2009
21:5215484Why thank you Bern
I suspect a cheap political point was trying to be made earlier ...
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Unregistered User
20 February 2009
20:1115787Barry has a point. The inclusiveness agenda started in the Clinton era. The sub prime lending dates from that time. Lending institutions were required by the Clinton regime to lend or face equalities/discrimation legislation when the clients were found commercially unsound. The same legislation was applied to re-mortages when people started defaulting compounding the debt.
Our financial institutions purchased bundles of that unsecured debt. The proverbial pyramid.
The rest is history & Gordon Brown.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 February 2009
20:2015789i see that the top man at bradford and bingley has halved his own salary today, and agreed to forgo his bonus.
is this a start?
maybe we should start up a whip round for poor bankers.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
21 February 2009
08:0715805You wouldn't get many (any) contributors Howard.
I used to have a lot of shares in B & B - now worthless; their interest rates are amongst, if not the, lowest around.
I wonder how many Clinton supporters knew that Paul.
Roger
