How much excess before you're IPA'd?

Oldernotwiser

ImStillAlive wrote: »

£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

Could you translate this into English for me please?

Richard_S

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).

Hi Oldernotwiser,

I think we both got confused there because it was Consultant31 who made the point about creditors committing suicide.;)

I didn't mean to be sarcastic so apologies if it came over like that.:o

In pure monetary terms there's no arguing with what you say; why not go to work if you're going to be better of; if only marginally?

But we're all rational human beings, or should be. Who in their right mind is going to workl 30-40hrs per week for £45?

You're not being realistic; would you work for £1-£2 per hour? You really can't condemn people for not looking after their own self interest; that's what our society is based on.

Richard

Richard_S

consultant31 wrote: »

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:)

Dear consultant,

Come and sit with us in front of our warm fire and have a glass of whatever takes your fancy. There's chestnuts roasting in fron of a real fire and a bottle of the finest red breathing in the kitchen.;)

ImStillAlive

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Could you translate this into English for me please?

£1620 better of with IPA over a 3 year period, £3600 better off if you wait till discharge then increase your income over the same 3 year period, £4500 better off if you get ED after 6 months and increase your income then, useing the figure in your example

Oldernotwiser

Richard_S wrote: »

Hi Oldernotwiser,

I think we both got confused there because it was Consultant31 who made the point about creditors committing suicide.;)

I didn't mean to be sarcastic so apologies if it came over like that.:o

In pure monetary terms there's no arguing with what you say; why not go to work if you're going to be better of; if only marginally?

But we're all rational human beings, or should be. Who in their right mind is going to workl 30-40hrs per week for £45?

You're not being realistic; would you work for £1-£2 per hour? You really can't condemn people for not looking after their own self interest; that's what our society is based on.

Richard

Thanks for the explanation. I do understand what you're saying, although in my (fictitious) example I imagined that somebody was working for maybe an extra 15 hours per week which, if clearing an additional £45 is not so bad. The thing is that Praxis said "since I'll need every penny to get back on the financial straight and narrow " then I would have thought that even a comparatively small amount extra per week would have been useful. "Needing every penny" does rather imply that this is the case.

ImStillAlive

consultant31 wrote: »

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:)

While your comments where valid in certain situations, IF you had taken the time to review Praxis99 situation by reading the previous posts in other threads you would have seen that your example was not valid.

Hence my comment, you didn’t know what you where commenting on so should have kept any opinion to yourself until you took the time research what you where commenting on.

My comment to you may have caused offence but no where near as much offence as yours did to Praxis99

Oldernotwiser

ImStillAlive wrote: »

While your comments where valid in certain situations, IF you had taken the time to review Praxis99 situation by reading the previous posts in other threads you would have seen that your example was not valid.

Hence my comment, you didn’t know what you where commenting on so should have kept any opinion to yourself until you took the time research what you where commenting on.

My comment to you may have caused offence but no where near as much offence as yours did to Praxis99

Now you're being ridiculous! What on earth do you mean by suggesting that somebody can only be allowed to comment if they've trawled back over somebody's past threads. Get a life!

As for causing offence to Praxis99, the only comment I made to him/her was

"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?"

If you find that offensive then I can only suggest that you should get out more! Stop stirring up trouble.

Richard_S

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Thanks for the explanation. I do understand what you're saying, although in my (fictitious) example I imagined that somebody was working for maybe an extra 15 hours per week which, if clearing an additional £45 is not so bad. The thing is that Praxis said "since I'll need every penny to get back on the financial straight and narrow " then I would have thought that even a comparatively small amount extra per week would have been useful. "Needing every penny" does rather imply that this is the case.

That's still only £3/hr, and over a three year period it doesn't make financial sense. I'm not commenting on the moralities, just the practicalities.

There's all sorts of economic arguments at play here; the Laffer curve; poverty traps; incentivisation; motivation. I could write 1,000's of words on the subject but it's much simpler just to say; if it's not in a person's best interest, then don't expect them to do it.

And what models in public life do we see? Politicians taking back handers; not declaring all their interests and earnings; manipulating laws that they make. Huge corporations and billionaires paying little or no tax; you really can't expect the "little guy or gal" to be a beacon of light in a very dark and murky world.;)

Richard

ImStillAlive

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Now you're being ridiculous! What on earth do you mean by suggesting that somebody can only be allowed to comment if they've trawled back over somebody's past threads. Get a life!

As for causing offence to Praxis99, the only comment I made to him/her was

"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?"

If you find that offensive then I can only suggest that you should get out more! Stop stirring up trouble.

My post was addressed to consultant31 not you and if you look above i gave you a perfectly good example of how Praxis99 would be better off long term which you seem to want to egnore

Your problem is you don’t like to lose an argument as i have seen in the past

And as for causing trouble, why are you posting here on the BR board? You only seem to pop up when there is an argument to be made of something as your past appearances mainly show.

Hence my reaction to you when you joined this thread

Oldernotwiser

Richard in so many ways you are so right. However I can't help remembering my parents always telling me "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves". I never took a blind bit of notice of this advice but perhaps I wouldn't be in such deep !!!! if I had. Probably many of us wouldn't be here if we'd been prepared to see small sums of money as important.