To work or not to work...?

Action_Jackson

That reinforces my point about BRs already having a maligned reputaion. If all BRs were forced to slave in workhouses to pay off their debts in full, I doubt the general negative view of bankrupcy would change.


chiraq's comment about posts like the OPs giving BRs a bad name was not helpful.

alastairq

Action_Jackson wrote: »

chiraq's comment about posts like the OPs giving BRs a bad name was not helpful.

To be fair, that poster has, as far as I can ascertain, not posted before on this particular forum, so might tend to bring their self-righteous attitude towards BR to the fore?

Without realising how damaging their words can be to others?

Therefore do we not need to apply a little forbearance towards this sort of poster, languishing as they are in their ignorance and indifference?

After all, it is so easy to visualise the apparent effect of BR on others, without understanding the reality of what Bankruptcy means?

John1993_2

I'd agree with those saying that you should work. Even if you are no better off financially, it'll let you pay back more to those who you borrowed from, but importantly any wok at all serves to show future employers that you are able to hold down a job.

If you see employment only in terms of "what will that put in my hand today" then it bodes ill for your future.

Action_Jackson

John1993 wrote: »

I'd agree with those saying that you should work. Even if you are no better off financially, it'll let you pay back more to those who you borrowed from, but importantly any wok at all serves to show future employers that you are able to hold down a job.

If you see employment only in terms of "what will that put in my hand today" then it bodes ill for your future.

Much as I would like to agree with your sentiments, the reality is that when no financial benefit is gained, people tend to take the path of least resistance, and the current IPA rules encourage that.

I agree the OP should work to pay for his own reasonable living expenses; I think what's in question here is the obligation to do anything beyond that.

The old BR rules did not take all disposable income, so this left a financial incentive to do better.

This is no different to some people remaining on benefits because the financial incentives to work aren't there.

John1993_2

Action_Jackson wrote: »

This is no different to some people remaining on benefits because the financial incentives to work aren't there.

It just seems like such a stupid decision, so very short-sighted.

Sitting on benefits, waiting to be offered the job running a factory, for example, means that you'll wait forever. Just as a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, so the route to wealth and career success tends to start with a job that neither pays well nor is hugely rewarding.

How can people such as the OP not see this? Why do they keep making decisions that make the next month more pleasant, but set the following years down such a bad path?

AndyBSG

That quote is pretty much the same as saying "I have yet to find a paralysed person who's not happy to get a new wheelchair"

Sure, they're happy to get that wheelchair but not happy to be in the situation whereby they need that chair in the first place.

Action_Jackson

John1993 wrote: »

It just seems like such a stupid decision, so very short-sighted.

Sitting on benefits, waiting to be offered the job running a factory, for example, means that you'll wait forever. Just as a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, so the route to wealth and career success tends to start with a job that neither pays well nor is hugely rewarding.

How can people such as the OP not see this? Why do they keep making decisions that make the next month more pleasant, but set the following years down such a bad path?

I'm not sure that the OP can't see this, and I don't think he's work shy - In my experience, people who have run their own businesses tend not to be. He's just considering his options with the longer-term ramifications of an IPA in mind.

However, it's now turned into a, 'people should work' thread, whereas really it's a, 'should I legitimately avoid an IPA thread', which is entirely different (but still upsets some people).

DH70

So, I've been away from the forum for a bit, and can see that I've stirred up a little bit of a hornet's nest.
As it turned out that particular job didn't come to anything anyway, I was sanctioned for 6 weeks from my JSA for another reason.
My reasons for bnkrptc were my own, just like everyone elses are, my personal circumstances over the last few months are also as different as everyone elses. Nobody knows how mine, or your debts were created.
My OP was merely to get some advice on which direction I should go. To begin a job that would tie me into a 3 year IPA vs a few months until discharge, seemed to me to be utter nonsense.
There are some that believe that paying back what you owe is morally correct, however I believe that the point of bnkrptc is to enable an individual to loose the shackles. I worked hard for years and ended up with nothing.

Shortly after my OP I received a letter from OR advising I may be eligible for ED. I thought that they were phasing this out. So I had even less reason to find a job if it was a toss up between 2-3 months and 3 years, don't you think? And yesterday morning I received the letter confirming that I had been granted ED, and as if fate couldn't be on my side any more, I've been offered a job today, starting beginning Feb.

I thank all those open minded folk, who could see where I was coming from.
And for those that couldn't, don't get all high horsey. Given half the chance I'm sure you would gladly be in a position where you weren't caught up in an IPA/IPO. The morality argument is to justify that outgoing each month.

woodformoretrees

Good luck with your new job. What a great start to the new year

debt_doctor

lazer wrote: »

But if they get a job - even though it leaves them with no extra disposable income for themselves then they do at least pay more of their debts.
.

Assuming no other assets, any IPA would have to collect a minimum of £4540.00 before the creditors received anything.
This money is taken by the Insolvency service (a government agency) and the Secretary of State ( the government).


Regards working; The OP should do whatever they want to do, after considering the pro's and cons for them.


Good luck OP.


DD