Wipe slate clean with debt amnesty

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I would with no disrespect intended suggest that taking a loan that you don't understand the terms of legally or otherwise, without seeking help from someone who can help you understand is irresponsible.

even if you had no money to feed yourself and feared being deported to a dangerous situation?

lostinrates

Dan: wrote: »

I think ninky may have a point. There was a time when you couldn't pop in a bank to pay a cheque without getting hassled to take out a loan or credit card.

Everytime you logged into your online banking there would be a message "Your Pre-Approved for 25K"

For some, all this your face, is just too tempting.

The banks should take some of the responsability.

Sure, but the banks taking their share of responsibilty does not been we have to relinquish responsibility for our own part in the whole sorry mess! Obviously offering loans to an illegal immigrant shows shocking, scandalous, lending behaviour....

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Obviously offering loans to an illegal immigrant shows shocking, scandalous, lending behaviour....

I made this point to the bank at the time as evidence of how lame their checks must have been. They said his "immigration status" would have been of "no interest" to them. I suspect the bonuses paid to staff for getting customers to take loans had everything to do with it. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen now though.

Dan:_4

Graham's got the right idea. If they have to do something like this, then send everyone a cheque to do what they wish.

kabayiri

The Sumarians had quite advanced monetary models over 2,000 years ago. Interestingly, one of their principles was to hold a debt amnesty whenever the combined debt exceeded the ability of the populace to pay. This was by all accounts successful.

For those interested, look up Michael Hudson the economist on YouTube. I find it hard to disagree with his views.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

I made this point to the bank at the time as evidence of how lame their checks must have been. They said his "immigration status" would have been of "no interest" to them. I suspect the bonuses paid to staff for getting customers to take loans had everything to do with it. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen now though.

again. I think this is appaling of the bank. I'm surprised, regardless of the immigration status, residence wasn't requisit at that time, but it obviously wasn't!

With repesct to your other point, I'm going to, respectfully, decline to comment, I don't think its necessary, beneficial or helpful to anybody for me to do so

bendix

I find it amazing people on this forum are actually discussing the idea seriously. That, in itself, is grossly irresponsible.

Neither do I think there are ANY extenuating circumstances for taking out debt you cannot afford, irrespective of speaking the language or understanding what I am doing. We are adults for godsake, not children. If someone offers me cigarettes, I know not to smoke them because they are bad for me. If someone offers me a loan which I know i can't afford to pay back, the same applies.

Utterly amazing.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

I find it amazing people on this forum are actually discussing the idea seriously. That, in itself, is grossly irresponsible.

Neither do I think there are ANY extenuating circumstances for taking out debt you cannot afford, irrespective of speaking the language or understanding what I am doing. We are adults for godsake, not children. If someone offers me cigarettes, I know not to smoke them because they are bad for me. If someone offers me a loan which I know i can't afford to pay back, the same applies.

Utterly amazing.

bendix i don't like to assume but it sounds like you've had quite a sheltered life?

how about the following scenarios;

your child is dying and a loan is the only way you could pay for a lifesaving operation?

your parent is dying and a loan is the only way you can pay for a ticket to see them?

your family live on the edge of existence and a loan offers them a chance to know where the next meal is coming from?

okay, given, most of the indiginous population don't face these scenarios (except possibly the first one).

also, not everyone has had the opportunity to be taught about money and how it works. someone offers them what looks like a good deal (and they work in a bank so they must be telling the truth, right, cos the government wouldn't let them lie). advertising has been devised to make people want bigger and brighter things. i would like to think we could all see through this but clearly we don't otherwise advertisers wouldn't keep doing it.

Dan:_4

bendix wrote: »

I find it amazing people on this forum are actually discussing the idea seriously. That, in itself, is grossly irresponsible.

err...This is a discussion forum mate, so we will discuss what we want thanks.

bendix wrote: »

Neither do I think there are ANY extenuating circumstances for taking out debt you cannot afford, irrespective of speaking the language or understanding what I am doing. We are adults for godsake, not children. If someone offers me cigarettes, I know not to smoke them because they are bad for me. If someone offers me a loan which I know i can't afford to pay back, the same applies.

Utterly amazing.

OK, so taking out credit you cannot afford is irresponsible, but why would you lend someone money when you know full well they can't pay it back?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

bendix i don't like to assume but it sounds like you've had quite a sheltered life?

how about the following scenarios;

your child is dying and a loan is the only way you could pay for a lifesaving operation?

your parent is dying and a loan is the only way you can pay for a ticket to see them?

your family live on the edge of existence and a loan offers them a chance to know where the next meal is coming from?

okay, given, most of the indiginous population don't face these scenarios (except possibly the first one).

also, not everyone has had the opportunity to be taught about money and how it works. someone offers them what looks like a good deal (and they work in a bank so they must be telling the truth, right, cos the government wouldn't let them lie). advertising has been devised to make people want bigger and brighter things. i would like to think we could all see through this but clearly we don't otherwise advertisers wouldn't keep doing it.

In everyone of those situations I would take a loan, knowing that I would have to pay it back. And i would do everything in my power to pay it back, or declare bankruptcy if I couldnt. How hard is that to comprehend? It's not rocket science.

You don't need to be 'taught about money' to understand this simple proposition: when a bank offers me a loan for £18000 it is not a gift and they expect it to be paid back. Do these people really not understand they need to pay back debts? Or do they somehow think someone is being really really kind and giving them some free cash? If confusion about such a fundamental aspect of being a grown up still exists, then I fear for our future, I really do.

Back to the original proposition - the idea is utterly nonsense and bordering on criminally negligent. Let's reward those who took out debt they couldnt afford and say 'there there, it's ok . . we didnt really mean it when we said you had to give it back.' Let's reward irresponsiblity and reinforce the message for future generations that you can behave anyway you want because someone - usually the fiscally prudent - will pay for it anyway.

Brilliant. Utterly brilliant. I wish I had thought of it.



[By the way, if by a sheltered life you mean being born on a council estate into a single parent family, leaving home at 15, sleeping rough for eighteen months, then deciding to pay my way through university because i felt if I didnt do it, noone else would, then - yes - guilty as charged. Very sheltered Frankly, I wouldnt have had it any other way. It taught me some valuable life lessons, and a sense of individual responsibility is its most central tenet.]