ForumGarden

The total amount of personal debt in the UK has fallen for the first time since records began in 1993, the Bank of England has said.

Personal borrowing fell by £600m in July, taking the total owed by individuals down to £1.457 trillion.

There was a drop in both mortgage debt and other forms of borrowing such as bank loans.

The number of mortgages approved in July rose again to 50,123, suggesting property sales will continue to rise.

"Total net lending to individuals fell by £0.6bn in July, showing a net repayment for the first time in the series," the Bank said.

The amount outstanding on mortgages fell by £400m as people repaid more than they borrowed during July.


Now this IS good news. It seems that people may be getting a bit more sensible with their money

Clodhopper;1236455 wrote: Now this IS good news. It seems that people may be getting a bit more sensible with their money


jeeez i owe more than that on my cut up credit cards :rolleyes::rolleyes::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:-5:-5

Clodhopper;1236455 wrote: Now this IS good news. It seems that people may be getting a bit more sensible with their money


That's £70,000=$110,000 per household?

Dear oh dear. A year and a half net income on average and that's just personal debt. National debt adds another year or so and rising. It all gets passed on as debt to the next generation of workers. Maybe we need a bout of world-wide hyperinflation to destroy the mountain.

This was on the radio news earlier, but they said that it's not good news really as it may delay the recovery from recession!!



Admittedly I wasn't really listening as I was driving but that sounds bonkers to me (it's OK, I don't really want it explaining to me!).



I'm quite happy with the idea that people are being sensible and paying back debt before taking on more, makes sense to me.

Imladris;1236580 wrote: This was on the radio news earlier, but they said that it's not good news really as it may delay the recovery from recession!!



Admittedly I wasn't really listening as I was driving but that sounds bonkers to me (it's OK, I don't really want it explaining to me!).



I'm quite happy with the idea that people are being sensible and paying back debt before taking on more, makes sense to me.


The complaint is that, because so much of our economy is based on the people spending money and the shops paying tax that, when we stop spending the shops stop buying (and paying tax) and the wholesalers stop buying (and paying tax) and the manufacuters (them as is left) stop buying raw materials (and paying tax) and they all stop paying interest on their loans.

Better to clear the debts and start from a realistic position than re-build on shaking sands IMHO.

For all that we hear of "Change" and a "NEW World Order,"

it seems that now-a-days, the mindset is to try to FIX something back up, instead of changing up tactics or ushering in a truly New system, by rebuilding, from the ground, up.

Some things can't be "fixed." They NEED to fail and be pushed aside by things that DO work.

i.e. New Orleans ~ even after the billions of dollars spent to "fix it back up,"

it's STILL sitting below sea level, and will STILL flood, etc.

That particular location is NOT SUITABLE for Human Inhabitation.

(Read That: Make like a tree and LEAVE, already!)

Well, folks, imho, our government, our financial markets, EVERYthing, pretty much, needs to be rebuilt,

not fixed back up.

And if we're "the people?" It needs to be rebuilt for US,

ALL of us, not just a few wizards/czars/drug lords/actors/etc. and their entourage.

The numbers are just much too big for me. I don't understand them. And while I take the point that everyone paying off debt may reduce the amount of money going to business, I gather (from the same article) house sales are moving positively as well. Isn't the net effect a good thing?

As I said, I don't understand this. I probably won't understand the explanations. But I'd like to try.

Fyrenza;1236618 wrote: For all that we hear of "Change" and a "NEW World Order,"

it seems that now-a-days, the mindset is to try to FIX something back up, instead of changing up tactics or ushering in a truly New system, by rebuilding, from the ground, up.

Some things can't be "fixed." They NEED to fail and be pushed aside by things that DO work.

i.e. New Orleans ~ even after the billions of dollars spent to "fix it back up,"

it's STILL sitting below sea level, and will STILL flood, etc.

That particular location is NOT SUITABLE for Human Inhabitation.

(Read That: Make like a tree and LEAVE, already!)



Well, folks, imho, our government, our financial markets, EVERYthing, pretty much, needs to be rebuilt,

not fixed back up.

And if we're "the people?" It needs to be rebuilt for US,

ALL of us, not just a few wizards/czars/drug lords/actors/etc. and their entourage.


very well said!!!

Bryn Mawr;1236599 wrote: The complaint is that, because so much of our economy is based on the people spending money and the shops paying tax that, when we stop spending the shops stop buying (and paying tax) and the wholesalers stop buying (and paying tax) and the manufacuters (them as is left) stop buying raw materials (and paying tax) and they all stop paying interest on their loans.



Better to clear the debts and start from a realistic position than re-build on shaking sands IMHO.


Thanks, an explanation that I can follow!



I can understand that we need to spend to keep the economy going, that affects us all, I get that untirely. However, I also understand the paying off debts, reducing mortgages before rates go up, etc especially as savings rates are low so for the average man on the street it seems sensible.

Imladris;1236863 wrote: Thanks, an explanation that I can follow!



I can understand that we need to spend to keep the economy going, that affects us all, I get that untirely. However, I also understand the paying off debts, reducing mortgages before rates go up, etc especially as savings rates are low so for the average man on the street it seems sensible.


To me it makes little sense to buy money at more than its face value - interest free credit I'll use if there's no tie in clause but paying silly interest rates to get something I don't have to have right now has never seemed to be sensible.

Bryn Mawr;1236972 wrote: To me it makes little sense to buy money at more than its face value - interest free credit I'll use if there's no tie in clause but paying silly interest rates to get something I don't have to have right now has never seemed to be sensible.


Hear hear!



When I was young and silly I ran up a small debt on my credit card, had to curb my spending for a while but learnt a valuable lesson.



We've used interest free credit in the past to spread the cost of paying or to keep the money in the bank earning interest but only when we have the means to pay in full if something goes wrong.



Business borrowing is different though and we have done that to allow our business's to continue to grow and improve.



I was brought up knowing that if you can't afford it you don't have it and also that there was no shame in second hand goods - it's all changed now though!