Under normal circumstances I think that those that can't pay through negligence of money management would simply be made bankrupt, giving up their assets alongs the way.
I suspect in our cases it won't be quite such an 'easy' get out. Given the amounts owed I doubt Hector will be willing to write it off, particularly if they can make an attachment of earnings for example and take back as much as possible over a period of time. From what I read they limit the time you can pay back within, and of course during this time they will add interest and surcharges - think I saw someone say they can charge 3 x 5%.
I don't think I they'll have a blanket approach. It will depend on assets and earning capacity I would guess. I have no house, no cash, but charge a decent rate in he finance industry in a job I'm doing well in that will go on for at least another year - maybe longer.
I haven't been errant with my money or mismanaged it. I have virtually no credit at all. I don't owe anyone any money. My crime is legal tax planning. So it would harsh to bankrupt me and assign an irreversible stigma that will kill my earnings capacity.
Given the retro nature - part of this bill may be a sweetener that will promise not to bankrupt. I'd imagine it would come with some suffocating pay back earnings attachment.
They would get more back that way. You save your credit status. Your future career is unaffected.
Or they could do both, tie you up in chains for a payback period determined by them to only bankrupt you midway should you fail deliver or even at their whim should they have a policy direction change.
One things is for certain, they want their pound of flesh. They've got the same decision to make as Shylock. And I just can't see them giving people an easy way out.
I suspect in our cases it won't be quite such an 'easy' get out. Given the amounts owed I doubt Hector will be willing to write it off, particularly if they can make an attachment of earnings for example and take back as much as possible over a period of time. From what I read they limit the time you can pay back within, and of course during this time they will add interest and surcharges - think I saw someone say they can charge 3 x 5%.
I don't think I they'll have a blanket approach. It will depend on assets and earning capacity I would guess. I have no house, no cash, but charge a decent rate in he finance industry in a job I'm doing well in that will go on for at least another year - maybe longer.
I haven't been errant with my money or mismanaged it. I have virtually no credit at all. I don't owe anyone any money. My crime is legal tax planning. So it would harsh to bankrupt me and assign an irreversible stigma that will kill my earnings capacity.
Given the retro nature - part of this bill may be a sweetener that will promise not to bankrupt. I'd imagine it would come with some suffocating pay back earnings attachment.
They would get more back that way. You save your credit status. Your future career is unaffected.
Or they could do both, tie you up in chains for a payback period determined by them to only bankrupt you midway should you fail deliver or even at their whim should they have a policy direction change.
One things is for certain, they want their pound of flesh. They've got the same decision to make as Shylock. And I just can't see them giving people an easy way out.
Comment