Why the negativity towards not paying

never-in-doubt

CannyJock wrote: »

I've never made a loss in any of my companies

So you've never had staff theft (physical or time), governance, security etc? You know, departments that operate to comply with regulations but bear a loss from outset?

I think you know what I mean, lol - smarty arsey :rotfl:

pelirocco

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No, incorrect.

A bank is a business just like Tesco and the other brands etc that you see around. What do you think happens when they have losses? They do not push up all the prices do they? they instead write it off as a business loss in their annual accounts.

Unenforceability (or non payers) do not have any direct involvement in rates being issued and if they did, then you'd go elsewhere wouldn't you?

yet again people thinking aloud but thinking before researching!

Businesses make profits and other times post losses, that is life and it does not affect the rates you and I pay today! Maybe long term, but sod that - the banks will milk themselves dry long before the debtors do!

They have a business risk department to deal with potential losses.

You are obviously clueless as to how to run a ( successful ) business . Businesses do have to write off bad debts , but for any business can only take so much bad debt , and every year businesses fail because they have taken one hit too many . Every time a business closes the economy takes a hit , everytime a business has to downsize because of bad debts the ecomony takes a hit ,No one is immune from being affected from being the person who has lost a job to being the person still working but seeing increased prices and taxation because of it .

But morally , if you cant tell right from wrong then I pity you

mufc689908

Sandrock wrote: »

Because some of us work damn hard to pay for what we use and not get into debt and it becomes irritating when you see someone who has been stupid enough to run up huge card debts, usually by living well beyond their obvious means being allowed to simply write it off with no or little come back.

Also, 'someone' has to pay for the amount written off. It is easy to say the banks will pay - but they will simply claw this cost back from the consumer in other ways.

Also, when you say the CC companies having been ripping you off - what to you mean by this? You make the decision to spend the money on the card, no-one else.

PS. If we're talking about reclaiming bank charges, etc. I agree that this is fair.

So you`re okeedokee with credit card companies jacking their rates through the roof "Because the cards variable and they can" but you`re in favour of claiming back bank charges that have been proved to be legal and above board.

Do explain im all ears:D

never-in-doubt

pelirocco wrote: »

You are obviously clueless as to how to run a ( successful ) business .

Really? Ok, whatever you say

pelirocco wrote: »

Businesses do have to write off bad debts , but for any business can only take so much bad debt , and every year businesses fail because they have taken one hit too many . Every time a business closes the economy takes a hit , everytime a business has to downsize because of bad debts the ecomony takes a hit ,No one is immune from being affected from being the person who has lost a job to being the person still working but seeing increased prices and taxation because of it .

Granted, I agree with the above, however that is not the question here - that would be a totally different argument altogether. This is specific to banks - bear in mind i'm talking these same banks that continue to pay erroneous bonus payments when they owe us millions!

pelirocco wrote: »

But morally , if you cant tell right from wrong then I pity you

Excuse me? Right and wrong is for a court to judge, thank you very much.

I know, as much as the next guy that mugging an old lady is wrong, but as for getting into debt and legitimately not being able to repay it, well that's a totally different kettle of fish...... I follow the law, not morals.

Legally a lender must retain a lawful document, if they do not then that lawful debt becomes unlawful until such time the documentation can be produced.

Those are the facts, not my thoughts or morals.

sillystudent_2

Sorry, are you serious???

No because I dont use half of the stuff anymore that I bought i.e clothes and old wide screens etc. Not forgeting petrol, that went a long time ago.

By your (the OP's) logic, if you borrow say £20k off a friend to buy a car and then get bored of it, and can find a legal loophole to get out of the debt - then that's 100% fine! I know banks are a bit different, but they're not faceless evil corporations manned by robots!! Good, honest, hard-working people work there (in the callcentres, in the front/back office etc.) - if enough people got their debts 'written off' the credit card comapnies would make big losses, and have to downsize and these hard-working people would lose their jobs!! Because of you!

And plus there's the obvious fact that you spent the money. Get your debt written off, fine - as long as you're willing to give back everything you spent the money on. Happy to do that? Didn't think so.

To be fair I'm not 100% totally against it - in a few circumstances I can understand it where people/families have pretty much repaid the capital sum and are getting raped in interest, and have no choice if they want to save their homes. That's ok to be fair - as a very last resort. Equally, ppl unfortunate enough to have gone through bankruptcy/IVAs or DMPs after realising their efforts to pay creditors 100% back are futile have my complete sympathy - everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance

You, on the other hand, seem to have the attitude "I'm too lazy/stupid to earn £20k, but I feel I'm entitled to that kind of lifestyle anyway, so I'll borrow it with no intention to pay it back from the start." Idiots like you push the price of borrowing up for everyone!!! :mad:

(Sorry guys I rarely get angry on here at all its just I can't understand the sheer arrogance/entitlement behind OP's statement. I've been in tons of debt, and will have to pay back every penny, and it does suck that there's interest on top. But at the end of the day, I spent the money, I got the benefits of that spending, so morally I should have to pay it back!)

mufc689908

sillystudent wrote: »

Sorry, are you serious???



By your (the OP's) logic, if you borrow say £20k off a friend to buy a car and then get bored of it, and can find a legal loophole to get out of the debt - then that's 100% fine! I know banks are a bit different, but they're not faceless evil corporations manned by robots!! Good, honest, hard-working people work there (in the callcentres, in the front/back office etc.) - if enough people got their debts 'written off' the credit card comapnies would make big losses, and have to downsize and these hard-working people would lose their jobs!! Because of you!

And plus there's the obvious fact that you spent the money. Get your debt written off, fine - as long as you're willing to give back everything you spent the money on. Happy to do that? Didn't think so.

To be fair I'm not 100% totally against it - in a few circumstances I can understand it where people/families have pretty much repaid the capital sum and are getting raped in interest, and have no choice if they want to save their homes. That's ok to be fair - as a very last resort. Equally, ppl unfortunate enough to have gone through bankruptcy/IVAs or DMPs after realising their efforts to pay creditors 100% back are futile have my complete sympathy - everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance

You, on the other hand, seem to have the attitude "I'm too lazy/stupid to earn £20k, but I feel I'm entitled to that kind of lifestyle anyway, so I'll borrow it with no intention to pay it back from the start." Idiots like you push the price of borrowing up for everyone!!! :mad:

(Sorry guys I rarely get angry on here at all its just I can't understand the sheer arrogance/entitlement behind OP's statement. I've been in tons of debt, and will have to pay back every penny, and it does suck that there's interest on top. But at the end of the day, I spent the money, I got the benefits of that spending, so morally I should have to pay it back!)

I put more than that through my business a month trading on my own working from home.;)

A little lesson for you

YOU DONT GET RICH GIVING IT AWAY:cool:

sillystudent_2

I put more than that through my business a month trading on my own working from home.;)

Well 50k, 500k - it doesn't matter, the fact is you're not repaying whatever sum of money you've borrowed!! if what you're saying about 20k a month's true then the fact you're earning loads and not repaying any of it's even more morally reprehensible :mad: If you've got that high a turnover why on earth don't you just be a nice guy by borrowing money and paying it back?

YOU DONT GET RICH GIVING IT AWAY:cool:

Let's get this straight - what you're doing is essentially legalised theft. Lawful on the most nebulous of technicalities, but wrong in every moral sense.
"You don't get rich giving it away" - so if a conman came to you tomorrow and tricked you out of all your money, that's ok is it? Equally a bank robber's ok to do what he does because "you don't get rich giving it away." Oh, and if you get ripped off when you next go on holiday by some shady merchant, that's fine too! Basically you seem to be saying that if you can get hold of someone else's money (doesn't matter by what means) then that's 100% acceptable :mad:
How's that sentence even relevant anyway? "Giving it away" doesn't even come into play here - we're talking about you stealing money (by borrowing it with no intent of repaying) and making the credit companies and more importantly everyone else pay the price (in the form of higher interest rates.) :mad:

Edit: Oh btw thought I'd pick you up on one of your earlier points:

This is specific to banks - bear in mind i'm talking these same banks that continue to pay erroneous bonus payments when they owe us millions!

You do realise you're talking about the investment side of banking (i.e. traders in the City of London) which is completely separate and different from the retail side, i.e. high street banks/credit card companies lending money and providing savings for everyday consumers. The retail side of banking has for years and years, and continues to be profitable - they've got nothing to do with the credit crunch! Some arrogant cityboys gambled away a lot of money and we had to bail them out, granted that's bad, but that's a whole different issue! Barclays (to take an example)'s retail and investment branches are pretty much completely separate. You're unfairly grouping them together - a bit like if you committed a crime and the police came round and arrested your spouse instead because she was living with you!! Ridiculous

never-in-doubt

sillystudent wrote: »

Let's get this straight - what you're doing is essentially legalised theft.

Not at all - theft is illegal isn't it? I think you mean it is called utilising the options available as per the law in context, in this case it would be the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it is certainly not theft!

sillystudent wrote: »

Lawful on the most nebulous of technicalities, but wrong in every moral sense.

No, lawful in every way possible, or otherwise. A technicality does not come into it. A technicality is when a murderer gets let off because the copper forgot to remind him of his rights even though he is a seasoned criminal and knew his rights.

Same thing, the banks think that we all know our rights when in fact very few of us actually do. Therefore they duped us with unlawful agreements pointing to favour their pockets each time, nothing in any agreement benefited us other than s.127 of the CCA!

never-in-doubt

sillystudent wrote: »

You do realise you're talking about the investment side of banking (i.e. traders in the City of London) which is completely separate and different from the retail side, i.e. high street banks/credit card companies lending money and providing savings for everyday consumers. The retail side of banking has for years and years, and continues to be profitable - they've got nothing to do with the credit crunch! Some arrogant cityboys gambled away a lot of money and we had to bail them out, granted that's bad, but that's a whole different issue! Barclays (to take an example)'s retail and investment branches are pretty much completely separate. You're unfairly grouping them together - a bit like if you committed a crime and the police came round and arrested your spouse instead because she was living with you!! Ridiculous

I'm not talking about investment banking at all - I do know the difference, you and your investment banking caused the recession NOT localised banks. However, localised banks do conform to the group name so when they submit their accounts, then they group together as a whole so for instance HSBC could post £10bn profits, that wouldn't mean that their M&S card service that made a loss would be excluded from the figure!

If you recall I actually stated that the banks were paying bonus payments, I couldn;t care less if that is Barclays in London or Barclays in Leeds it is still bloody Barclays!

Your example about the copper coming is what is ridiculous - you're really not going to win this argument based on feelings of morality - stick to the facts!

sillystudent_2

If you recall I actually stated that the banks were paying bonus payments, I couldn;t care less if that is Barclays in London or Barclays in Leeds it is still bloody Barclays!

Your example about the copper coming is what is ridiculous - you're really not going to win this argument based on feelings of morality - stick to the facts!

Ok, well here's a salient fact for you - how many people in the retailing side of Barclays are getting these huge bonuses? How many of them are getting £1m plus which has been on the news recently? I'll give you the answer - virtually none (in fact probably none!)
You say you know the difference between investment and retailing but you keep trying to group anyone who works in a bank into the 'evil cityboy banker' stereotype by talking about banks paying bonuses payments as if its a generic thing. Its not - we're talking about a select few traders, probably a few hundred employees or so. The people behind your loans/credit cards/savings accounts aren't getting huge bonuses this year! And I'm not just talking about cashiers, I doubt managers of branches are going to clear £1m plus this year

I don't know what you mean by Leeds and London - the differences between retail and investing isn't anything to do with geography at all. Ok they work for the same head organisation - but then by that logic you could blame the tragic Jean Charles de Menezes incident on firemen even though they're nothing to do with police, after all they still all (to quote you) "it is still all bloody the government!" :cool: