Irish bankruptcy in the UK is just ripping the rest of us off

[ajapale]

To get back to the substantive issue.

Who looses if significant numbers of people avail of the UK bankrupcy route?

DB74 proposes that "the rest of us" loose but I wonder can we be more explicit as to the loosers in this scenario.

Gervan suggests that small suppliers / traders will loose in a domino effect debt spiral.

 

[callybags]

To get back to the substantive issue.

Who looses if significant numbers of people avail of the UK bankrupcy route?

DB74 proposes that "the rest of us" loose but I wonder can we be more explicit as to the loosers in this scenario.

I would have thought it would depend on who the creditors of the bankrupt were...

Banks- we all pay
Revenue- we all pay
Suppliers of a sole trader- they will pay initially but as Gervan said there will be a knock on effect if people are let go as a result.

Seems in all cases it comes back on the taxpayers.

The results are the same if the person goes bankrupt here.

 

[DB74]

The results are the same if the person goes bankrupt here.

My main issue is the 12 months as opposed to the actual bankruptcy.

I just feel that 12 months is too short and therefore too much of an easy option for people, in some circumstances.

I would prefer to see a 4-5 year discharge period.

 

[ajapale]

The results are the same if the person goes bankrupt here.

If the results are the same whether here or the UK then why have discussion?

The pupose of this thread is to explore who looses out if significant numbers choose the UK bankrupcy route over the ROI bankrupcy route.

 

[Sunny]

My main issue is the 12 months as opposed to the actual bankruptcy.

I just feel that 12 months is too short and therefore too much of an easy option for people, in some circumstances.

I would prefer to see a 4-5 year discharge period.

Why? If people are seriously bankrupt, making them live in misery for 4-5 years before giving them the chance to start again instead of 12 months just seems vindictive to me. People who commit serious crimes are forgiven quicker.

There is very little if any evidence to show that having a longer bankruptcy period increases recovery value for creditors. There is also little evidence that having shorter bankruptcy periods encourages people to run up huge debts and then just declare themselves bankrupt. The UK saw an increase when they changed the law initially but there was no tsunami of people running to court. Indeed, under UK law a person can be held responsible for up to 15 years if they are deemed culpable for their own insolvency. Also peoples credit record remains damaged for 6 years (?).

So why do you want to make people wait 4-5 years? What do you think it achieves?

 

[DB74]

There is very little if any evidence to show that having a longer bankruptcy period increases recovery value for creditors. There is also little evidence that having shorter bankruptcy periods encourages people to run up huge debts and then just declare themselves bankrupt. Indeed, under UK law a person can be held responsible for up to 15 years if they are deemed culpable for their own insolvency. Also peoples credit record remains damaged for 6 years (?).

So why do you want to make people wait 4-5 years? What do you think it achieves?

Why bother with a bankruptcy period at all then? Why not 6 months, or 3 months, or 1 month. Why not just declare yourself bankrupt on a Friday and start applying for credit again on the Monday.

People who commit serious crimes are forgiven quicker.

I am well on record as despairing over this issue

 

[Sunny]

Why bother with a bankruptcy period at all then? Why not 6 months, or 3 months, or 1 month. Why not just declare yourself bankrupt on a Friday and start applying for credit again on the Monday.

Because it takes time to get peoples affairs in order and for the Court to ensure that people are paying the maximum that they can afford.

 

[ajapale]

Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?

Irish based solicitors and accountants?
Irish base insolvency practioners?

 

[DB74]

Because it takes time to get peoples affairs in order and for the Court to ensure that people are paying the maximum that they can afford.

Debts are written off in a bankruptcy - there is no anything to pay, let alone establishing a maximum

[broken link removed]

 

[Sunny]

Debts are written off in a bankruptcy - there is no anything to pay, let alone establishing a maximum

[broken link removed]

Debts are only written off AFTER the bankruptcy process.

 

[Sunny]

Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?

Irish based solicitors and accountants?
Irish base insolvency practioners?

Well I am sure they would love the business but because personal bankruptcy is so rare in Ireland, these guys probably don't care as it wouldn't be a major business for them.

 

[DB74]

Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?

Irish based solicitors and accountants?
Irish base insolvency practioners?

The Irish taxpayer is losing out

 

[Time]

They would lose either way.

Also you won't get credit for a long time after a bankruptcy ends.

 

[orka]

Ill ask the question again. Who looses out if many people take the UK bankrupcy route as against going through the Irish route?

Irish based solicitors and accountants?
Irish base insolvency practioners?

I think this is the main issue for this thread and I think the answer is that on an individual basis, one person going bankrupt here vs going bankrupt in the UK has no impact on anyone (except as pointed out, bankruptcy service providers etc.) - creditors lose out to the same extent either way.
However, I think the big issue is will there be more bankruptcies if it is made relatively easier. There was another thread where the guy said he could afford to pay his bills but had no quality of life - does that deserve bankruptcy? Who defines quality of life? Does it include holidays, sky tv, newish cars etc?
I can understand the real attraction of going to the UK, ditching the negative equity and the loans and starting fresh on a cash basis (better to live day to day with all your income even if you can't get credit for a long time - than eking out an existence on what is left from your income after paying bills) - but is it becoming too attractive an option? I know the loudest view on here seems to be that bankruptcy is a last resort and will save people from utter despair - and that's probably true - but if it becomes too easy and loses its stigma (I can see it almost being a badge of honour - I did what those nasty banks did - shafted the lot of them haha) then I think there will be undeserved bankruptcies where the person could probably manage to honour the debts they signed up to but would rather not.

 

[Sunny]

However, I think the big issue is will there be more bankruptcies if it is made relatively easier. There was another thread where the guy said he could afford to pay his bills but had no quality of life - does that deserve bankruptcy? Who defines quality of life? Does it include holidays, sky tv, newish cars etc?
.

That's not an argument because he would not be allowed become bankrupt here or in the UK if he was able to pay his bills.

 

[DB74]

Debts are only written off AFTER the bankruptcy process.

They would lose either way.

Also you won't get credit for a long time after a bankruptcy ends.

OK I'm confused here then

Either a bankrupt pays a portion of debt after the court hearing or they don't. Either the creditors receive an extra 11 years payment under the Irish syatem or they don't

Which is it?

 

[DB74]

That's not an argument because he would not be allowed become bankrupt here or in the UK if he was able to pay his bills.

The bottom line is that if you make something easier then more people will avail of it. I don't think you can argue with that (or maybe you can!).

If you have 10 people and 1 goes bankrupt then 9 people have to take up that slack. Make the process easier and 3 people avail of the process. Now you have 7 people taking up the slack.

 

[Sunny]

The bottom line is that if you make something easier then more people will avail of it. I don't think you can argue with that (or maybe you can!).

If you have 10 people and 1 goes bankrupt then 9 people have to take up that slack. Make the process easier and 3 people avail of the process. Now you have 7 people taking up the slack.

What slack?

Read up on bankruptcy here and in the UK and come back to show me where I can become bankrupt if I simply decide I can't be bothered paying my bills anymore.

 

[DB74]

What slack?

Read up on bankruptcy here and in the UK and come back to show me where I can become bankrupt if I simply decide I can't be bothered paying my bills anymore.

Read my posts and come back and show me where I said any such thing, or even implied it

 

[Sunny]

Read my posts and come back and show me where I said any such thing, or even implied it

You are talking about if you make bankruptcy easier, more people will avail of it like it is a lifestyle choice. It's not. You are either bankrupt or you are not. The question is how long to we punish people for it and how hard do we make it for them to start over again.