Get rid of your pets to go Insolvent??

kunst nugget

Obro wrote: »

One of my neighbours who lives close by has 3 dogs. He is a Bank manager. Sure all us Joe Bloggs are paying for his dogs already due to all the banks terrible handling of affairs over the years.

I don't think he will be without his dogs !

If he lives within his means, why should he have to do without them? If he's a local bank manager he would have had no say in the corporate policy in regards to lending so I hardly think you can blame him for the current economic crisis.

Hellrazer wrote: »

They are rights that in my opinion a bank should not be able to dictate to a person. I disagree. Theres plenty of money in this country but people are unwilling to spend it because they don't know what this shower are going to tax next!

I have a pet dog and 2 kids but I'll be honest and say I have zero social life because I can't afford it at the moment. People complaining that they should be entitled to a social life or holidays when they have no money are talking through their holes imo. Pay your way first and if you have any left over go and enjoy yourself. If you've been made insolvent and you want to use whatever money they've budgeted for you to fund your social life on your dog instead then fair enough but let's face it being made insolvent is about you facing up to the enormous pile of poo you're living in and making pretty harsh adjustments to your lifestyle based on your new reality.

Mo60

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is proven having pets extends the life of the elderly and improves their lives. I am sure it is the same for everyone else. Even walking a dog decreases the chances of depression (decreases, not prevents).

I completely agree with you on this. Luckily I do not suffer from depression, but like a lot of other people there have been times in my life when I have felt very low due to certain circumstances. Having pets helped me through these times, and am sure others have found their pets can improve their lives.

Nino Brown

Mo60 wrote: »

I completely agree with you on this. Luckily I do not suffer from depression, but like a lot of other people there have been times in my life when I have felt very low due to certain circumstances. Having pets helped me through these times, and am sure others have found their pets can improve their lives.

Nobody is arguing that the dog won't help people, But I bet trips to Hawaii relieve stress and reduce the risk of heart attack. Just because something has a medical benefit doesn't give you a right to it if you can't afford it.
A pet is a luxury, simple as.

wolfpawnat

Mo60 wrote: »

I completely agree with you on this. Luckily I do not suffer from depression, but like a lot of other people there have been times in my life when I have felt very low due to certain circumstances. Having pets helped me through these times, and am sure others have found their pets can improve their lives.

My uncle is now pension age and is lost without a job, hand on my heart, without his two dogs and cats, he would actually be suicidal. As far as he is concerned they depend on him. The dogs have to be walked. He never thinks of how it positively affects him, but it does, he gets out, he talks to other owners, they keep him fit.

Mo60

Nino Brown wrote: »

A pet is a luxury, simple as.

Sorry, I do not count my pets as a luxury. They are an important part of my life.

Nino Brown

Mo60 wrote: »

Sorry, I do not count my pets as a luxury. They are an important part of my life.

Fair enough, then it's your responsibility to keep them. So if you were allocated a certain some of money for miscellaneous items, you should spend some of that on your pet since they are an important part of your life.
But the point is they are not a right. They are not something that you should be given a budget for on top of your allowance should you become insolvent. I agree that pets are a huge part of people's lives, including mine, but it's up to me to take responsibility for them, not the bank, or the public.

borderlinemeath

Nino Brown wrote: »

I had to leave my dog in my parents house, because I can't afford a place with enough room for a dog, I live in an apartment. I work full time, and make good money, but having my dog here with me doesn't make financial sense.
Meanwhile some of my taxes are keeping people in bigger places, because they have a dog?.....madness!

Are the bank really dictating what you do with your money? That's money people have promised to pay the bank, technically it could be seen as the banks money, as they're owed it.

It's this sense of entitlement that got a lot of people in these positions in the first place, sooner or later they need to come back down to earth.

A right to a pet, a right to a social life, a right to house, a right to have kids. That's a lot of rights in a country with no money. I should quit my job and get me some rights.

My taxes...My taxes...My taxes....It's like a boards mantra. Your taxes are going to a lot more wastage than people keeping dogs. When you hear about civil servant aides getting €30K overtime on top of a €40k plus salary, and he doesn't even have a desk in an office and he's the son/relative of a TD or whatever, yeah, get angry that your taxes are paying for that sort of wastage but don't deprive a family the right to keep their pets.

You've compromised with your pet, like others who have moved/emigrated but that was your choice as the best decision for you at the time. It still doesn't give the government the right to make the decision of what you can and can't spend your miniscule disposable income on.l

johnnyskeleton

bluewolf wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the dogs are family members and not something to "get rid of" any more than kids
It's not really a question of "entitlement"

What about a stable of horses or a koi pond? What if I borrowed 10k to buy purebred greyhounds and have defaulted on that 10k?

I don't think there is any real intention to take away family puppies, but the authority felt that domestic animals should not be above scrutiny. Then scandal seeking journalists instantly assume the worst.

Nino Brown

borderlinemeath wrote: »

My taxes...My taxes...My taxes....It's like a boards mantra. Your taxes are going to a lot more wastage than people keeping dogs. When you hear about civil servant aides getting €30K overtime on top of a €40k plus salary, and he doesn't even have a desk in an office and he's the son/relative of a TD or whatever, yeah, get angry that your taxes are paying for that sort of wastage but don't deprive a family the right to keep their pets.

You've compromised with your pet, like others who have moved/emigrated but that was your choice as the best decision for you at the time. It still doesn't give the government the right to make the decision of what you can and can't spend your miniscule disposable income on.l

I would like my dog here with me, if it's my right then who's going to pay for it? It's laughable what people think is a right in this country, no wonder it's in the state it's in, and it's the same people who want all these "rights" that are first in line to complain about taxes. If having a pet is a right, then everybody should get one right?
The government is not saying people can't have pets, but they are saying that choosing to spend disposable income on them is a choice, if you want to spend a bit less on something else then go right ahead. But it is a choice, and not something that warrants an extra budget.

Inexile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino Brown
A pet is a luxury, simple as.

Quote from Nino Brown " A pet is a luxury simple as.
And a quote from "A right to a pet, a right to a social life, a right to house, a right to have kids. That's a lot of rights in a country with no money. I should quit my job and get me some rights. I do wonder about these two statements"
I dont agree with it but I understand it. Certainly if I was in financial difficulty and couldnt afford a dog I would not get one but I would keep the ones I had before. though I do understand that other non pet owners may think its a luxury - I dont agree with it but I understand it.
However, if I wasn in financial difficulty would I have a child if I wanted one. Possibly not though its not always possible to delay having children until its financially the right time. And while I dont equate pets with children I do wonder what would happen if a mass of people turned up at their local health board offices wanting to hand over their children . Somehow I think the level of allowance for children in the guidelines would go up.

Nino Brown

Inexile wrote: »

Certainly if I was in financial difficulty and couldnt afford a dog I would not get one but I would keep the ones I had before..

Absolutely, so would I. But I would have to sacrifice something else to do that, If I was given an amount of disposable income, I would spend some of that on my dog for sure, rather than give him up.
But I wouldn't say I need more money, because I have a dog, its not something I can't live without, it's something I would rather not live without, (ie. a luxury)

Bullseye1

You would be absolutely crazy to go bankrupt or insolvent in this country. They are living in the Stone Age when compared to how they handle insolvency in the UK and US. 1 year of hell in the UK or 3-7 years here. It's a no brainer.

The politicians of this country have failed its people completely and have allowed the banks to dictate the insolvency bill. There is not one politician within the main political parties who care about the general public. They are only concerned about their salary, pensions and making sure their son or daughter get elected in their seat when they are ready to retire.

borderlinemeath

Nino Brown wrote: »

I would like my dog here with me, if it's my right then who's going to pay for it? It's laughable what people think is a right in this country, no wonder it's in the state it's in, and it's the same people who want all these "rights" that are first in line to complain about taxes. If having a pet is a right, then everybody should get one right?
The government is not saying people can't have pets, but they are saying that choosing to spend disposable income on them is a choice, if you want to spend a bit less on something else then go right ahead. But it is a choice, and not something that warrants an extra budget.

I never said it was a right to own a pet, it is a personal choice, just like having children is a personal choice. But it should not be up to the government or the banks to insist that if you were to qualify for insolvency that you must get rid of your pet. TV/Sports subscriptions, gym memberships, holidays absolutely but to say that you should 'get rid' of a living being that has become part of your family to enable you to start your life over is bordering on blackmail.

Feathers

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But it should not be up to the government or the banks to insist that if you were to qualify for insolvency that you must get rid of your pet. TV/Sports subscriptions, gym memberships, holidays absolutely but to say that you should 'get rid' of a living being that has become part of your family to enable you to start your life over is bordering on blackmail.

Does anyone actually have a link to the legislation, or even a decent article about it? Would be good to see what they're actually asking people to do

Maudi

Costs a few quid too for the vet to "get rid"of ones pet...are they next suggesting we "do"it ourselves to save money?

Anynama141

I love this notion that the taxpayer/society owes everyone whatever they personally think they deserve. I'm sure people love their pets, but I'm sure other people love their vintage cars or their yachts. Should they be allowed keep them when going insolvent or bankrupt?

How would you feel if you were told that you, as a supplier, were not going to be paid back a couple of grand because a guy needed it to maintain his pride and joy, his yacht/car/afghan hound?

How would you feel if you needed that money to keep a roof over your head?

I'm fine with people being allowed a small amount of money to allow for a dog or cat, but if it gets beyond - say - a tenner a week, then the money probably needs to be found somewhere else.

Feathers

From the Journal (http://www.thejournal.ie/pic-how-much-youre-allowed-to-spend-under-new-insolvency-rules-875254-Apr2013/ )

The ISI has stressed that once a debtor comes within the ‘headline’ figure – of around €11,100 a year in this case – it will not be prescriptive in terms of what a borrower can spend their money on.

That's on the basis of a single person of working age. Surely that's a decent enough living for someone seeking debt write-off? You should be able to afford pets within that amount without struggling too much.

& from the ISI website:

These guidelines are not designedto force people out of their jobs nor are they designed for the micro management of a debtor’s day to day expenditure or lifestyle by the ISI, creditors, or any other party involved in an insolvency arrangement.

Source: http://www.isi.gov.ie/en/ISI/Pages/Chartered_Accountants_Leinster_Society_Luncheon

The idea of forcing people to give up pets sounds like scare-mongering tbh, unless you currently have something widely exotic (I.e. expensive).

Irishchick

I love this notion that the taxpayer/society owes everyone whatever they personally think they deserve. I'm sure people love their pets, but I'm sure other people love their vintage cars or their yachts. Should they be allowed keep them when going insolvent or bankrupt?

Are you seriously comparing a family pet to a car? An animal is a living creature. A pet becomes a member of the family and it keeping it has nothing to do with "pride". It's love.

I know people, including myself who would give up their left arm before getting rid of a dog,cat,whatever.

desertcircus

Mo60 wrote: »

Sorry, I do not count my pets as a luxury. They are an important part of my life.

My road bike is an important part of my life; training on it keeps me fit, gets me outdoors and improves my mood. That doesn't change the fact that it's a luxury. If it's not essential, it's a luxury.

Bullseye1

You think you will be asked to sell your bike?

desertcircus

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You think you will be asked to sell your bike?

If I entered bankruptcy, I'd certainly understand if I was required to sell it.

kunst nugget

Irishchick wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing a family pet to a car? An animal is a living creature. A pet becomes a member of the family and it keeping it has nothing to do with "pride". It's love.

I know people, including myself who would give up their left arm before getting rid of a dog,cat,whatever.

And a vintage car could be someone else's pride and joy. Different people have different priorities. I think the onus would have to be on the insolvent person to rearrange their finances to keep their pet if that is what they choose to do.

borderlinemeath

I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the posters that would equate a bike or a boat to a pet. I'm at the other end of the spectrum and compare them to children. They are a living being, not a lump of metal or wood!

Curlysue76

If you can't afford to pay your debts you can't afford the "luxury" of having a pet. I hate people moaning about debt and negative equity and looking for a way out of paying your debts. Is this what we are teaching our children. Get what you want and when the time comes to pay it back just go insolvent or spend a year in the uk and go bankrupt. What happened to living within your means and saving for something you want? It's all i want, i want, i want and i want it now.

Get rid of your pets and pay of your debts, if in the future you can afford it get a one then.

flutered

this thread really explains peoples views on other peoples misfortune, on another note the biggest mistake i made in my life was to work for an accountant the second time, (not the same one).

ISDW

Curlysue76 wrote: »

Get rid of your pets and pay of your debts, if in the future you can afford it get a one then.

And then if your circumstances change again, kill them, and get another one a few years down the line. That is a fantastic message to give to children. Or how about teaching children about responsiblity instead? I live with my son in a very rural area, how much would a burglar alarm and connection to a service cost per year? I'd rather have the dogs to keep us safe thanks.

Gambas

Most of the posts here are off the wall. If someone has a pet pony that costs thousands to keep, then obviously it will come into play. Rover or the €3.50 gerbil aren't ever, ever going to come into it, despite the mad fantasies here. I don't think boarding fees for a dog should be considered a necessary expense though.

Curlysue76

ISDW wrote: »

And then if your circumstances change again, kill them, and get another one a few years down the line. That is a fantastic message to give to children. Or how about teaching children about responsiblity instead? I live with my son in a very rural area, how much would a burglar alarm and connection to a service cost per year? I'd rather have the dogs to keep us safe thanks.

Teach your kids that life is tough and they can't have everthing they want. Nothing wrong with teaching kids that sometimes sacrifices have to be made. Let them learn from their parents mistakes, teach them to be responsible for their debts not how to get out of paying them. I can't afford a pet, i tell my children this when they are asking for a dog. I won't get into debt for one, and they understand this is the right way to go.

Gambas

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the posters that would equate a bike or a boat to a pet. I'm at the other end of the spectrum and compare them to children. They are a living being, not a lump of metal or wood!

How very insensitive of you. Typical of animal lovers really, and their narrowmindedness. I have a tree that is alive and made of wood. I love it and if they try and tell me I have to cut it down, I'll lose my mind.

kunst nugget

flutered wrote: »

this thread really explains peoples views on other peoples misfortune, on another note the biggest mistake i made in my life was to work for an accountant the second time, (not the same one).

I don't think anyone here is being gleeful about the fact that people are suffering financially but at the same time if you are being made insolvent it's because you have an insurmountable level of debt and you have to accept that reality. You can't expect to make yourself insolvent and walk away from it without any changes to your circumstances.

ISDW wrote: »

And then if your circumstances change again, kill them, and get another one a few years down the line. That is a fantastic message to give to children.

Or why not sort yourself out properly and give your children the message that looking after your own finances properly and not overstretching yourself is of the upmost importance in life.