Are you undermining the point for a specific reason, or just assuming that you can give informed conclusions based on idealised assumptions? You don't know me from a bar of soap. Your 'conclusion' on 'validity' based on the premise above smells more like the usual playing of the man rather than the ball around here. We get half the thread saying if you don't use debt to get ahead, you deserve your lot in life - the other half saying that because you chose not to use leveraged debt for investment, basing this logic on the reason why you only have a small holding is 'invalid'. Well, which is it? Use debt and get ahead or don't use debt, but don't blame the lack of credit for your situation? Why do I get the feeling this thread is just another baiting exercise used to draw out rhetoric so debtors can justify their ideology or try and fish for something they can label as hypocracy among non-debtors? This thread honestly serves no other purpose. << leaving this thread before it gets (as usual) into another debtor vs saver shit fight.
Just because it is discussing a topic which you and others happen to feel strongly negative toward, it doesn't mean this thread is a baiting exercise. If that were the case, then half the threads on this forum could be viewed as a baiting exercise based on the premise (yours by the way) that there are two camps in each debate. It seems to me the majority of posts in this thread are about how people try to avoid the use of credit, rather than trying to start a debate on the morality of debt.
Disagree. Debtors ask how. Savers reply. Debtors debate the 'validity' of the claims of the savers. I've seen this before. /end thread.
Auspm, take it easy, You said because you don't use leveraged debt you don't have as much some others. this may be, but you make it sound like leveraged debt is the only way you ( well not you personally, but anyone) can have as much or more as others. This is not true. Having heaps of "stuff" and a large PM stack is possible without debt. This is not meant as a personal attack on your lifestyle, simply saying that not having debt doesn't mean not having other things. Once again, just because someone doesn't use debt, doesn't mean it is the reason they don't have whatever.
Check out the new Bendigo Bank 'i want' personal loan: http://www.bendigobank.com.au/public/personal/personal_lending/personal_loans.asp Want want want...
I like pie. Your avatar is mildly amusing too. Your contribution to this thread was both thought provoking and meaningful. Interesting statement, in and of itself. In the context on other debt based discussions on this forum in the past, I'm actually quite surprised you haven't been publically castrated for this view yet? Depends on who makes the statement I guess... That said, I'll take your point on face value and agree - you definitely don't need to be a debtor to get a leg up in this world. But you'd be a fiscal pygmy if you didn't, right? Just saying...
I love credit cards in particular Rack up about 2k worth of gift cards through my work per year. Extend payments by another month while the money I owe them earns a tad more interest in my savings account In my 5 years of business not paid one cent in interest for overdue payments. Likewise my personal card, maybe 1.2k per year in giftcards. Love it, love it love it. Love the protection it gives me also with the chargeback option if something goes wrong. Borrowed credit to fund my business, paying it back slowly, should be paid off in maybe 8 years. Then will have enough passive income to retire at maybe 40. Life is good! Certain someone trying to derail this thread AGAIN, stop it, F off once and for all you whiny kid.
But you'd be a fiscal pygmy if you didn't, right? Why add this? you whinge about baiting and how you're always being attacked, so why make a comment like that?
cause his character is getting assainated and he had a hard life same shit over and over so tired of it
I don't like people who tell me credit cards are bad, and I should get a debit card because it's the same thing. The only reason credit cards are bad are because the people who get them are shit with money. True story.
Because the forum has a short memory & inconsistent bias on commentary. When certain individuals undermine saver ideology, they are given a thumbs up and green light. When savers retort, they're lambasted and labelled. No one says shit. Look at the thread so far. Every single time someone who's a saver has made a contribution, look who's responded and by what means have they commented to undermine the point. After what happened on the last debt based 'discussion' thread, you could also say the entire thread is a baiting effort. How can you possibly survive without credit? REALLY?
RM: exactly People who say credit cards are bad, probably had trouble with them in the past, or themselves may be tempted to max it out and pay off the minimum amount for the next 10 years.
So it's depending on who's making the claims as to whether it's the same 'shit' over and over eh? Get the F out? Who's getting tired of who's baiting now?
Bias view is bias, but savers are 'whiners' kk. FYI - I have no credit card. Miraculously, I've survived without it! Doesn't mean I 'had trouble with them in the past' either - that's a flippant comment.
I said probably mate quote the whole line will you? i'm not talking about other people surviving, i'm sharing my own experience
