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.
The results are the same if the person goes bankrupt here.
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.
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?
People who commit serious crimes are forgiven quicker.
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.
Debts are written off in a bankruptcy - there is no anything to pay, let alone establishing a maximum
[broken link removed]
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?
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.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?
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?
.
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.
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?