Bankruptcy!

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

Watched a programme last night, sorry cannot remember the actual name of it but it was probably Trevor MacDonalds, howver it was all about bankruptcy and how it is so easy to wipe off all your debts and begin with a new clean slate. It made me very very angry as the 24 year old who had over 40k in debt due to, literally, spunking it all on champagne and slappers could quite happily wright off his debt have no regrets, and STILL after it all gain another CC. WTF!?! Who is going to pay for all this ******** if it aint savers. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[2005]

Watched a programme last night, sorry cannot remember the actual name of it but it was probably Trevor MacDonalds, howver it was all about bankruptcy and how it is so easy to wipe off all your debts and begin with a new clean slate. It made me very very angry as the 24 year old who had over 40k in debt due to, literally, spunking it all on champagne and slappers could quite happily wright off his debt have no regrets, and STILL after it all gain another CC. WTF!?! Who is going to pay for all this ******** if it aint savers. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

I've got every sympathy for some bankrupts e.g hard working self employed who have to watch their company go down the drain because someone hasn't paid you what they owe you. Or when partners run off with someone else and the remaining partner finds out that no bills have been paid for the last year and CC amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

BUT if I have to a pay a single penny to support/bail out some BT: toss*r who has recklessly racked up debt or a family who have mewed to the hilt to buy a holiday home in spain and a landscaped garden then I'm off...seriously.

What happened to rights and responsibilties? Why do respsonsibilties only seem to be applied to single parents/hoddies/the youth et etc.

When are sheeple' going to have to take responsibility for their own economic decisions?

[Zen-Master]

Whilst not condoning the particular individuals' actions on the TV program, I don't have too much sympathy for any lenders (Credit card companies etc) who abuse their dominant financial position, charge usurious rates of interest (18.00% p.a. and above) and have lax lending criteria.

[The Masked Tulip]

The changes in bankruptcy rules was originally designed to remove the stigma of going bankrupt for self-employed business people. In the US you are not considered a 'real' business person unless you have gone bankrupt 2 or 3 times - in other words, an entrepeneur.

The stigma around bankruptcy here in the UK, combined with the restrictions placed on bankrupts, not only made it impossible for a bankrupt business person to do business again but actually stiffled the UK economy - hence you have a bankrupt in Port Talbot who cannot get mortgages but who then, by going around the law it seems, made himself a very successful businessman.

Alas, the changes in the bankrupt laws have been used not to grow the UK economy but to allow people who have run up enormous debts to walk away from them.

[rainbow]

Can't understand why villians still use guns to rob banks,it's much simpler to use

credit cards and they won't lock you up

[monte]

I've been looking for 18 months plus to either buy a going concern or alternatively start a new venture from scratch, to cut a long story short everything i look at and get to the financials stage, I keep coming to the same conclusion I'M BUYING MYSELF A JOB.

Then I see some local business people in their flash cars and living the high life, going bust every few years. These are professional con men and then there should be some punishment of at least a criminal conviction as you say there's no stigma these days with going bankrupt.

Lets face it how long would it take to save £100k even with a thriving business, although you can walk away oweing that money very easy.

WHO'S GOT IT RIGHT THEM OR US, I'M NOT SURE THESE DAY'S, MAYBE ITS TIME FOR ME TO LEAVE THIS COUNTRY.

[the end is a bit nigher]

courts should be allowed to base the period someone remains a bankrupt on the amount of greed and stuidity that has caused their situation - people who are bankrupt through no fault of their own could have their bankruptcy effectively 'suspended' - those who borrowed to the hilt for a flash lifestyle would just be executed given a longer period

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

courts should be allowed to base the period someone remains a bankrupt on the amount of greed and stuidity that has caused their situation - people who are bankrupt through no fault of their own could have their bankruptcy effectively 'suspended' - those who borrowed to the hilt for a flash lifestyle would just be executed given a longer period

And so they can.

Insolvency Service ( A Guide To Bankruptcy )

Page 15 Section 10

If, during his/her enquiries into your affairs, the Official Receiver decides that you have been

dishonest either before or during the bankruptcy or that you are otherwise to blame for your

position, he/she may apply to the court for a bankruptcy restrictions order. The court may make

an order against you for between 2 and 15 years and this order will mean that you continue to be

subject to the restrictions of bankruptcy which are described in section 8 above. You may give a

bankruptcy restrictions undertaking which will have the same effect as an order, but will mean

that the matter does not go to court.

[the end is a bit nigher]

thanks - seems we haven't gone quite as soft as i thought we had

Edited December 4, 2005 by the end is nigh

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

thanks - seems we haven't gone quite as soft as i thought we had

IMO if the percentage of personal bankruptcies continue to grow in 2006, then I believe the courts will have no alternative but to start clamping down on people who think they can spend what they like, knowing they will be unable to repay their debts, and then take the road to bankruptcy as an easy way out.

[Elizabeth]

It does come down to personal responsibility, but I don't think the system promotes it (either government or private financial). If people knew they were going to have to pay and not rely on mechanisms they may engage in a bit more forethought. Of course savers pay. That is the whole point of any system. The guy with the least power pays all the final costs. In this case it is those who live within their means and don't make too much of a fuss about it. If banks keep handing out money like water (except to me, for some strange reason they will give me credit cards but not a loan... solid job and never once had a black mark either??? WTF?) then what do they expect. No point moaning. They just raise their rates to the ursurous and keep piling it into the deprived areas.

[winkie]

From what I can gather and understand, we need people to keep spending, it keeps the economy ticking over and people in employment. At the end of the day the banks and credit card companys will lose money but I am sure they have budgeted for this and lend accordingly, at a rate that is cost effective.

[Loanshark]

Morality

'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.'

This has been lost regarding personal debt, to my mind a debt is a debt until it is repaid even if you go bankrupt you should still pay the principle debt back when you can at some point in the future even if it takes a lifetime.