writing off loans

never-in-doubt

sp74 wrote: »

Strewth! Its quite simple...
If you can't afford to pay your debts, expect to go Bankrupt!

Regardless of whether this recession is due to banks too willing to lend, or borrowers playing the system who can now not pay off out-sized debts. (not to mention those who borrowed millions to fund their buy-to-let habits).....

Why should the honest people all over the world now be paying for this 'extreme-debt culture' that has led us here?? I'm sure theres enough people who have recently lost their jobs, or struggling to run a business, that will simply say... Pay the Price!

Don't expect everyone else to pay for your misfortunes, us taxpayers are already paying for the failing banks, why should we all be footing the bill for those who can simply 'write-off' their debts!

Jees not another self richeous nuggat! When will you lot learn that your opinion, righly or wrongly, doesn't matter and we really don't care to hear it anymore! The OP asked a legit question, got his answers and you don;t like it and decide to jump on the bandwagon.

The bottom line is quite simple, you do not need a degree in maths and along with the above examples by my learnered friends, the simple equation is as follows:

Banks got greedy/silly/selfish/irresponsible and as such you pay more! It has abosolutely nothing to do with debt write off, each and every company in the world has an element of debt write off and the whole reason we use the word 'risk' is because it is based on risk!

never-in-doubt

woody01 wrote: »

100% correct
It just seems constant that honest tax payers bare the brunt of anyone that cannot manage their finances.
Don't get me wrong, i have the GREATEST sympathy for anyone that has been made unemployed through no fault of their own.

What i have ZERO sympathy for is the people that have been made unemployed but borrowed to their absolute maximum when in work and made NO provision to be able to pay these debts once in a difficult position, then going crying to all and sundry to be bailed out.

Any assets (house/cars), should be sold before any of the 'get outs' used come into force.

100% incorrect!

Maybe correct in your opinion, but then again your opinion has no bearing on the facts!

I really hope you never decide to set up your own company, get stung to bits by charges/taxes/rates/vat/more charges/more tax which in turn leaves you penniless and thus unable to pay your debt.

I mean, it is such a tragedy but obviously it'd be all your own fault. Nothing to do with the banks/government or policies, of course!

sp74

Whats the point in going round the houses trying to work out the moralities of having debts written off??

There are all sorts of people to blame for whats wrong in the financial world at the moment... whether its government policies or greedy banks.

What I want to put into context is that there are enough people out there, who have got into money troubles and will try and find anyway out they can. But why should the hard-working tax-payer have to bail out everyone who goes crying to some higher authority every 5 minutes! If banks can't manage money properly, then the government should sort them out or shut them down. But if individuals can't manage money through no fault of the banks... well like I say why should every other struggling taxpayer have to pay for it?

To sum it up - stick to the facts and read the small print.

never-in-doubt

sp74 wrote: »

Whats the point in going round the houses trying to work out the moralities of having debts written off??

There are all sorts of people to blame for whats wrong in the financial world at the moment... whether its government policies or greedy banks.

What I want to put into context is that there are enough people out there, who have got into money troubles and will try and find anyway out they can. But why should the hard-working tax-payer have to bail out everyone who goes crying to some higher authority every 5 minutes! If banks can't manage money properly, then the government should sort them out or shut them down. But if individuals can't manage money through no fault of the banks... well like I say why should every other struggling taxpayer have to pay for it?

To sum it up - stick to the facts and read the small print.

Every other struggling taxpayer is paying because of the banks greed and negligence - it is not the taxpayer that pays for bad debt, it is the banks that change their rate so it affects only their customers not the taxpayer. Although now that is not directly true anymore, obviously!

My point is the terms and small print are wrong - that is what allows us provision for unenforceability. You've just shot yourself in the foot there.

cyril82

sp74 wrote: »

why should the hard-working tax-payer have to bail out everyone who goes crying to some higher authority every 5 minutes! If banks can't manage money properly, then the government should sort them out or shut them down. But if individuals can't manage money through no fault of the banks... well like I say why should every other struggling taxpayer have to pay for it?
.

The simple answer to this question is , the tax payer does not pay for unenforceability claims that banks lose. Banks are businesses and much in the same way that they do not give the tax payer part of their profits each year we equally do not foot their losses.

What we do foot is government bank bailouts, which incidentally were not brought about in any way shape or form by unenforceability claims but by the banks exposure to "toxic" debt mainly in foreign markets.

Meanwhile why we bail out the idiots that ran the banks into the ground they are taking part of that tax payers money and awarding themselves million pound bonuses and one certain individual [STRIKE]~!!!!!!~ [/STRIKE] i mean banker who was in no small part responsible for the near collapse of RBS leading to the largest single bail out of a bank by the uk tax payer, where we are underwriting a reported £600 Billion of toxic debt for this bank alone has retired and will be paid a whopping £16 million pound pension, guess where that moneys coming from??

never-in-doubt

cyril82 wrote: »

guess where that moneys coming from??

His tax LOL - well I hope so after his last comment but i'd hazard a guess he's unemployed claiming - you got it - from the taxpayer!

The preachers will never learn that us that fight unenforceability are actually more clued up than the ignorance they can offer in their defence so bring it on all day/night/week/month and we'll win each time cos we know the law!

They will never learn that the reason their rates change and they pay more to banks is because of the banks greed - not because of the chancer trying to get a debt unenforced!

RobertoMoir

cyril82 wrote: »

Quite right, if for example you signed an agreement that had an extortionate interest rate because you didn't understand how interest works and just put your faith in the ever so nice and very helpful bank official when they told you "it's a very competitive rate" and now your paying them an absolute fortune, well that's your mistake and you just have to live with it right?

Absolutely. People shouldn't sign up to things they do not understand.

cyril82 wrote: »

So if that person then notices that agreement is flawed and thinks, hmmm i might challenge this and they subsequently render the agreement unenforceable, well that’s the banks mistake and they just have to live with it too right?

Again, absolutely. If a supposedly legally binding agreement turns out to be wrong, then that's really down to the people who wrote the wording of the agreement.

Lots of people seem to be unable to see either of those points.

woody01

never-in-doubt wrote: »

His tax LOL - well I hope so after his last comment but i'd hazard a guess he's unemployed claiming - you got it - from the taxpayer!

The preachers will never learn that us that fight unenforceability are actually more clued up than the ignorance they can offer in their defence

You like to think you are.

That the problem really isn't it.
Armchair lawyers such as yourself.

simon_templar_2

Is it possible to specify which banks were 'bailed out' instead of stigmatizing the ones that were not bailed out?

cyril82

simon_templar wrote: »

Is it possible to specify which banks were 'bailed out' instead of stigmatizing the ones that were not bailed out?

Don't you know which banks were and which banks were not bailed out? i can list them for you but surely you know already? anyone who comments on unenforceability and the great cost to tax payers surely understands the state of our banking system, who was bailed out and by how much?

I mention the banking bailouts only to highlight that it is this action, brought about by the banks themselves that is having a real and serious effect and cost to the tax payer, not unenforceability. Unenforceability claims are likely to stay in the lower millions, banks can absorb that, while the combined banking bailout, according to the I.M.F is likely to total £1.5 Trillion and it is us who will foot that bill.