Wipe slate clean with debt amnesty

ninky_2

chopperharris wrote: »

WE have to live up to the responsibilities of our credit , .... even if that will take a lifetime for them to pay.


We have to accept that now we pay our dues and live like paupers until its paid ,

Their past spending now costs me money in that saving rates are gone , so of course I am peeved ......

"The quality of mercy is not strained...." Shakespeare had great insight into the wrongs of moneylending. The Merchant of Venice is a must-read of economic philosophy and morality.

ChopperHarris, the only reason savers were getting high interest rates was that lenders (ie those with NO money) were having to pay extortionate amounts with interest in order to buy goods and services and fund their life. You choose to see this as people getting something for nothing and wanting everything now but the reality is a lot of debt has simply been people trying to get by, feed their families, or keep a roof over their head. When you see people in supermarkets paying for the weekly shop on credit cards I don't think you can assume it's all because of fancy TVs or cars.

If there were NO borrowers your savings would get ZERO interest. Personally, I think that would be a more desirable situation.

Adebisi

This is great, time to get more credit cards me thinks!

uzubairu

ninky wrote: »

"The quality of mercy is not strained...." Shakespeare had great insight into the wrongs of moneylending. The Merchant of Venice is a must-read of economic philosophy and morality.

ChopperHarris, the only reason savers were getting high interest rates was that lenders (ie those with NO money) were having to pay extortionate amounts with interest in order to buy goods and services and fund their life. You choose to see this as people getting something for nothing and wanting everything now but the reality is a lot of debt has simply been people trying to get by, feed their families, or keep a roof over their head. When you see people in supermarkets paying for the weekly shop on credit cards I don't think you can assume it's all because of fancy TVs or cars.

If there were NO borrowers your savings would get ZERO interest. Personally, I think that would be a more desirable situation.

Do you think the only borrowers are poor unfortunate people buying their food shopping on a credit card with an APR of 29%?

What do you mean by fund their lives? Plasmas, holidays, cars, etc

I have a mortgage (so I am paying interest and at a fixed rate too, so no benefit from the recent rate cuts), but I also have savings, and I'm not happy that rates on my savings are rubbish.

People have to take responsibility for their actions.
When times were good, did these people think about saving for a rainy day, reducing their outgoings etc? Probably not.

ninky_2

uzubairu wrote: »

People have to take responsibility for their actions.
When times were good, did these people think about saving for a rainy day, reducing their outgoings etc? Probably not.

Who are the "these people" you talk about? Unfortunately the media must take some responsibility for this view that there are all these people out there who are only in debt because of spending on luxuries. The reality is a far great proportion are in debt because they simply couldn't afford to live on their income. Having been involved with early episodes of 'Spendaholics' I can tell you these shows were cast to illustrate the live fast, pay later generation. It made good telly. The truth was that it was not all that easy to find these people. Because the format demanded a moralistic turnaround we couldn't cast those who genuinely just didn't have enough money to live. In addition, there were often underlying problems the show didn't really go into that were the real causes of the overspending - abuse, neglect, mental health issues etc. etc.

uzubairu

ninky wrote: »

The reality is a far great proportion are in debt because they simply couldn't afford to live on their income.

So what do these people go and do?

Carefully examine their spending and see where they can make economies (like I've read on Debt Free/Mortgage Free forums - the determination of some of the posters is amazing), or stick it on a credit card?
It's all too easy to stick it on a credit card.

I agree that there are people out there with health issues, or people who have tried everything to keep their head above water and the credit card is a last resort, but IMHO they are not the majority.

Obviously, from your personal circumstances (with OH), you feel it is the fault of others.
I have to disagree.

pickles110564

Dan: wrote: »

I have plasma.

Now that you have come out I think you will soon turn the corner.

AverageJoe_4

chopperharris wrote: »

The reason why plasmas are used to define credit .... because they are never saved for....they are almost always bought on credit.

If a national database was made to monitor credit ratings it would still not have prevented the credit crunch.In fact just what are HMG wanting the banks to do to get us out of the hole , is it not spend more? Its let them eat cake straight from Gordon Browntoinette.

Banks etc sell credit , the end user has the option to choose not to take it.Whether they have a popup on their site offering credit its not the reason we are in problems today , its those that take it and cant repay it.Those that think that a national wiping of the slate are those same people looking for a get out of jail card.....and at everyone elses expense , which it will be.

WE have to live up to the responsibilities of our credit , its not our money to spend , just like a house bought on it it has to be repaid .... even if that will take a lifetime for them to pay.Until then all credit should be witheld from them for that period....not merely a bankruptcy term or IVA.

I was brought up that credit is for need , to replace things like cookers ,or luxuries like cars etc.The life of two cars , multiple mortgages and replacing anything for something that "looks better" has now gone.

We have to accept that now we pay our dues and live like paupers until its paid , that includes assets even if it is a home.Sorry , its tough being turfed out of what is essentially someone elses property , even if theres kids with you but thems the brakes.You put those kids on the steet , or even worse in council or rented property , not the creditor.You will hopefully prevent it from happening again and also teach the next generation "the value of credit" for needs ...... not wants for luxury.

I am not a doom sayer , or a bubble bust poster eejit.I am a realist that has been woken up , not by the media hoors , but by the fact that my life of "save to buy actually costs less" lifestyle has been trashed by the credit cruncher.

Their past spending now costs me money in that saving rates are gone , so of course I am peeved ...... very fking peeved.Effectively I am paying their debt yet having known the difference between a luxury and need , and for the length of time it will take....and now theres cheek of wiping it being talked about , I will still be fking paying for it in decreased interest on my savings though.

So NO they shouldnt have a slate wiped clean. They should be working the debt off quarrying the bloody slates until its paid off in their spare time , scrimping and saving every penny for the duration.Making sacrifices in possesions , luxuries , and holidays will speed it up all that quicker.



Yes I do call this a spade.

"After extensive research the government findings though are inconclusive and are considering taxing it higher if it is a spade , and reducing tax if it is a shovel to stimulate demand for new shovels.Unfortunately with the lack of free flowing credit to purchase resale spades their worth has decreased some 22 percent since october leading to negative equity for them.....and some experts are predicting it reaching over 50 percent in the near future."

taken from itsabloodyshovelpricecrash.com

"banks sell credit" - you said it mate. Sales people are used to sell credit and people get sold credit cos it's an attractive commodity. I suppose you think that smokers should all just "stop" when they like and gamblers should not play if they can see that there's no profit margin in roulette...

Human nature is at the heart of all our decision making - emotions,stress, greed, worry etc... We are not machines that calulate the efficient option and only go ahead when necessary, yet when it comes to paying the debts back - the human side flourishes with you and it all becomes about honour and principles and a sense of morality..

Banks make a profit from advertising their goods to people that got enticed in an hour of need. People that need answers financially get "sold" by greedy banks that know they have secured a so called life-term punter.

If banks didn't want to lose out by ppl wiping the slate clean they should have doen one or more of the following:

Not sell/adertise to vounrable groups
Ensure that the contracts were water-tight preventing unenforceable claims
Not sell dodgy PPI policies creating bad publicity

They only have themselves to blame - its the not the consumers, its the bankers.


Ever heard of the 10%/90% population/wealth factor?? Its the same in reverse of course..

chopperharris

AverageJoe wrote: »

"banks sell credit" - you said it mate. Sales people are used to sell credit and people get sold credit cos it's an attractive commodity. I suppose you think that smokers should all just "stop" when they like and gamblers should not play if they can see that there's no profit margin in roulette...

Human nature is at the heart of all our decision making - emotions,stress, greed, worry etc... We are not machines that calulate the efficient option and only go ahead when necessary, yet when it comes to paying the debts back - the human side flourishes with you and it all becomes about honour and principles and a sense of morality..

Banks make a profit from advertising their goods to people that got enticed in an hour of need. People that need answers financially get "sold" by greedy banks that know they have secured a so called life-term punter.

If banks didn't want to lose out by ppl wiping the slate clean they should have doen one or more of the following:

Not sell/adertise to vounrable groups
Ensure that the contracts were water-tight preventing unenforceable claims
Not sell dodgy PPI policies creating bad publicity

They only have themselves to blame - its the not the consumers, its the bankers.


Ever heard of the 10%/90% population/wealth factor?? Its the same in reverse of course..

I know of the dispersion of wealth , I know that banks sell credit , but you its all about choice....choice of the end user , ie customer as to whether they need or can afford it....they arent forced to take it , but repaying it should be.

There is no excuse I havent heard thats not tantamount to "its not my fault" , and thats where the real problem lies.

There is those that genuinely get into problems with credit in order to actually live , and they are very few.But if the rest cut back on everything else then they would not need credit , this is why folk moan with the plasma argument.

You mentioned "hour of need" , I think you should perhaps define what a need is.IF a hol is on credit then its not a need , any comsumer electrical item is luxury , as is a brand new car...after a mortgage these are the biggest use of consumer credit.

If you know that your car/home insurance is coming every year and dont save for it next year and thus pay more for the credit then its just stupid if cancelling the internet , take away , weekly night out , or sky will pay for it.

I think the nation , and the "civilised" world needed a cold hard shock and this credit crisis is exactly that.If we live on other peoples money for anything other than need then its a luxury , even then one persons need is anothers luxury.

Overall I am not against credit when it is repaid.In fact I respect it and thats how , even though it may not look it here , I am actually defending credit.

You right though emmotions can make us buy , but theres similar emotions to those that are as equally important that tell us not to , one of them overules the rest ... its called fear.If we didnt have fear of retribution for our actions then we would just steal the money , but then again we could always ask for the slate to be wiped clean instead of getting jailed for it.

PasturesNew

gauly wrote: »

There is the most fantasticly bonkers letter in today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5890420.ece

Here's a quote:
"Rather than throw yet more money at banks, which have proven themselves increasingly unworthy of responsibility for our finances, a more sensible action would be for the Government to negotiate an amnesty on all personal debt and wipe the slate clean."

I can't decide if it's real or just a wind up - what do you think? And is there anyone out there who agrees with Ms Enock? Probably MoneySavingExpert isn't the place to look, but I would be intrigued to find anyone who agrees with her cunnung plan!

To make such a ridiculous suggestion, she must be teeting on the brink of bankruptcy herself, or somebody close to her is.

Why should people who over-stretched themselves to get more, more, more end up getting it all for free? That'd just not happen. There'd be anarchy and random burnings.

ninky_2

chopperharris wrote: »

We have to accept that now we pay our dues and live like paupers until its paid , that includes assets even if it is a home.Sorry , its tough being turfed out of what is essentially someone elses property , even if theres kids with you but thems the brakes.You put those kids on the steet , or even worse in council or rented property , not the creditor.

Why do some seem to only find satisfaction in the misery of others. There are so many Shylocks on here. Well, yes, go ahead and take your pound of flesh. But not a drop of blood shall you spill.

So if there is to be a debt amnesty we also need to move towards a new economic order that doesn’t rely on debt in the way the current fractional reserve banking system does. I’d like to call this new model the Economics of Humanity.

For this we need to stop looking at money as value and instead start looking at the real value. In the Economics of Humanity ‘Life’ is the value. Life value consists of two components – Time (the amount of time we have available to do things) and Quality (the amount of enjoyment we can derive from being alive). I am sure most would agree we should raise both these values, the Life Time and the Life Quality, to the maximum sustainable levels for everyone in order to make the world a pleasant place to live.

First, let’s look at Life Quality. In order to have a good quality of life, humans need basic needs met – that is food, shelter etc. However, in an advanced society, they should also have other needs met – the ability to spend time with loved ones, to enjoy hobbies, to pursue study etc. In the Economics of Humanity, the aim is to provide everyone with the means to meet their basic needs and their more advanced needs. Therefore, in the Economics of Humanity, everyone should receive the ‘income’ to do this. The amount of money in figures is actually irrelevant. Whether we call this £10 or a million lira, basically it is just representative of what a person needs in order to meet their basic needs and quality needs.

In return for this income people would be expected to work. But not for the long hours they do now. Instead, they would work for something like 20 hours a week. This would leave everyone with plenty of time to spend with loved ones, enjoy their hobbies and, more importantly, CONTRIBUTE TO THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.

Under the current economic system, we reward the desire to make money more than the desire to do good – note the negative connotations of the phrase “do-gooder”.

Defenders of the current economic system argue that we must constantly be creating wealth / profit in order to move society forward. However, the reality is that the profit motive is no guarantee of social advancement. Indeed, in a society where Profit is King, there is often a motive to prevent good. For example, pharmaceutical companies withholding drugs developments that provide cures for chronic conditions because they would lose money on medical sales; the tobacco industry for years sabotaging the evidence on the harmful effects of smoking; the sale of arms to rogue states – the list is very long. In addition, many in current society feel the urge to do things for the good of society, but the need to work long hours in often pointless jobs prevents them from doing so. How many great inventions, scientific breakthroughs or philosophical advancements have we lost simply because the people who would have had them were either too busy earning a living or curtailed by the profit dictates of their bosses? Many start out with great ideals but find the realities of wage slavery in the current economic system make them both too time poor and/or too financially indebted to put their energies to a greater purpose. In the Economics of Humanity, individuals would be both financially freed and time liberated to pursue higher ideals.

In the Economics of Humanity unsecured debt would be written off and secured debt would be drawn down to the real value of the property. The base rate would be kept at 1% or reduced to 0.5% and interest would be chargeable at no more than 0.5% above the base rate. In the long term, the housing stock would be rebuilt with more sustainable / environmentally considered housing models which everyone would be provided with on turning a certain age (probably 18). On having children, society would provide people with larger houses. There would also be a choice of housing situations / choices so that people could live in larger communal or extended family situations if wished. A property swap scheme would exist for those who wished to move along with new technologies that would allow houses to be packed down and/ or recycled in different areas of the country.

A society run on the Economics of Humanity would also recognise the importance of limiting the population size. Therefore everyone would be encouraged to have no more than one child per parent (i.e.two per couple). On having children, everyone would get an ‘income’ increase to reflect the basic and quality needs of providing for that child. Nonetheless, to discourage population growth, after more than two children per adult parent (i.e. four per couple), people would be made to sacrifice a significant percentage of the ‘quality’ section of their income.

Whilst shrinking and removing existing debt, society under the Economics of Humanity would prevent future debt. Loans for new business would only be given extremely prudently and offered along the lines of student loans that would only become repayable once the business generated a certain level of income / profit. This would avoid the waste and heartache that comes from the excessive numbers of small businesses destined to fail that the current system encourages. For the Economics of Humanity to be successful, banking would be taken into the hands of the state and run for life value, not money profit.

The ideal in the Economics of Humanity is for income to be levelled. This would phase in gradually starting with the introduction of a maximum wage and an increase in the minimum wage. A suggestion for a start would be a maximum wage of £1000 per hour. The minimum wage would be increased to £20 per hour. Combined with a maximum working week of 20 hours this would give a maximum weekly income of £20, 000 and a minimum weekly income of £400. Over time, these two extremes would be brought together. Under the economics of Humanity, all jobs should sustain basic and quality needs. Any jobs that are not considered worth this value are not considered jobs worth keeping in the Economics of Humanity. Additionally, all time put to income work is considered to be of equal value.

Excess value that is generated by work rather than going as profit to private individuals would be used for social causes such as medical research, schools, hospitals and implementing new technology such as sustainable energy and transport solutions (for example, Magleve trains).

In a society run along the line of the Economics of Humanity there would be no advertising in the way we know it now. Instead of adverts that fetishize products to give them a worth beyond their true value, technology such as the internet would be available to provide impartial information on products and services.

In the Economics of Humanity there would be no unemployment benefit as we now know it. Everyone would be expected to work their 20 hours for their basic needs and life quality income. Full employment would be expected, but should there be teething problems over this, socially useful jobs such as maintaining park land or administrative duties woud be given. Those who were unable to do any job through sickness or disability would receive the full income without working.

In the Economics of Humanity, criminals would lose a percentage (or in the case of severe crimes all) of their quality of life income. They would also be expected to work for their basic needs income.

In the Economics of Humanity the retirement age would be lowered to 55 with a view to lowering it further to 50. In addition, people could opt to take up to 10 retirement years early but would have to pay these back by working them later. Therefore, someone could take a mid-life retirement from 30-40 but would then only be able to retire at 65.

Basically, the Economics of Humanity turns the current situation on its head. It takes as its premise that the economy should work for the good of society, not the advancement of the few. And the very little good is done out of motivation for “money”, whilst a great of harm comes of it.