what is the point to work hard when under bankruptcy and IPA?

alastairq

You never stooze anything with a positive interest rate, nor do you alter the terms of the lending. You borrow at 0% (although there may be a fee for doing so) and invest at a positive rate. For example I stoozed £15k and stashed it in my offset mortgage, thus earning the equivalent of more than 6% on it. The money sat there until the 15 month interest free period was over, at which point it was returned to the card company.

Not comparing to the act of bankruptcy...but am comparing to not paying back what the lender expects.

Don't suppose you wanted to share some of your gains with the original lender, after all?


Nope?


Nothing obscene about the so-called allowances under BR....the obscenity lies more with the 'allowances' the benefit system expects folk to live under. Oh...not to mention the obscenity of making more money for money's sake?

It is the love affair with money that has led directly to the current economic situation.....without thought for the inhumanity of it all.

mildred1978

alastairq wrote: »

Not comparing to the act of bankruptcy...but am comparing to not paying back what the lender expects.

Don't suppose you wanted to share some of your gains with the original lender, after all?


Nope?


Nothing obscene about the so-called allowances under BR....the obscenity lies more with the 'allowances' the benefit system expects folk to live under. Oh...not to mention the obscenity of making more money for money's sake?

It is the love affair with money that has led directly to the current economic situation.....without thought for the inhumanity of it all.

The card company made close to 3% on me stoozing, so we did share the proceeds .

Some of the allowances are obscene - and are deliberately exploited to pay for holidays, sky tv....... I could go on.

debt_doctor

mildred1978 wrote: »

Some of the allowances are obscene - and are deliberately exploited to pay for holidays, sky tv....... I could go on.

My god, how dare the peasants demand such things..........

DD

kingdan

Don't get me wrong, I agree I should pay back at least some of my debts and I am willing to do so but what I do not agree is the amount. 100% of my disposable income. The old system take up to 70% so left you something so you can save for a rainy day.

For me bankruptcy should be a fresh start but when they take100% of it then in 3 years time I still have nothing saved and might try to get some more credit again. Well I won't because I learnt my lesson but the fact is when you need money and you don't have it what would you do? Borrow it from someone.

If most of my ipa goes to the RB service which I think it is a fair call but let say I can pay 200 back each month so 6 months later I covered through service cost so why another 30 months?

Again I do feel I should pay back but what I disagree is 100% is wrong.

OutofDebt-NOT-OutofDanger

sniggings wrote: »

I agree with the OP, they are making it less likely for people to want to work harder or better themselves.

This question came up once before and Debtinfo produced a list of figures to show that since the rule change, more has been raised for creditors through the new changes, I'm not so sure if the figures he listed gave the full picture, as I would think claiming £20 from someone a month is costing more to collect than it raises, add into that the loss of tax revenue, benefits paid to those that stay on benefits for the year or don't take extra work, I think the true cost of this will be bad for the tax payer and bad for the BR, maybe the creditor does slightly better out of this system but at the cost to the tax payer.

My view is much the same. Personally I think the whole system would generate more revenue if only a percentage of additional income was taken once an IPA was set up. As an example at the point of BR:

• Income £1,250
• Allowances £1,200
• Disposable Income £50 - paid into IPA

Assuming that the BR is able to work overtime/work more hours if part time or further their career with a higher paid position and that their costs do not increase but the take home pay increases by (say) £100 to £1,350:

• Current system BR gains £0 while IPA is in force. As there is no financial incentive for the BR to take the additional hours/higher paid job the likelihood is that many would choose not to do so and so the OR/creditors will also not benefit;
• If the above suggestion were in place, even if the IPA was increased by 50% of the increase then the BR would gain £50 per month while the OR/Creditors would also gain £50 per month.
• Another issue is for the employers who would probably prefer to give extra work to their existing workforce rather than take on additional staff (especially if the increased workload is seasonal or short term), but where there are employees who are BR, often the employer may have no choice but to employ additional people at a cost that can be detrimental to the company (I have seen this happen btw).

So potentially a 3 way winning situation!

rossireps

debt_doctor wrote: »

My god, how dare the peasants demand such things..........

DD

yes how dare we have things like computers! lol
i had council lady come when i first started claiming hb, she seemed a bit puzzled that i had things. well yes i was married 15yrs so collected a fair bit :rotfl:

Lou67

debt_doctor wrote: »

Hi,

I completely agree with the idea that the 'new regime' is too harsh - it's why I have not agreed to one single IPA proposal on behalf of a client since Dec. 2010 - and I never challenged one single IPA proposal before that date.
Anyway, back to you. You can choose any of those options you mentioned. Also just to be clear, if you are discharged from BR with with no IPA, then thats it- so up to 1 year from your BR date- you seem to be quoting 3 years, which is the time period if an IPA actually starts.

DD

Good for you DD

Oldzskool

I have my telephone interview soon and am hoping that I won't be given an IPA. If I don't get an IPA then I sure as hell will be making sure my circumstances don't change for a year until discharge. I'm thinking of it as a sabbatical if you like, a year of taking it easy and riding out this bankruptcy. There is no point in working harder if I will incur an IPA for three years when if I take it easy for a year I will be discharged and lose this 3 year IPA threat.

As for my creditors they can whistle for their cash as far as I'm concerned. I have no sympathy for them as they are as culpable in this as I am. They were the ones that kept sending me nice letters explaining I was such a good customer so my limit was being extended. They were the ones that offered me credit cards and overdrafts without asking me for any kind of details on my earnings. They are also the ones who over the last 10 - 15 years have charged me extortiant interest charges on my minimum payments. So even though I've declared bankruptcy recently and written these debts off I believe the creditors have already had their fair share out of me.

PippaGirl_2

That to me is like blaming Asda/Sainsburys/Morrisons/Tesco for selling Chocolate/cakes/crisps and making you fat.

mildred1978

Oldzskool wrote: »

As for my creditors they can whistle for their cash as far as I'm concerned. I have no sympathy for them as they are as culpable in this as I am. They were the ones that kept sending me nice letters explaining I was such a good customer so my limit was being extended. They were the ones that offered me credit cards and overdrafts without asking me for any kind of details on my earnings. They are also the ones who over the last 10 - 15 years have charged me extortiant interest charges on my minimum payments. So even though I've declared bankruptcy recently and written these debts off I believe the creditors have already had their fair share out of me.

And presumably they forced you to use all that credit too. :doh:

I've got more than £100ks credit available to me at this point in time. Have I rushed out to buy an Aston Martin or am I wise enough to know that I don't have to spend it?