How much excess before you're IPA'd?

Praxis99

You clearly appear somewhat affronted that I have chosen to avoid an IPA.

I made a hard choice to go Br but having done so now intend to use it as an opportunity to start my financial life again. So yes I turned down a full time job to avoid an IPA since I'll need every penny to get back on the financial straight and narrow. And no I have no moral qualms about this, no one will be committing suicide at Yorkshire Bank or Amex or the other corporate entities that I owed money too because of my BR.

I bent over backwards to avoid Br but in the end it was the best choice for me. Been in debt drove me to the very edge - including at one point trying a belt around my neck for size! - and that's not a place I plan to go back too.

Please don't respond to this post since I don't want it to skew this thread any more than it has been, we have had too much of that already. I now know your view and you know mine.

Oldernotwiser

ImStillAlive wrote: »

Well you would being the saint you are.

Wow!! Where did that come from?

I was just in the process of quoting Martin's introduction to this board as it seems to be relevant here.

"If you feel it’s important to point something out that the poster may find negative but needs to understand, then it's not a problem, but do think carefully about your phrasing - people can be very sensitive"

Or perhaps you think that sensitivity is only supposed to be applied to people you agree with?

Oldernotwiser

Praxis, I don't think that anyone was jumping down your throat; I certainly wasn't. I am genuinely puzzled though as to how you would be worst off by working full time. Surely, even if you were paying back a chunk as an IPA you'd be better off overall?

tigerfeet2006

Come on guys Praxis has asked that we leave this now.

As has been pointed out this particular board is for help and support not discussion of the rights ans wrongs there is a board particularly for that

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=57

Sorry Praxis hope you are ok.

ImStillAlive

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

[

Wow!! Where did that come from?

I was just in the process of quoting Martin's introduction to this board as it seems to be relevant here.

"If you feel it’s important to point something out that the poster may find negative but needs to understand, then it's not a problem, but do think carefully about your phrasing - people can be very sensitive"

Or perhaps you think that sensitivity is only supposed to be applied to people you agree with?

Well every one else from other areas of the forum seems to ignore martins introduction by making judgements, and then jumping to a conclusion about a bankrupt, then passing there opinion valid or not so why should it not work both ways?

Richard_S

Oldernotwiser,

I do believe Martin's Post revolved around judgement, but that can be a little difficult to quantify, so let's stick to facts.

99.99% of people who go bankrupt don't owe small traders anything, and I can't imagine you or anybody else knows of a chief exec of a bank committing suicide because of somebody's bankruptcy.

If what Consultant31 says is true, then I have every sympathy with someone who was driven to make the ultimate sacrifice, and I acknowledge that a very small %age of bankruptcies are a form of deception, rather than the only solution for somebody facing crippling debts.

If the person that Consultant31 knew had been prepared to accept that bankruptcy wasn't the end of the world then he/she may not have killed him/herself.

Doesn't that justify what we try to do here? That person wouldn't have committed suicide if the debt had been insignificant. We're just trying to offer support and advice to people who're facing financial ruin. Maybe the person in question could have been saved if they'd known where to look for support.

Richard

Richard_S

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Praxis, I don't think that anyone was jumping down your throat; I certainly wasn't. I am genuinely puzzled though as to how you would be worst off by working full time. Surely, even if you were paying back a chunk as an IPA you'd be better off overall?

Onw,

Do the sums.

You lose between 50%-70% of your disposable income for three years if you have to pay an IPA. Wait until you're discharged and you pay nothing; surely you don't need me to spell that out for you.

And more importantly in terms of your first post; virtually none of that ends up being paid to creditors, it's merely swallowed in the O.R's costs.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You really haven't got a cogent argument here.:p

Richard

Oldernotwiser

Richard most of your post should be addressed to LondonDiva as s/he made the point about creditors committing suicide.

As far as sums go, you've still lost me. Surely if you earn another £150 per week,say,and have to pay £105 (70%)of that as an IPA then you're still £45 better off? If you could manage not to be too sarcastic, please tell me where my understanding's faulty.(I mean that quite genuinely).

ImStillAlive

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Richard most of your post should be addressed to LondonDiva as s/he made the point about creditors committing suicide.

As far as sums go, you've still lost me. Surely if you earn another £150 per week,say,and have to pay £105 (70%)of that as an IPA then you're still £45 better off? If you could manage not to be too sarcastic, please tell me where my understanding's faulty.(I mean that quite genuinely).

£45 per month for three years vs worse off for 1 year then keepin all the £150 there after if you wait till dicharge, whats confusing about that

consultant31

ImStillAlive wrote: »

Correct..........

Nevertheless, everyone is entitled to an opinion and as I didn't expect my question to be welcomed, I'll not ask any more.

Thank you for your warm welcome:)