Chances of ever having a mortgage

You clearly don't understand statistics.

But you won't win.

The downside is that you could spend the money on something else. And you won't win the jackpot.

"Mark" wrote

I studied statistics at Cambridge to degree level and use them in my career too. I think I understand them fairly well - what in particular is it that you think I "clearly don't understand" about them?

"Mark" wrote

You can't know that for sure. By your own admission, the chance of winning is *above* zero.

"Mark" wrote

Yep, agreed (as already stated before). That's the "negligible downside".

"Mark" wrote

If you know that, then you must know who *will* win. Go on then, tell us - who *is* going to win each week this year?

You mean he'd have a good credit record in 6 years??

One question I'd ask the OP, is what's this person's salary, and how quickly can he pay off the 40k?

If it's more than a few years, I would recommend he declares himself bankrupt, clearing his debts, where after one year he's solvent and with after 5 years he'd have a clean credit record. It depends on what his salary is, as he can have deductions from his salary for up to 3 years after declaration.

That way he can save for a deposit, and hopefully more than 5%!

Whilst some think it's immoral, I think lending to people who are then tied to debt equally repugnant.

I'm an engineer and have studied statistics. Perhaps I live in the real world where to all intents and purposes in the limit of x tending to 0, x may just as well be zero, give or take a barn door.

I might buy a ticket, if I thought I had a jackpot/probablity was more than the pound I paid for a ticket, but as you know the lottery only pays 40p per pound, even a fruit machine gives better odds.

Please keep buying your tickets and continue to subsidise me.

"Fredxx" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

You find it repugnant that people have to pay back money they borrowed? Why?

I don't. I find it immoral to lend money to someone who has little chance of paying it back. And it's then repugnant to maintain a chain to the loan with an ever increasing scale of charges.

Common sense says that insecure loans should really be banned for more than a fraction of one's income.

perhaps it's better stated by you are skint and I am not...so you must have spent unwisely in the past.

I would have to drive to a fruit machine, that would cost me money.

0/10.

And snip the sig when replying.

0 is what you have banked in fact -0 from what you say.

PS I did not win the lotto, but will try again this Saturday :-)

Their salary is currently £40000 per annum. With rent + bills coming to about £1200/month.

On an income of 40,000, I guess he'd have a net income of just over

30,000. I suspect there would be a substantial earnings order against him for 3 years after bankruptcy, he'll need to check the rules and practice. I also see no reason with this income he couldn't be clear his debt within 3 to 4 years in any case, and he'd have a clean and a good credit record after 5 years. In short he need to talk to his creditors, or get someone such as the CAB to do it for him, where they might be able to reduce or wave interest payments, and then offer his creditors an agreed payment schedule. Of course, if he misses any payment, his credit record will go from bad to worse.