Are bankrupts getting a raw deal?

debtinfo

That's very unfair to the posters on that thread who have actually given balanced and considered. opinions to the question that was asked

kepar

Gray-Fox wrote: »

Absolutely the BR is getting a raw deal, which is precisely why I'm doing all I can to avoid an IPA.

Why?

The problem as I see it is, if everyone had your attitude the IS would get no money and therefore change the limits or put up the rates.

So you have been lucky enough to go br, others in years to come could find things a lot harder more expensive because of all this.

Before the changes occurred, everyone was trying to get under the "magic" £99 mark. Now everybody seems to have nothing spare. Amazing.

Somewhere, sometime things will get worse again.

alastairq

debtinfo wrote: »

That's very unfair to the posters on that thread who have actually given balanced and considered. opinions to the question that was asked

Certain exceptions to the norm, then?

I for one could not help but comment on the OP's response.

Whatever happened to good old commitment?

To quote, I think, good ol' HG Wells...

'betsy worse, richy poor?'

debtinfo

Kepar is right, the fees to run the IS have to come from somewhere. Sure I can see why someone who can get away with less would not want to pay more and sure on this particular point bankrupts get a worse deal than they did before, at least superficialy anyway. But rather than going negative let's go positive with the discussion. Let's say they roll back these changes, where should they make up the shortfall from, the floor is open for suggestions

dojoman

At least we are not gaoled anymore;) so things could be worse for us bankrupts;)

philnicandamy

oh I dunno dojo i'd have quite enjoyed the stocks & rotten veg throwing

alastairq

off the top of me 'ead.....?

I think the Government/State view of bankruptcy/insolvency still lingers in the dark ages of Queen Victoria.

A moral reason for insisting the IS is self-financing centres on a moral viewpoint of bankruptcy.....which is all rather hypocritical of the State, given its track record of bailing out financial institutions, or not allowing essential, national industries to go to the wall...

There is a practical reason too....imagine if everybody struggling with debts had my own viewpoint regarding bankruptcy?

Quite simply, the credit system as it stands would have to change...

Ordinary people would no longer have that innate fear of suddenly being out of work, or risk losing their house.....the security of property 'ownership' would no longer seem important....certainly compared to life, family and friends.

The State desperately wants individuals to view BR as a final, desperate resort....instead of a means to an end...

[A parallel with marriage [ as a legal and moral undertaking].....is possible...note today how people view divorce?]


However, there is no valid practical reason why the State should not finance the administration of BR for individuals....

The moral argument against, holds little water when we consider what else the taxpayer finances?

We all pay, regardless....whether it's to finance private pensions [tax relief??]...or indeed, finance mortgages [again via tax relief, exemption from stamp duty, and a thousand other State-sponsored incentives to lenders and borrowers alike]....or to subsidise the all-important safety net of the benefits system......a system which gets denigrated by all and sundry until we actually need it ourselves?

What about legal aid? We all subsidies that system, don't we?

SO why on earth not the IS?

Certainly, I can think of a thousand major creditors who'd dearly love to see the IS getting State-supported funding...[who pays the OR and staff? Or funds their Pension scheme?]...after all, if less were taken from a BR estate to fund administration, is there not the possibility that more may be left over for creditors?

Ineedaname

The trouble is Alistair, that the Government is gradually withdrawing much of the help. Certain legal aid has been reduced and I believe the intention is to withdraw it completely, probably in the hope the 'no win, no fee' lawyers will pick up the slack.

debtinfo

ok so option 1 is that it is tax payer funded,

any other suggestions

debtinfo

i'll pitch in with my idea which is a little less radical,(although all suggestions welcome no matter how radical)

Mine would be this, i do think that bankrupts should pay for the costs and i do think that more than 50% of someones surplus should be taken. I also think that the new guidelines leave little room for mistakes in calculation or unforseen expenditure. It also encourages people to fiddle their numbers or to try and not work so they dont get an IPA, the system is unfair that if you work for a few months after bankruptcy then you are tied in for 3 years but if you manage to last 12 months without working then you are in the clear, This is inconsistant and leads to people trying to cheat the system, and also on the other side the examiner being given the incentive to push down expenditure to at least get some sort of IPA started( i dont think the staff do that and the did not when iwas there but nonetheless the incentive is there)

so my solution would be this

1) all surplus is taken

2) except that in every case a larger contingency is automatically granted maybe £50 mayme £100pm Maybe a sliding scale depending on family size. this gives the bankrupt the peace of mind that they are not constantly one small expense away from being back in trouble.

3) i would extend the IPA terms so that they last 3 years from the bankruptcy date and an IPA can be started anytime in that 3 years, but all collections stop after 3 years from the bankruptcy order date, this stops people not working to avoid it.

This i think would be fairer to all bankrupts whilst providing the increased income the IS needs