Why the negativity towards not paying

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No dazza - the unenforceable element of debt is included in their risk for bad debts!

My god i'm not going to sit here and explain how retail or any other kind of banking works but suffice to say those that actually think that a bad payer affects the rest of us need to go back to school.

Thats my take on the matter!

If as you say, it is the shareholders who take the hit. Are not all taxpayers going to suffer if it is one of the virtually nationalised banks?

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

If as you say, it is the shareholders who take the hit. Are not all taxpayers going to suffer if it is one of the virtually nationalised banks?

Come on, this argument is flawed and cannot be reasoned with.

Bottom line, a bank (love it or hate is) is a business and therefore have the usual business models in place to cover profit, loss and risk. Therefore they will have provisions in place to cover the risk element, as already mentioned someone with no credit will be higher risk than someone like, say cannyjock who is an experienced stoozer.

So when you apply for a typical rate card of 9% and get quoted 19% that is your risk category, the fact you may pay this account off for years is what will cover the actual bad payers as you've been paying more interest for that risk.

That is not to say you're paying more interest as a result of your neighbour that may have had unenforceable debts.

That is exactly my point here.

p.s. all high rate taxpayers suffer so i'm already feeling the pain and nothing they do now will ease that pain!

ILW

So who in the end does cover these costs?

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

So who in the end does cover these costs?

The bank/lender! Who else? :rotfl:

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The bank/lender! Who else? :rotfl:

Who at the bank/lender? - Directors, Shareholders, Customers, Counter staff, none of the above. The money has to come from somewhere and cost somebody in the end.

never-in-doubt

Profits and business write-off. So that affects the shareholders directly and group operating profits.

You're trying, I can see that but I will not fall into your trap, the answer you seek is there in black and white lol

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Profits and business write-off. So that affects the shareholders directly and group operating profits.

You're trying, I can see that but I will not fall into your trap, the answer you seek is there in black and white lol

So if the bank is owned by the taxpayer, such as RBS, it is the taxpayer that is paying for the debtors that do not repay their loans.
QED

ninky_2

borrowing money from financial institutions is a business arrangement and therefore i don't think morality comes into it. lenders (should) weigh up the likelihood of the lendee being able to pay back the loan and the tools at their disposal (legislation etc) that enables them to get the money back if the lendee refuses to pay. it is up to them to take a calculated risk. if they take too many risks that don't pay off then these have to be considered bad business decisions. as such, morality doesn't enter the equation.

the wider issue is should people be able to borrow or lend money. i think this is a moral issue. i don't think they should be able to but i know the majority probably disagree with me.

never-in-doubt

ILW wrote: »

So if the bank is owned by the taxpayer, such as RBS, it is the taxpayer that is paying for the debtors that do not repay their loans.
QED

Not quite, you misunderstand the theory that the bank is owned by the taxpayer. The taxpayer always pays towards people, I hate paying for spongers to live on benefits - you hate people that claim unenforceability.

Same difference

ILW

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Not quite, you misunderstand the theory that the bank is owned by the taxpayer. The taxpayer always pays towards people, I hate paying for spongers to live on benefits - you hate people that claim unenforceability.

Same difference

I feel the same about both of them (the ones that in effect to it by choice not necessity). The only reason I followed this line is because the original question was about why people are negative to people who claim unenforceabilty. In the end it is the people who pay their bill and taxes that end up paying for the ones that don't. It may be a fact of life, but I do not have to agree it is right.