(Labour are doing such a nice job for free on that score).

But who was in power for the last crash...

Answer 2 lines above...

This sort of thing annoys the h*ll out of me as this sort irresponsible lending should not be allowed under ANY circumstances.

If we are talking irreponsible, then it could also be said that its an indication of a reckless and irreponsible Government, encouraging owners of what may be perfectly reasonable older cars, to scrap them for thirty pieces of silver, in order to get into {more} debt in order to lease / hire / PCP a new car!. The majority of people, driving to work in 10+ year old cars aren't doing so through choice, or because they are eccentrics, they are doing so because they cannot afford to buy a brand new car and sadly this is what a lot of naive people / politicians and motoring journalists out there cannot seem to grasp!. Perhaps the car was bought cheaply, perhaps it was handed down to them by a relative, either way they aren't suddenly going to get a massive pay rise or walk into a better paying Job just because somebody offers them £2000 from a Scrappage scheme, it really doesn't work like that. The last time I looked new cars cost a hell of a lot more than £2000, even some low monthly contract hires come with £2490 deposits, so the scheme won't even cover that, even before the 2 or 3 years worth of monthly payments are taken into consideration

However with the current round of scaremongering from the diesel bashing press and polticians, and more recently even older petrol engines now being added to that equation, people with the least disposable income are going to panic and get into more debt, draw me a picture on how you reckon that will pan out!, because in a time of already growing debt and people doing the 0% credit card shuffle just to afford to live, I can only see it ending badly.

So all the scrappage scheme will do, is encourage people to get into debt, by leasing or taking out a loan. Of course its a nice little bonus for those who can afford a new car, but some may say that if that was the case, they would already be leasing a new every two to three years anyway and so the scheme wouldn't apply.

The headline is quite correct, there are plenty of people earning just £8200 a year, and even twice that in some full time work, its still difficult to pay a mortage and also take out a car loan. What the report doesn't say, is how those people are going to get to work, when they are forced to give up their 10+ year old cars, and are also refused a loan or PCP, but it's not down to the press to give solutions is it?, noooo!.

Edited by Chris James on 25/05/2017 at 22:55

Well, i make no claims to be any sort of expert in anything, especially finance/economics, i live in a personal era where if you don't have the brass you don't buy something and have no intention of joining the indebted, the roof over your head really the only exception, cos not many can save up enough to buy a gaff outright.

Gordon Brown, leading a party that once long ago represented the working class, left office leaving a national debt of some £750billion.

Now the party masquerading, badly, as the Conservative mob has raised that national debt in 7 years to £1800billion, some economic miracle that.

So as for anyone of the above clown parties or their Lib/Green sidekicks having a handle on the economy, hang on while i laugh maniacally because weeping isn't far off.

The govt have handily come up with this latest wheeze to keep the whole ponzi scheme of credit going by demonising Diesels with their mates in the cities planning to extort huge charges from those who don't toe the line and buy new or nearly new, so legion of buyers are considering changing their cars in order to follow this, the latest instalment in the long running saga of keeping the proletariat paying interest to politician's owners/mates/backers and increasing taxes to the increasingly indebted country in one form or another.

Does anyone else have a feeling of deja vu but with icing on the top, the system seemingly desperate to get people to sign up to yet more credit, whatever fancy name its called, with an economy based almost entirely on a never ending property spiral fuelled itself by constant immigration to keep that housing demand at silly levels, with the impossibly low interest rates helping to stay long past their sell by date by printing more money out of thin air and giving it the fancy name of QE.

Blowed if i'd be signing up to anything, those not near a seat when the music stops are in for an almighty shock once again, it's happened before and sure as night follows day it's going to happen again, sooner than many people think IMHO.

Sorry for my simplistic views here, hopefully someone can tell me how wrong i am and how this utopian dream of my bungalow being worth £500k in ten years, not as it'll do me or mine a bit of good when Chairman May sends me a bill for £450k just before i pop me clogs.

Edited by gordonbennet on 21/05/2017 at 20:33

Not unfair at all, any fool can borrow monopoly money and throw it about like confetti, repaying the increasingly unmanageable debt left for those who come after, namely the children who will go out and work for a living like their families before them.

You couldn't run a house for long spending more than you earn so why should a country be any different.

I hold a candle for none of the main parties, they are all culpable to a lesser or greater extent in the coming bankruptcy of this country, each one as politicians do blaming the previous lot.

It's a never ending battle between left and right. The left gain power by bribing people with their own money and the right act responsibly (economically anyway) and are attacked from every side for pushing the notion that the nation should live within its means. The problem is that it takes years, at least two full terms to turn around the mess left by the trade unions every time the get in the door of no 10 and by that time voters seem to have forgotten the damage they did the last time. What people do need to do before voting however is to ask the question, 'How will you pay for that?' As you say it's all too easy to borrow and spend to buy votes and on the whole it works because people don't ask the right questions. I believe they should be educating the next generation to better understand the economy and public spending because it never ceases to amaze me how many get the deficit and national debt mixed up. On that note I'm back to motors, I had my fill of politics during the Scottish referendum or neverendum as it's turning into.

A shame some idiots are (for whatever reason) beginning to believe the lies from Corbyn and his nutty mates with their bribes with their own money, borrowed at the cost of future generations who will never be able to pay it back. Just as I start thinking this great nation has come to its senses at last, they revert back to the old 'borrowing and wasteful spending' ways of previous Labour governments.

The naive belief of the younger generation (I'm in my early - mid 40s BTW so do have some recollection of such times) who have never lived under REALLY hard times and Old Labour keep need reminding of what it was like, but in my view is a good indicator why (unlike the Lefties who want the voting age reduced to 16) it would be far better to up the voting age (and all similar minimum age laws) to 21, when at least they are starting to earn money and start to realise things in the real world aren't the same as the paid-for world of college.

You should've put yourself up for parliament in Scotland (I presume you also support the Tories with your vote) as a voice of reason amongst many politicians who definitely aren't.

I would also draw those people above who think that the state should cover our care home fees because we have paid NI and tax may not realise how expensive this can be - probably a minimum (for basic care home facilities for those with no serious health issues other than not being very mobile) of £25k pa, rising to significantly more than £100k pa for those with serious ailments to take car of, due to the extra staff and special facilities required. The younger (working generations) should never pay for older (retired) generations care as that is the definition of a ponzi scheme, even worse now the population is living longer an numbers of OAPs are rapidly growing and the birth rate is low (I'm not advocating that rising - it just makes the future situation even worse).

Other than the Tory proposals (and those of others - see below) on offer, I would strongly advocate raising the pensionable age far quicker - it should be over 70 already, given the life expectancy of UK citizens has risen by over 10 years whilst the pensionable age won't even rise to 66 until 2020, plus roll out a government heatlthy living campaign to stem the money needed to take care of a population that is getting fat and desk-bound, storing up no end of problems later in life that costs £Bns which we can't afford.

I would estimate that, assuming the average person lives at a care home for 5 years when just a bit frial, but otherwise reasonably OK, then another 3 (probably an underestimate) needing higher levels of care, this would cost a total of in excess of £425k - likely more than the entire amount of tax and NI that person (unless very rich) has ever paid into the government coffers. I think its right for everyone who has assets to help fund their own care, although the method the Tories propose isn't perfect and by their own admission is a stop-gap until social insurance can be agreed. I think they are currently being quite generous in allowing everyone to give £100k FOC to their offspring in their wills (after all, it is after they die, not turfing them out beforehand) given the high cost of care, but the comments on today's Letters Page (except those by John Froggatt) are good ideas to build to a next stage.

What - sort of 'how many pies do you need to eat a week to give you a coronary at 50? and suchlike' A lot of modern health problems are mainly caused by an unhealthy diet, lack of regular (quality) exercise/sedentary lifestyle and the fast-paced modern lifestyle (not just in old age). Unfortunately they are very hard to overcome.

An article that's typical of the Mail's style. Conflates more than one issue, confusing and contradictory on the facts and loses objectivity to pander to it's target audience.

The big issue, reported elsewhere too, is that the whole set up depends on end of lease values being accurate. If the bottom falls out of the used car market the lenders will have a massive negative equity issue. That applies to all agreements. Borrowers with A+++ ratings will return cars worth less than the finance for the balloon. Defaults are just the cherry on the top.

As to the facts the article states that in PCP the hirer is not borrowing the full cost, only enough to cover depreciation. Thus the deal is £200pcm cheaper than HP. Two lines later, scandalous tone adopted, they're unknowingly paying interest on the balloon as well. The possible demise of a bottom feeding used car lender is a bit of spice; it has no bearing on the risk PCP might pose to lenders.

The other fact issue is that although those of us with eyes, ears and curiosity fully understand PCP - it's not complex - a significant number of buyers are blind to the reality. This was covered at length on the Radio 4 Money Box programme a few weeks ago. People sign up to the agreement then a change of job means extra miles, or less money, and they don't understand they thern have limited options. As a volunteer and worker in CAB I see the consequences of lack of financial education/sophistication on a daily basis. Of course this stuff should be taught in schools. So should the facts about how our democracy and society work. But what subjects give way to make space in the curriculum?

ANd of course the other aspect for the Mail is the synthetic outrage that a youngster, full time on min wage, could theoretically get a nice sports car on PCP. If he's living at home with his Mum and paying £30/week for his keep that might be true. Not so if he has responsibility.

Actually, the fact he can afford a sports car but not the rent on a small flat of his own speaks volumes about what's wrong with UK today.