Ideas to fight debt counselling fund closing?

bendix

lemonjelly wrote: »

Further, by the tone of your post, perhaps government should act to prevent people being seduced by consumerism and getting themselves into a financial pickle. Prevention is better than a cure. Your arguement draws you towards protectionism.

No.

Government has no role to play in this at all, either stopping people from buying what they want. People should be free to be as financially imprudent as they like, providing they face up to the consequences like mature people as well.

Seems pretty simple to me.

bendix

lemonjelly wrote: »

Your posting history indicates that you do not give a fig about other people. Clearly it isn't just wheezy, stevieJ or myself who think that way.

How you have a self image of yourself as a kind loving person is up to you. Unfortunately, it isn't the image others have of you via this message board given your postings.

There are no great universal theories. Tough love will not work in every case. Yes, it is a necessary tool. But not in every case. And there are, and will be people less fortunate, less lucky, and with less life chances than you who suffer through no fault of their own.

It's ok though, cos you don't care.

Thank you for the lecture.

I don't give a fig what you and the bleeding heart 'oh so nice' liberals on here think of me personally - you're just a bunch of letters on a webforum after all - but I do challenge the common perception that those on the right of arguments are uncaring.

You don't help people by pandering to them. Millions of people's lives are ruined in the UK right now by providing too much love in the way of benefits and government support. Whole generations who have never worked and never will, and will never experience the joy of self-sufficiency.

Overly protective governments have destroyed the hopes and dreams and ambitions of people by taking away the incentive to improve themselves.

If that's the definition of caring, so be it. I'd rather be the evil crypto-facist you do gooders like to paint me as over that, any day.

wherediditallgothen

bendix wrote: »

No.

Government has no role to play in this at all, either stopping people from buying what they want. People should be free to be as financially imprudent as they like, providing the face up to the consequences like mature people as well.

Seems pretty simple to me.

I understand your point and see where you are coming from. One thing though. What about those who have been affected by debt but are not actually those who have gone mental with the credit card? Should help not exist for them at least?

As far as I see it, there is always a need for practical advice such as that supplied by the CAB.

Wheezy_2

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." Frederic Bastiat, 1850, The Law, par. L. 102

Bastiat, the French laissez-faire liberal economist.
Had to Google him. Thanks for the quote.
But what it's got to do with the closure of FIF and CAB's, I'm not sure.

bendix

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

I understand your point and see where you are coming from. One thing though. What about those who have been affected by debt but are not actually those who have gone mental with the credit card? Should help not exist for them at least?

As far as I see it, there is always a need for practical advice such as that supplied by the CAB.

Once again.

Noone is suggesting there is not a role for the CAB. My objection is not with CAB.

My objection is to those who object to the government spending £25m of taxpayers money specifically on debt counselling.

People here seem to be suggesting that the sole role of the CAB is to offer debt counselling services. It isn't. Since when has the role of the CAB and debt counselling become inextricably interchangeable?

Thrugelmir

lemonjelly wrote: »

Further, by the tone of your post, perhaps government should act to prevent people being seduced by consumerism and getting themselves into a financial pickle. Prevention is better than a cure. Your arguement draws you towards protectionism.

In general terms. I find many peoples attitudes towards money far more concerning. Irrespective of where they are on the income scale. Who think that obtaining credit is a right. Expecting to be allowed to move their mortgages on to interest only when they struggle to fund their lifestyle or take a payment holiday. As they've "paid their mortgage on time for the past 5 years".

With the banks acting responsibly towards consumer lending at least thats the start of reversing the spend now pay later culture thats evolved.

lemonjelly

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In general terms. I find many peoples attitudes towards money far more concerning. Irrespective of where they are on the income scale. Who think that obtaining credit is a right. Expecting to be allowed to move their mortgages on to interest only when they struggle to fund their lifestyle or take a payment holiday. As they've "paid their mortgage on time for the past 5 years".

With the banks acting responsibly towards consumer lending at least thats the start of reversing the spend now pay later culture thats evolved.

Thats not exactly what I am arguing, and within my job in colleges, and previous work in CABx I know financial literacy is a massive part of why consumers are in the mess they are in. Financial literacy really needs addressing, & I pray Martins campaign on this achieves more that we can all hope.

However, I will challenge the part about banks lending responsibly. I do not feel banks are lending more responsibly, more they are aware they can get away with less. The PPI furore is a fine example of this - for years banks insisted on PPi insurance for loans for the unemployed, the self employed, the retired, & all sorts. They only ever act/lend in the banks interests.

I personally feel both borrowers & lenders have a lot to learn, highlighted by this downturn. Whether they will or not is another thing...

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Once again.

Noone is suggesting there is not a role for the CAB. My objection is not with CAB.

My objection is to those who object to the government spending £25m of taxpayers money specifically on debt counselling.

People here seem to be suggesting that the sole role of the CAB is to offer debt counselling services. It isn't. Since when has the role of the CAB and debt counselling become inextricably interchangeable?

What has inextricably interchangeable got to do with ? Debt is one of the many areas of concern that citizens of the UK may seek advice about from the CAB.

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

What has inextricably interchangeable got to do with ? Debt is one of the many areas of concern that citizens of the UK may seek advice about from the CAB.

We seem to be in violent agreement, then.

As Im getting bored of saying, I support CABs. I don't support the need though to pay £25m FIF funds to fund debt counselling.

CABs have a vital role to play, yet many threads on here are suggesting that the withdrawal of FIF funding for debt-counselling is the deathknell of the CAB movement.

And it palpably isn't.

bendix

lemonjelly wrote: »

Financial literacy really needs addressing, & I pray Martins campaign on this achieves more that we can all hope.

...

Fine, so let's spend the £25m on a financial literacy campaign. I would support that.

But Martin's campaign is not about supporting financial literacy. It's about dealing with the problems that financial illiteracy and irresponsbility create.