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

Oldzskool

They wouldn't have offered me the credit if they didnt want me to spend it. To a creditor you're useles if you don't spend the money or you pay the balance off every month, they make no money out of you. They want you in debt and they want you to pay only the minimum amount each month which is then all swallowed up in interest charges with very little going towards the debt itself.

Its a vicious circle and they play a huge part in creating it. Yes I'm guilty of spending beyond my means but circumstances dictated my spending, I didn't just treat myself to a high living lifestyle. Had the companies that gave me the credit asked for some simple details about my income or level of existing debt then maybe they would've decided against allowing me and others all that credit.

I believe that all these upaid debts are written of in tax so they don't really lose out that badly from average small debtors such as myself.

mildred1978

Oldzskool wrote: »

They wouldn't have offered me the credit if they didnt want me to spend it. To a creditor you're useles if you don't spend the money or you pay the balance off every month, they make no money out of you. They want you in debt and they want you to pay only the minimum amount each month which is then all swallowed up in interest charges with very little going towards the debt itself.

Its a vicious circle and they play a huge part in creating it. Yes I'm guilty of spending beyond my means but circumstances dictated my spending, I didn't just treat myself to a high living lifestyle. Had the companies that gave me the credit asked for some simple details about my income or level of existing debt then maybe they would've decided against allowing me and others all that credit.

I believe that all these upaid debts are written of in tax so they don't really lose out that badly from average small debtors such as myself.

To turn that on its head, if you really needed the money to live, how would you have coped had they not extended your credit?

Oldzskool wrote: »

I know this may sound like I'm trying to cop out of my debts and if I'm honest I probably am a little guilty of this. However I think it makes sense for me to go bankrupt as if I have to pay back my debts through an IVA it'll be for 5 years whereas in bankruptcy and an IPA it'll be for 3 years with the sum being flexible when/if my position changes which is not so for an IVA. I am also on a relatively low income and feel there is a good possibility I would not qualify for an IPA to be imposed on me.

mysterio_2

and meanwhile back in the real world :cool:

debtinfo

I think it's safe tiny say that that were all not going to agree on this one as whether you should work or not is a matter of opinion and conscience rather than fact or rules

Lou67

Oldzskool wrote: »

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.

I'm with you all the way and well said! :T

For the first year after bankruptcy, my husband and I had no intention of earning any extra income outside of what was on our income and expenditure form we did for the OR, as there was no WAY we were being saddled with a IPA. We went bankrupt, and the debt is gone as far as I am concerned. IMO there should be no such thing as an IPA... at least not if it's your first time of going bankrupt.

When we went to the C.A.B. they helped us to do our income and expenditure form, and they specifically told us to make SURE we had no surplus income as we would be liable for an IPA. IMO, it's disgraceful that they take every last penny of any 'surplus' you have. You're trying to make a fresh start and you're lumbered with an IPA for 3 years! Ridiculous! Who decides what is 'surplus' anyway? You never know what you might need the money for at a later date in the 3 years of the IPA.

And I agree that the banks and other financial institution make/have made enough money from people over the years, and they have creamed off billions in ripping people off, and ripping companies off and all sorts; so I agree, they can go whistle. They don't have any conscience, so why should I have any? Especially as approx 65% of mine and my husband's debt was cleared with our house sale anyway.

Also we paid our dues for 30 years and worked since we left school, and never took a PENNY in benefits for all that time, AND we had a brilliant credit record for all that time too, until ill health and unemployment came along and changed everything.

The opportunity to go bankrupt is there, and we took it. People who have a stick up their nose about it, can stew in their bitter juices while we sit here comfortable and happy with NO debt, and NO IPA!!!

Mouse1812

Lou67 wrote: »

Who decides what is 'surplus' anyway?

That of course is the nub of the problem and I suspect the real reason for the objection to IPAs expressed by some above.

I can see both sides of this debate, and can agree with both sets of sentiments. I don’t object in principle to the idea of making a contribution, I do however object to prolonging financial hardship.

The fear of hardship for three years, because of a third party’s opinion on what is and what is not reasonable, is a powerful motivator for those who can avoid to do so.

If the powers that be devoted more time to considering the motivating effect of rules and regulations then they would be drafted somewhat differently. It’s no different with taxation; make the rates too high and some people will stop working, some will go elsewhere and some will fiddle even more.

Taking 100% of a surplus is a demotivational. That is counterproductive and, as can be seen here, polarises opinions. Add to that the risk of prolonging financial hardship and you risk incurring the wrath of those who already feel wronged.

kepar

Lou67 wrote: »

I'm with you all the way and well said! :T

For the first year after bankruptcy, my husband and I had no intention of earning any extra income outside of what was on our income and expenditure form we did for the OR, as there was no WAY we were being saddled with a IPA. We went bankrupt, and the debt is gone as far as I am concerned. IMO there should be no such thing as an IPA... at least not if it's your first time of going bankrupt.

When we went to the C.A.B. they helped us to do our income and expenditure form, and they specifically told us to make SURE we had no surplus income as we would be liable for an IPA. IMO, it's disgraceful that they take every last penny of any 'surplus' you have. You're trying to make a fresh start and you're lumbered with an IPA for 3 years! Ridiculous! Who decides what is 'surplus' anyway? You never know what you might need the money for at a later date in the 3 years of the IPA.

And I agree that the banks and other financial institution make/have made enough money from people over the years, and they have creamed off billions in ripping people off, and ripping companies off and all sorts; so I agree, they can go whistle. They don't have any conscience, so why should I have any? Especially as approx 65% of mine and my husband's debt was cleared with our house sale anyway.

Also we paid our dues for 30 years and worked since we left school, and never took a PENNY in benefits for all that time, AND we had a brilliant credit record for all that time too, until ill health and unemployment came along and changed everything.

The opportunity to go bankrupt is there, and we took it. People who have a stick up their nose about it, can stew in their bitter juices while we sit here comfortable and happy with NO debt, and NO IPA!!!

Why not make bankruptcy even better, you go bankrupt one day and get discharged the next.

You are OK you didn't get an IPA because you didn't want to pay anything back, but because of your mentality of I am all right jack. those going br in future years may not have it so easy. If no IPA's are given how is the service going to run?

I believe everyone should get a 3yr IPA from the moment you go br, and if when you have a surplus you start paying then.

mildred1978

Lou67 wrote: »

And I agree that the banks and other financial institution make/have made enough money from people over the years, and they have creamed off billions in ripping people off, and ripping companies off and all sorts; so I agree, they can go whistle. They don't have any conscience, so why should I have any? Especially as approx 65% of mine and my husband's debt was cleared with our house sale anyway.

And those who go bankrupt to avoid paying small businesses who were relying on their customers paying to be able to feed their families?

mildred1978

Lou67 wrote: »

Also we paid our dues for 30 years and worked since we left school, and never took a PENNY in benefits for all that time, AND we had a brilliant credit record for all that time too, until ill health and unemployment came along and changed everything.

You have a 17 year old daughter. You're trying to tell me you never claimed child benefit for her?

1step-at-a-time

I'd happily pay back in an IPA, however my income at present will mean one won't be put in place most likely. I certainly wouldn't refuse a better paid job or career advancement in order to avoid one as would look at it long term. Yes it may mean 3 years of paying into the IPA, but it would also mean further future stability due to having a better and higher paid job plus in the current market any career advancement and job offer should be fully considered in my opinion. One of my issues with bankruptcy is feeling ashamed that I have shirked my responsibilities on my loans and credit cards by no longer being in a position to repay them. This is due to multiple changes in circumstances beyond my control, but that still doesn't take away the fact that for me I would rather have been able to repay than not.

I fully agree however that 100% of all earnings above the necessary expenditure will cause many to avoid progression or job hunting for twelve months and I can understand why some would choose this option. It does seem as though the IS haven't fully thought out the consequences of imposing this and I do wonder if in time as a previous poster mentions a 0 IPA will be set up with all BRs to prevent people from making this choice (or as the case may be forcing them into 3 years of avoiding higher income instead of 1).