|
Post by Lu on Mar 18, 2006 12:48:06 GMT
camilla's bloke. and as for the sperated at birth theory, i didnt think it through so well. which further proves i shouldnt be in the detective business
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Mar 18, 2006 14:18:55 GMT
hmmm, not really...
|
|
|
Post by Animae on Mar 21, 2006 5:05:34 GMT
what just happened?
|
|
|
Post by stokerino on Mar 21, 2006 5:30:14 GMT
Confusion!
Disarray!
LOUD NOISES! LOUD NOISES!
|
|
|
Post by Animae on Mar 21, 2006 19:42:13 GMT
yes, there was a man eating a baby and then everything started to be loud and confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Lu on Mar 21, 2006 19:51:00 GMT
everyday occurance round here
|
|
|
Post by stuart alman on Mar 22, 2006 14:39:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by beckini on Mar 22, 2006 14:57:06 GMT
are you sure this will work stu......might it end up bankrupting you eventually??? and that would suck
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Mar 22, 2006 15:59:55 GMT
you know, because a caravan has always been my dream...
|
|
|
Post by stokerino on Mar 22, 2006 16:39:07 GMT
I love the sheer concentration of bullshit language on this website. What I mean by this is the number of words that mean absolutely nothing, but are thrown in to subconsciously assure the reader even though they're not actually being told anything at all. Words like "exclusive", "state of the art", "modern", and more. Nevermind the fact that you go on about "mortgage reduction software" when all software is is a fucking computer program. There is NO information about how you are actually able to achieve it AT ALL.
And the graphs. Oh the graphs.
Donut: "Dude, don't taunt him. He has a graph!"
If this is what you call "a demonstration of the software in action", hell I own a copy of Microsoft Excel too! But seriously, what do these graphs show? One set of blocks goes down lower than another set of blocks. No real explanation as to how you are able to offer this 'marvellous' reductions, just a lot of pretty colours. So let's move on to the other product of Microsoft Exce - I mean, "the mortgage reduction software"; that being their accompanying tables.
Okay, I'm going to use the second example here (the one that promises to allow "a new BMW and a holiday homein Italy", you know, as if the attempts to bullshit the customer with promises of goodies weren't blatent enough). Now, I'll admit to not being completely up-to-score on the workings of mortgages, so correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation here. I'm just working my way through the figures provided. And believe me, the figures aren't the clearest I've come across.
Their outstanding mortgage that they owe is £130,000.
With the extra interest that this invokes, normally their payments would be about £806.10, every month, for 24 years (I am just taking these figures' validity for granted of course). This comes to about £232,156 that they'd end up paying back in total. Of course, this figure doesn't show up anywhere, but I'll let that pass for now.
They also have a second loan of £95,000, which brings the total amount they owe to £225,000. Right.
Now we get to the interesting part of the graph, where exactly the same amount of money (£225,000) is slowly reduced in two different ways - the "traditional" way, and the new way. To take merely the first year as an example, under the "traditional" system their total debt is reduced by £4,358. I understand that this is not what they'd actually have been paying, as with the added interest etc. it would be significantly higher, but I'll come back to that.
With the "new" system, in the first year the debt is reduced by a whopping £18,264. They have paid back AT LEAST £18k of their debt (I say at least because, like the traditional mortgage, the figures of how much of an extra cut Stuart et al. will be taking from this is deftly omitted. And they will be taking an extra cut, because otherwise they're lending £225k just to get paid £225k back, i.e. no profit).
Let's just look at that for the moment, and for the sake of argument I'll leave the figure at £18k. That is a lot of money. Even if you were to double the traditional loan payment to account for interest and so forth (or, using the £806.10 a month model, it comes to £9673.20 a year), the payment in the new system is still DOUBLE what they'd be paying annually under the old system.
So they pay back the loan in bigger installments, thus eliminating some of that nasty extra interest that it might have otherwise have cost them. But wait, ISN'T THAT HOW ALL LOANS WORK? Isn't that what you were referring to on the first page of the explanation when you said "The typical traditional mortgage is set up in such a way that it is difficult to finish the mortgage early without putting additional money into the mortgage every month."? Wouldn't that still be "changing their financial lifestyle", as you so put it?
If you'd like to explain to me how this whopping £18,264 is removed from their debt within their first year without them vastly increasing their payments, as I outlined above, I'd like to hear it. Nevermind the fact that the rate of payment increases, so that by the final year they're somehow able to pay off £30,562 in just one annum! This has nothing to do with interest - this is the BASE loan of £130k and £95k combined. Where is that money coming from, Stuart? Out of their pockets? Because I sure as hell can't see it coming from anywhere else.
And I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by Lu on Mar 22, 2006 17:02:43 GMT
i dont understand what the hell is going on with this system. it reeks of scam
|
|
|
Post by Ally on Mar 22, 2006 19:23:05 GMT
Hmm...nah, i think I'll pass, and just carry on with my plan to be filthy stinking rich and pay for everything outright.
|
|
|
Post by petrobrad on Mar 22, 2006 19:45:55 GMT
i'll stick to my dream that some rich unknown relative dies and leaves me their savings, it's more likely to be real.
|
|
|
Post by Ally on Mar 22, 2006 19:55:53 GMT
Feh, and pay all those death duties?
|
|
|
Post by stokerino on Mar 22, 2006 20:06:54 GMT
50% inheritance tax... >_>
|
|
|
Post by beckini on Mar 22, 2006 20:22:25 GMT
hahaha didnt we have this fight in cornwall?
|
|
|
Post by Lu on Mar 22, 2006 20:25:34 GMT
Why not just marry someone very rich and bump them off? or does that inccur tax too? Note-golddigging is wrong, but when your very rich who cares if you have morals
|
|
|
Post by stokerino on Mar 22, 2006 20:29:10 GMT
In the future we will have no morals or emotions, but we'll have a bunch of kickass gadgets.
Whereas now we have nothing cool. And also no morals.
|
|
|
Post by beckini on Mar 22, 2006 20:59:43 GMT
i have morals
|
|
|
Post by Ally on Mar 22, 2006 21:24:29 GMT
Why not just marry someone very rich and bump them off? or does that inccur tax too? Sadly yup. I think you have to give someone the money several years before you die to avoid it being taxed (and hell, the government'd probably find some other reason to tax it anyway) And as far as making huge amounts of money goes, gold-digging isn't too terrible. And let's face it, if someone like Peter Stringfellow believes their partner loves them for their mind, they deserve to be duped.
|
|