Ideas to fight debt counselling fund closing?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

RenovationMan wrote: »

Lots of CAB advisors are losing their jobs because of the cuts. .

Well that explains the lemonjelly rant....

But why on earth would people expect to get paid for what should be a charity volunteer position anyway???

This country is unreal sometimes.

Professional debt advisors.... Talk about a non-job!!!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tomterm8 wrote: »

the social problems associated with homelessness, poverty, crime, and mental health such as break downs that will probably happen if debt problems aren't sorted out.

Talk about Hyperbole.....

It's a bit of debt..... Not cancer for heavens sake.

In addition, I am sure any finance company will agree... the CAB saves banks a lot of money, because by helping people get back on track with their debt they end up paying a higher proportion of what they owe.

That is the reason the banks fund the national debt line... and provided a large chunk of this schemes money... because debt advice saves them a lot of money.

Great.

Let the banks fund CAB then.

Put a business case together and pitch it to them.

If it's such a savings for them, they'll fund it.

StevieJ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Talk about Hyperbole.....

It's a bit of debt..... Not cancer for heavens sake.



Great.

Let the banks fund CAB then.

Put a business case together and pitch it to them.

If it's such a savings for them, they'll fund it.

Maybe not cancer but it has driven a number to suicide.

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Professional debt advisors.... Talk about a non-job!!!

Really? What if that professional debt advisor worked for a bank? Would you feel differently then?

Professional debt advisors have to have a level of skill, for which it is not unreasonable that they get paid, just as nurses, librarians and police get paid.

I'm politically centrist, not a "bleeding heart liberal" as Bendix puts it. But surely if you can get people sorted out financially and back on track so that they don't end up needing an IVA or worst case solution bankruptcy that's a good thing for the economy?

These people aren't going to go away, they are going to end up in an even more chaotic state turning up at all sorts of places that are ill-resourced and trained to handle them, whether they are local councils, job centres or whatever. Isn't the most cost-effective way to handle them the way that already exists? CABs are lean and efficient organisations, councils, well they aren't quite there yet.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

Really? What if that professional debt advisor worked for a bank? Would you feel differently then?

Professional debt advisors have to have a level of skill, for which it is not unreasonable that they get paid, just as nurses, librarians and police get paid.
..... CABs are lean and efficient organisations, councils, well they aren't quite there yet.

This is the best answer yet to the things I started to think yesterday. Thank you.

Additionally I wondered last night what the possibility of taxing credit provision (store cards, interest free credit for two years etc) to cover the cost of debt management and education. would it restrict lending too much to make it possible or would it mean lending was better monitored (there for limiting the number of ''irresponsible'' borrowers and meaning people needing help were more people who had been victims of circumstance and fewer the people who ''can't help themselves'').

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

Well, we have had the worst recession of my lifetime, preceded by a really large boom... it's not a surprise that there would be a increasing problem at the moment.

But then maybe its a surprise there was need for the funding as set up five years ago in the boom? what would have helped/restricted people then ...the gap between those of us who may get the right education needed in schools and the rest of us now..what will fill that? This service seems to be a step too late

The best solution is to fix the economy. After that comes financial education for everyone in school. If everyone who wanted to work could find a job, and everyone actually understood their finances, then this problem would be mainly restrained to the !!!!less, the ill and idle.

AIUI from the reading provided here and Martin;s thread this is funding contracted when the economy was in boom. Surely everyone who needed it when set up wasn't ****less? Fixing the economy seems to be only partial solutoon (though the greater part for the greater people).

I find it interesting that critique of this system has been deemed soley to be hard nosed and selfish. I'm more concerned about the gaps, both from a standpoint of economy and community concern, and in this part selfish: aware I do not have the knowledge to mean I never risk being in need,while having access to copious debt. I could fall down that gap.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

Really? What if that professional debt advisor worked for a bank? Would you feel differently then?

If the banks want to fund it, then fine.

If it makes commercial sense for the lenders of money to pay for such a service because they think it will help them minimise losses, good luck to them, ultimately it's their money to spend.

I still think it's a non-job though.

Professional debt advisors have to have a level of skill, for which it is not unreasonable that they get paid, just as nurses, librarians and police get paid.

Seriously?

You can find out anything you need to about debt, IVA's, bankruptcy, renegotiating terms with lenders, your rights with utilities/councils/landlords, etc, with an hour or two of googling.

Hardly the same as requiring years of training as a nurse to not kill someone by mistake.

I'm politically centrist, not a "bleeding heart liberal" as Bendix puts it. But surely if you can get people sorted out financially and back on track so that they don't end up needing an IVA or worst case solution bankruptcy that's a good thing for the economy?

These people aren't going to go away, they are going to end up in an even more chaotic state turning up at all sorts of places that are ill-resourced and trained to handle them, whether they are local councils, job centres or whatever.

Sorry viva, but that's all a bit "nanny state" for my tastes.

People need to learn self responsibility, and to realise if they get themselves in a mess then they need to do a bit of basic research and self-help to get themselves out of it.

Isn't the most cost-effective way to handle them the way that already exists? CABs are lean and efficient organisations, councils, well they aren't quite there yet.

I agree that CAB's are a good service, but I personally think they should be run by volunteers as many other charities are.

If CAB wants to fundraise from businesses and individuals to continue their good work, thats fine. But they are no more deserving of a government hand-out than any other charity, so shouldn't expect subsidies in that way.

I'm not happy to see the state selectively fund charities, the charities should make their case and raise funds from the public or businesses directly.

ILW

I think just putting up a few posters with "Do not spend more than you earn" in big letters would be a good start.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

lostinrates wrote: »

I wondered last night what the possibility of taxing credit provision (store cards, interest free credit for two years etc) to cover the cost of debt management and education. would it restrict lending too much to make it possible or would it mean lending was better monitored (there for limiting the number of ''irresponsible'' borrowers and meaning people needing help were more people who had been victims of circumstance and fewer the people who ''can't help themselves'').

Lenders already factor in a margin for bad debt.

If it's more cost effective for them to fund the debt charities, they should do that instead.

Otherwise, just accept the losses from bad debt.

Adding an additional tax to lending to pay for such a service just makes no sense.

bendix

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm politically centrist, not a "bleeding heart liberal" as Bendix puts it. But surely if you can get people sorted out financially and back on track so that they don't end up needing an IVA or worst case solution bankruptcy that's a good thing for the economy?

.

Why is it the Government's responsibility to 'get people sorted financially'?

Can someone explain to me why that is a government function? At what point do we say . . . you're an adult, surely you know debt is bad.

Are we a nation of freaking irresponsible children?