Voluntary bankruptcy is dishonourable

Elijah Lineberry's picture
Submitted by Elijah Lineberry on Sat, 2007-11-10 20:12

In a few weeks time a new Bankruptcy law comes into effect.

Part of which is a provision for people with no assets to wipe the slate clean by voluntarily declaring bankruptcy and being discharged after 1 year.

I consider this to be an act of dishonour on the part of borrowers, and yet another example of people being able to opt out of responsibilities if it suits them.

Honourable people should pay what they owe, however long it takes and whatever challenges are required to achieve this end, rather than taking a soft option and leaving others to endure a financial loss for their mistakes in life.

I have always found it incomprehensible as to why anyone would borrow money to purchase consumer goods, or indeed, anything at all which does not generate an income to service the interest payments, and those who do go down this foolish path should be made to pay.

Needless to say most of the people using these new provisions will be poor, and another reason why I have total contempt for that demographic, and I will be interested to see how many thousands of dishonourable working class people rush to sign up.


( categories: )

be

Rick Giles's picture

If you'll confine yourself to that judgement I'll leave it be.

I

Elijah Lineberry's picture

know what you are saying about people borrowing to purchase things they cannot afford just for the sake of it...and, if chaps want to be that foolish (in terms of fees and interest payments), so be it.

What I was critical of are those who will declare bankruptcy when the consumption party is over.

Ummmm...Rick Shocked the "lower quartile of wealth holders" [sic] is a demographic.

Hate the poor

Rick Giles's picture

I have always found it incomprehensible as to why anyone would borrow money to purchase consumer goods, or indeed, anything at all which does not generate an income to service the interest payments,

I can help you there.
Even from ancient times the likes of Julius Ceaser borrowed themselves to bits to pay for games and wine and food because this would put them in contention for power.
And even the most regular suburbanite slob is under pressure to 'keep up with the Jone's' next door. For the sake of status, contradictory self-esteam and happiness, and access to a higher playing field we put ourselves in to debt. In times of cheep credit as these, we compete with one another to borrow.

Strange as it may seem, buying a new car or TV or new suit you cannot afford is comprehensible. But only within the framework of the conspcious consumption of our messed up culture.

Needless to say most of the people using these new provisions will be poor, and another reason why I have total contempt for that demographic

I hardly think being poor is an ethical indictment. Productivity and reason are factors in the moral life but I think wealth is only a variable. Besides, "the poor" is just the name for the lower quartile of wealth-holders, not a demographic. What sense does it do to have contempt for a statistical construct? You may as well hate pi.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.