Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can I go Bankrupt

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Gosub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭Gosub


    listermint wrote: »
    You said you were working in Sweden.....


    Sell the houses, and pay off your balance.


    Its not my fault your flagrant choices came back to bite you. I doubt you actually qualify for bankruptcy. Id be surprised if you do.
    ...Also that one of the houses was rented. So, at least two sources of income.


  • Options
    #33
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    srsly78 wrote: »
    Unemployed does not mean he has no money. The guy has a property portfolio ffs, and the dole in sweden is a % of your previous salary!

    That's true. And he is willing to surrender these properties and go down the bankruptcy route that's fine.
    This guy is not like the Kelly's. he doesn't want to hold onto the properties but not pay the loan on them.
    He wants to surrender them and serve his time being bankrupt.
    EU law allows him to do this in any jurisdiction of his choice, once he is ordinarily resident there.
    I don't agree with the EU making rules to this extent for member states, but if I can use them to my advantage I will.


  • Options
    #34
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    djimi wrote: »
    People are getting screwed at the moment and are going to complain about it. Personally my disposable income is being reduced time and again to pay for mistakes that I did not make. Im sorry for the OP, and it was not my intention to weigh in and have a go at the OP personally, but its not hard to understand why people in this country are showing little sympathy at the moment.

    I'm like you income is way down on what it was 3-4 years ago. I feel frustrated that it is taking so long for us as a people to get our act together on all of this. I am also of the opinion that IF the government had not nationalised the banks, then people would be more sympathetic to peoples plight. I'm not talking about people who went out and bought 3 and more houses. They should have known better. The point should be made that if people did not buy their own home then as it currently stands the tax payer is responsible for housing them. This costs money too.


  • Options
    #35
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'm like you income is way down on what it was 3-4 years ago. I feel frustrated that it is taking so long for us as a people to get our act together on all of this. I am also of the opinion that IF the government had not nationalised the banks, then people would be more sympathetic to peoples plight. I'm not talking about people who went out and bought 3 and more houses. They should have known better. The point should be made that if people did not buy their own home then as it currently stands the tax payer is responsible for housing them. This costs money too.

    If people don't own there own home the tax payer is not responsible for housing them.
    There is such a thing as renting.


  • Options
    #36
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Scortho wrote: »
    If people don't own there own home the tax payer is not responsible for housing them.
    There is such a thing as renting.

    If that were the case we wouldn't have social housing or rent supplement.

    And who provides the properties for people to rent? The same called "property barons" people slag off when it comes to the property bubble collapse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    If that were the case we wouldn't have social housing or rent supplement.

    And who provides the properties for people to rent? The same called "property barons" people slag off when it comes to the property bubble collapse.

    Rent supplement and social housing is for people who can't afford to buy or rent privately.

    Investors invest in property to rent out to the market. If the investment, like any other investment failed, they are left to bare the costs of the failed investment. If the investment came from their own cash, they bare the cost.
    If the money for the investment was borrowed, and the investment collapses, the bank reposses the asset/s that were used as security.
    If after realising the assets and debt is still owing the investor has two option. Pay or don't pay. If they don't pay judgements can be made against them to force payment or they can go bankrupt if they don't have the means to pay whatever is outstanding back.

    I don't slag off any investor. You make a bet that x is going to do what you thing x is going to do.
    If x doesn't do this, you bare the costs of it. You don't go cribbing and moaning to the tax payer for a write-down etc. to allow you to continue live your little life of luxury. You take the hit.
    If taking the hit involves going bankrupt, then so be it.

    I have no problem whatsoever with a person going bankrupt. Where I have a problem is a person who can't payback there debts, yet wants to keep ownership of the asset against which the debts were borrowed at the expense of someone else.


  • Options
    #38
    Lantus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭Lantus


    The only reason the Irish tax payer is being burdened in SOME cases (not all as it depends on the bank, many have no link to government) is becasue we yet again left the decision making to a group of people who demonstrated complete incompetence in letting a major economy fail. It was these elected officials who wrote a blank cheque against all banks and specific banks pumping billions into them because they have not been educated to a level where they are able to understand the ramifactions of what they are doing and the implications on people and the economy for the next 20 to 30 years.

    Ultimatley their pensions are written in gold so what incentive do they have to get it right?

    These posts just seem to show how the monetary system is making enemies out of everyone. Creating 'bad people' and 'honourable people' depending on whether they feel they should be burdened with unsustainable debt for the rest of their lives or try and do something about it. Its sad to see people attack one another so easily and often with a great deal of anger.

    Division and in fighting only benefits the upper echelons. Makes the people easy to control as one group can be set against another on superficial matters while the root causes are totally avoided to most politicians advantage.

    Money is making fools of us all.


  • Options
    #39
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    MagnusDamm wrote: »
    Hi there,

    I left Ireland 2 years ago due to work committments. I left 2 houses behind me as I couldnt sell due to negative equity. One I currently rent, the other is lying idle.

    I stopped paying this mortgage 2 months ago and will no longer service it. Its become just too much of a burden when I am unemployed with no chance of getting a job in the near future. I see on sites like Askaboutmoney the huge number of people inquiring about the possibility of going bankrupt in Northern Ireland and England etc.

    It has me thinking about perhaps I could do the same in Sweden. Do you know what grounds you need to satisify for bankruptancy? Do I need to be broke? Unemployed for long?

    Any advice appreciated.
    The important thing to remember here is that, as we were told by David Hall and loads of people who want debt-sharing, moral hazard is a myth. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #40
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    OP if this thread teaches you anything its that your better off in Sweden. This country has lost any resemblance of sympathy if it ever had it.
    Sympathy? Less money will be available for Irish hospitals and schools and roads because of people like the OP who tried to set up little property empires and are going bust. And people buying multiple properties drove prices up for everyone else.

    I'll save my sympathy for the real victims of this, the Irish children whose prospects will be blighted for the rest of their lives due to second-rate education, and the people who will die because of health cuts and dodgy roads.

    It's amazing how if some people don't see the 'victim' jumping up and down in front of them, they think there's no victim at all.


  • Options
    #41
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Because of people like Ben Dunne (he of a certain Fame in Florida) bankruptcy is seen as a cure all. Not all people can go down the bankruptcy route. First you must owe more than a certain amount, second you must not be able to pay your debts as they fall due and third there must be a bankruptcy event. A person claiming bankruptcy can be that event.

    Once in bankruptcy a person may have all their property sold including personal belongings, you may keep certain possessions necessary for living and also trade. A person can not obtain credit above a certain amount and the court official appointed will go through your personal spending. Then after 1 3 5 or more years depending a person will be discharged from bankruptcy. But will be required to constantly declare same. Many professions will not allow a bankrupt practice.

    If the OP or any other person want to go through this process in Ireland the UK or Sweeden they will only be allowed if they are in fact bankrupt. Simples. While it can be seen as a simple quick way out any person considering should take stock like many things that seem easy it may and more than likely bite them in the ass. Try and explain to your partner in 10 years time that the reason ye can't buy that lovely house is because you are a bankrupt in the past.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    MagnusDamm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 69 ✭✭MagnusDamm


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    Sympathy? Less money will be available for Irish hospitals and schools and roads because of people like the OP who tried to set up little property empires and are going bust. And people buying multiple properties drove prices up for everyone else.

    I'll save my sympathy for the real victims of this, the Irish children whose prospects will be blighted for the rest of their lives due to second-rate education, and the people who will die because of health cuts and dodgy roads.

    It's amazing how if some people don't see the 'victim' jumping up and down in front of them, they think there's no victim at all.

    The real victims of this? If they are not happy with whats left for them they can always leave and find a better place. I had to!


  • Options
    #43
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    MagnusDamm wrote: »
    The real victims of this? If they are not happy with whats left for them they can always leave and find a better place. I had to!
    Yeah, those who die directly and indirectly because of spending cuts should definitely move. Them and the children, all off to Sweden. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #44
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    The important thing to remember here is that, as we were told by David Hall and loads of people who want debt-sharing, moral hazard is a myth. :rolleyes:

    He isn't looking for what David hall is looking for. David hall wants people to get a write-down at the tax payers expense and remain in their homes, while their next door neighbour continues to pay his mortgage in full.

    The op wants to go bankrupt, loose his assets and pay the price for foolish and reckless investments by being declared bankrupt.

    If the law allows him to be declared bankrupt outside this jurisdiction then there should be no issue with it.

    The whole idea of debt forgiveness came as a result of the bank having to set aside losses on mortgages. People then saw oh the banks have set aside money for this, I want my debt reduced but continue living in there. In reality what should happen if someone is unable to pay their mortgage for x no. Of months, then the house should be repossessed and if there is an amount of the loan outstanding a settlement made on that figure. If the person wants to pay it off they should be allowed do this. If they want to go bankrupt they equally should be allowed do this.


  • Options
    #45
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭stoneill


    MagnusDamm wrote: »
    Why would I want to do that? I dont want committments in Ireland anymore. I'm gone for good.

    Unfortunately even if you don't want commitments, you do have responsibilities.

    Sell the houses, and then come to an arrangement with your bank to pay off the rest of your outstanding loan.


  • Options
    #46
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Scortho wrote: »
    He isn't looking for what David hall is looking for. David hall wants people to get a write-down at the tax payers expense and remain in their homes, while their next door neighbour continues to pay his mortgage in full.
    I'm aware of that - but it's still an example of the moral hazard that we were told would not be a problem. If he was still working in Sweden would he be living up to his commitments? From the tone of the posts, I don't think so for one second. He feels he can walk away and leave everyone else to pay his debts for him.


  • Options
    #47
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    I'm aware of that - but it's still an example of the moral hazard that we were told would not be a problem. If he was still working in Sweden would he be living up to his commitments? From the tone of the posts, I don't think so for one second. He feels he can walk away and leave everyone else to pay his debts for him.

    He can't just say "oh I'm bankrupt". He has to be adjudged bankrupt by a bankruptcy court.
    If they decide that he's not bankrupt well then he'll be further out of pocket.

    I'm all for moral hazard. Bankruptcy is a punishment with serious consequences. It's not a get out if jail free card.

    If you were in the situation where you were unable to meet your liabilities and you had the option of going bankrupt in Ireland or the uk, which one would you choose?
    I know I'd be choosing the uk.


  • Options
    #48
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    OP- and to be honest I'm not even sure why I'm spelling this out......

    Swedish bankruptcy (Konkurs) is rarely applied for by an individual.
    A receiver would be appointed to all your assets, Swedish and otherwise, and they would be disposed of. Any remaining debt remaining after all assets were sold- remains with the individual and *is not written off*

    Once the receiver has paid off any debts that can be satisfied from the disposal of your assets, you enter a 'skuldsanering' with her- aka you sit down with her and she details all your income and draws up a schedule for you to pay down the remaining debt. The term of the skuldsanering is for 5 years. You have strictures imposed on you for this term. At the elapse of the 5 year period, any further outstanding debt that you did not manage to pay down in that period, is written off.

    You need to talk to someone familiar with Swedish bankruptcy law, in particular the 2006 amendments.

    The recent Irish personal proposals are based on the Swedish Skuldsanering principles, and are actually detailed in Oireachtas minutes (or you could just google it or even better still, pony up for a solicitor who can give you appropriate advice.)


  • Options
    #49
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Scortho wrote: »
    He can't just say "oh I'm bankrupt". He has to be adjudged bankrupt by a bankruptcy court.
    If they decide that he's not bankrupt well then he'll be further out of pocket.

    I'm all for moral hazard. Bankruptcy is a punishment with serious consequences. It's not a get out if jail free card.

    If you were in the situation where you were unable to meet your liabilities and you had the option of going bankrupt in Ireland or the uk, which one would you choose?
    I know I'd be choosing the uk.

    Bankruptcy needs to be as harsh as possible so that people are punished for getting themselves into that mess in the first place


  • Options
    #50
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    MagnusDamm wrote: »
    Why would I want to do that? I dont want committments in Ireland anymore. I'm gone for good.

    Part of me thinks this reminds me of someone recently who had gone, possibly a couple of times, to Australia and left their two houses.

    Assuming this is real...
    I would like to thank the OP for not alone deciding to say goodbye to Ireland, but for their consideration in leaving as a parting give to my family their debts. :rolleyes:
    MagnusDamm wrote: »
    No ones looking for sympathy dude. Advice would be nice but it appears you can't/wont so don't reply anymore with your smarty pant comments.

    No you are looking to dump the debts YOU accrued on the rest of the people who still live here whilst you try and make a new life for yourself in Sweden.
    I must tell my Swedish based friends how lucky they are to have you now.

    No matter how you spin this what you are asking is for help on how to dump your debts on the rest of us who are left here.
    Perish the thought some of us wouldn't be happy with this.

    BTW wasn't one house good enough for you ?
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    OP if this thread teaches you anything its that your better off in Sweden. This country has lost any resemblance of sympathy if it ever had it.

    Funny the ones always looking for sympathy, solidarity, understanding, etc are the ones looking for others to fooking pay for them.

    I didn't see much solidarity and sympathy whilst things were going well.
    All I bloody saw was greed, arrogance and a dismissive behaviour towards those issuing warnings.
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'm like you income is way down on what it was 3-4 years ago. I feel frustrated that it is taking so long for us as a people to get our act together on all of this. I am also of the opinion that IF the government had not nationalised the banks, then people would be more sympathetic to peoples plight. I'm not talking about people who went out and bought 3 and more houses.

    So it was ok to buy two houses, but not three ?

    You are damm right people would view this totally differently if it wasn't the taxpayers that are meant to pick up the tab.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Options
    #51
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    jmayo wrote: »
    ]
    So it was ok to buy two houses, but not three ?
    Only peasants have one house or fewer, and only greedy people have three or more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    Only peasants have one house or fewer, and only greedy people have three or more.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4CtWb4tJBg


  • Options
    #53
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    average_runner wrote: »
    God i hate these greedy people that bought 2 houses and when it goes pear shape, wants an easy way out.

    Why is that greedy?:confused:


  • Options
    #54
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    lima wrote: »
    Bankruptcy needs to be as harsh as possible so that people are punished for getting themselves into that mess in the first place

    How harsh should it be?

    I'm all for tough bankruptcy conditions. That said If I can legally go bankrupt in another country with softer bankruptcy conditions then why wouldn't I?


  • Options
    #55
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Why is that greedy?:confused:
    It's greedy because it is done for gain. We are virtually all greedy from an economic perspective. I've no problem with greed as long as people take the downsides of their gambles as well as the upsides.


  • Options
    #56
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    It's greedy because it is done for gain. We are virtually all greedy from an economic perspective. I've no problem with greed as long as people take the downsides of their gambles as well as the upsides.

    And is bankruptcy not the ultimate downside of bad investments?
    We can't exactly hang draw and quarter them!


  • Options
    #57
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Scortho wrote: »
    And is bankruptcy not the ultimate downside of bad investments?
    We can't exactly hang draw and quarter them!
    I agree. But I can't be expected to hold bankrupts in high regard, though, can I?


  • Options
    #58
    Shedite27
    Registered Users Posts: 9,396 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    To sum up this thread...

    Can You go Bankrupt? Yes

    Will you be seen as a dick who is asking other boards members to pay for you? Yes


  • Options
    #59
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,379 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    It's greedy because it is done for gain. We are virtually all greedy from an economic perspective.

    I goto work in the morning for gain. Does that make me greedy? Alot of people bought second homes to make money. I wouldn't see that as greedy though. It is trying to improve your life.
    Businesses fail such is life. Being a landlord is a business and some (alot at the moment) are failing in their venture. It does not mean they were not right to try and make a better life for themselves.


  • Options
    #60
    Anynama141
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Anynama141


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I goto work in the morning for gain. Does that make me greedy?
    Yes, it does. Do you spend your money to get the best value you can? Then you are greedy.

    Greed isn't pejorative in economics.
    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Alot of people bought second homes to make money. I wouldn't see that as greedy though. It is trying to improve your life.
    Which is greedy. You are looking for a gain. That is greed.
    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Businesses fail such is life. Being a landlord is a business and some (alot at the moment) are failing in their venture. It does not mean they were not right to try and make a better life for themselves.
    No, but they were greedy. They took a risk, and it failed. Now let them pay.

    I greedily bought shares that lost value. If they had increased in value, I wouldn't have handed away any more of the gains than I legally had to. And the losses, similarly, I will take on the chin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Scortho
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,876 ✭✭✭Scortho


    Anynama141 wrote: »
    I agree. But I can't be expected to hold bankrupts in high regard, though, can I?

    No and you don't have too. If you don't want to do business with someone because they're a bankrupt that's fine.


Advertisement