Get rid of your pets to go Insolvent??

desertcircus

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!

If you can buy and sell something legally, it's not the same as a child. Not even close. A pet is a step up from a bike, but it's a long, long way behind a human child.

timetogo

Am I reading this wrong here

From
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/new-insolvency-rules-to-allow-899-monthly-spend-for-debtors-1.1364648
They will be given €126 a month – or €29 a week to cover social inclusion.

My take on that is if you want the spend the €29 a week on pets or any other item it's at your discretion. So you don't have to give up your pet, if it costs less than €29 a week.

kunst nugget

timetogo wrote: »

Am I reading this wrong here

From
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/new-insolvency-rules-to-allow-899-monthly-spend-for-debtors-1.1364648
They will be given €126 a month – or €29 a week to cover social inclusion.

My take on that is if you want the spend the €29 a week on pets or any other item it's at your discretion.

Exactly.

borderlinemeath

desertcircus wrote: »

If you can buy and sell something legally, it's not the same as a child. Not even close. A pet is a step up from a bike, but it's a long, long way behind a human child.

Are you for real???

A bike doesn't feel pain.
A bike doesn't show emotions
A bike doesn't love you unconditionally in return for food, companionship, playtime.
A bike isn't a living being. It's a disposable piece of metal that people use for transport, exercise etc.

Are you that insensitive that has to be spelled out to you?

Curlysue76

timetogo wrote: »

Am I reading this wrong here

From
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/new-insolvency-rules-to-allow-899-monthly-spend-for-debtors-1.1364648
They will be given €126 a month – or €29 a week to cover social inclusion.

My take on that is if you want the spend the €29 a week on pets or any other item it's at your discretion. So you don't have to give up your pet, if it costs less than €29 a week.

Well maybe if people lived frugally like this then they wouldn't need to go insolvent. If you cut out all the other luxuries, you could make it work and keep your beloved animals. But it shouldn't be a given that you get to chose the terms of insolvency.

Curlysue76

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Are you for real???

A bike doesn't feel pain.
A bike doesn't show emotions
A bike doesn't love you unconditionally in return for food, companionship, playtime.
A bike isn't a living being. It's a disposable piece of metal that people use for transport, exercise etc.

Are you that insensitive that has to be spelled out to you?

A bike will save you a lot of money on car tax, insurance, petrol and maintenance. A pet will just cost you money.

timetogo

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Are you for real???

A bike doesn't feel pain.
A bike doesn't show emotions
A bike doesn't love you unconditionally in return for food, companionship, playtime.
A bike isn't a living being. It's a disposable piece of metal that people use for transport, exercise etc.

Are you that insensitive that has to be spelled out to you?

I'd agree with him. He said a pet is not the same as a child. No real argument there.
He also said a pet is a step up from a bike. Which you seem to agree with too.

borderlinemeath

Curlysue76 wrote: »

A bike will save you a lot of money on car tax, insurance, petrol and maintenance. A pet will just cost you money.

You do realise which forum you're posting in? AH is ->

borderlinemeath

timetogo wrote: »

I'd agree with him. He said a pet is not the same as a child. No real argument there.
He also said a pet is a step up from a bike. Which you seem to agree with too.

A pet is a living being with feeling, emotions, ability to learn, feel pain and give love. Like a child does.
A bike does not.

Curlysue76

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You do realise which forum you're posting in? AH is ->

????

timetogo

borderlinemeath wrote: »

They're completely different. An pet is a living being with feeling, emotions, ability to learn, feel pain and give love. Like a child does.

So what are you arguing about. Nobody is saying they're the same.

borderlinemeath

timetogo wrote: »

So what are you arguing about. Nobody is saying they're the same.

Keep up. desertcircus posted this:

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.

If you can buy and sell something legally, it's not the same as a child. Not even close. A pet is a step up from a bike, but it's a long, long way behind a human child.

Poster equates bike to pet as they can be bought and sold legally.

I equate pets to children as they are living being with emotions and feelings.

Curlysue76

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I equate pets to children as they are living being with emotions and feelings.

Oh my God are you serious? Pets are animals children are human beings. No matter how much you love your animals you cannot compare the two.

ISDW

Curlysue76 wrote: »

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.

Who said that you should get into debt for a pet? People got pets when they were working, and living within their means to get one. Circumstances change, don't know if you've noticed how many people have lost their jobs? So you believe that teaching kids that making a sacrifice of a living being is a good lesson to learn?

kunst nugget wrote: »

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.

Again, I'm sure that people could afford the pet when they got it, but their circumstances have now changed.

All these people advocating getting rid of the pet, any idea how much it costs to have one killed at the vet? How do you suggest that is paid?

When we returned to Ireland I didn't take out a mortgage, I bought an old cottage outright. Even though its not a luxurious property, it is mine, and we will survive, but banks were throwing money at people and the government were encouraging it. Anybody that was living and working on the East coast particularly had to take on huge mortgages to buy anywhere, as property prices were so high, and they were given them. We don't have a plasma TV or most of the 'luxuries' but I don't consider my animals to be luxuries, they are part of my family, they help to keep us fit and safe at very little cost. Vaccinations only need to be done every 3 years (except lepto) food can be got cheaply.

I think what people on this thread are objecting to is this country's prevailing attitude to animal welfare, that these living, breathing creatures are so disposable. Teach children to value life, treat all living creatures with respect and kindness and lets see how far society can go.

Curlysue76

ISDW wrote: »

Again, I'm sure that people could afford the pet when they got it, but their circumstances have now changed.

All these people advocating getting rid of the pet, any idea how much it costs to have one killed at the vet? How do you suggest that is paid?

When we returned to Ireland I didn't take out a mortgage, I bought an old cottage outright. Even though its not a luxurious property, it is mine, and we will survive, but banks were throwing money at people and the government were encouraging it. Anybody that was living and working on the East coast particularly had to take on huge mortgages to buy anywhere, as property prices were so high, and they were given them. We don't have a plasma TV or most of the 'luxuries' but I don't consider my animals to be luxuries, they are part of my family, they help to keep us fit and safe at very little cost. Vaccinations only need to be done every 3 years (except lepto) food can be got cheaply.

I think what people on this thread are objecting to is this country's prevailing attitude to animal welfare, that these living, breathing creatures are so disposable. Teach children to value life, treat all living creatures with respect and kindness and lets see how far society can go.

Yes their circumstances have changed, good point, so now they need to adapt to fit them.

If people blame banks for forcing them to take out mortgages then they obviously weren't mature enough to get one.

If you can afford to keep pets then by all means do. The problem is if you can't afford to and are looking at insolvency.

kunst nugget

ISDW wrote: »

Again, I'm sure that people could afford the pet when they got it, but their circumstances have now changed.

All these people advocating getting rid of the pet, any idea how much it costs to have one killed at the vet? How do you suggest that is paid?

When we returned to Ireland I didn't take out a mortgage, I bought an old cottage outright. Even though its not a luxurious property, it is mine, and we will survive, but banks were throwing money at people and the government were encouraging it. Anybody that was living and working on the East coast particularly had to take on huge mortgages to buy anywhere, as property prices were so high, and they were given them. We don't have a plasma TV or most of the 'luxuries' but I don't consider my animals to be luxuries, they are part of my family, they help to keep us fit and safe at very little cost. Vaccinations only need to be done every 3 years (except lepto) food can be got cheaply.

I think what people on this thread are objecting to is this country's prevailing attitude to animal welfare, that these living, breathing creatures are so disposable. Teach children to value life, treat all living creatures with respect and kindness and lets see how far society can go.

Everything you are doing is exactly the attitude people need to have which is living within your means and being financially prudent. Most people here aren't advocating destroying animals but rather that the right to have a pet, no matter what the expense of it is, is not automatically a right you should be entitled to when you are made insolvent. If you want to keep your pet, you will have to budget your discretionary spending to accommodate that rather being given extra money to provide for that animal. I can't see what the issue is there.

Mo60

Reading some of the posts on this thread I now understand why so many animals are dumped in pounds etc. Are people really so insensitive to think that it is so easy for good pet owners to get rid of their animals after many years of companionship?

Has society really become so unfeeling?

borderlinemeath

Mo60 wrote: »

Reading some of the posts on this thread I now understand why so many animals are dumped in pounds etc. Are people really so insensitive to think that it is so easy for good pet owners to get rid of their animals after many years of companionship?

Has society really become so unfeeling?

Seems that way.

Or it could just be that the posters on this thread that think that pets are disposable aren't pet owners, they just saw this thread on the front page of boards. Cos none of them are regular contributors to this forum, most of this using this thread as their first post here.

Bullseye1

Mo60 wrote: »

Reading some of the posts on this thread I now understand why so many animals are dumped in pounds etc. Are people really so insensitive to think that it is so easy for good pet owners to get rid of their animals after many years of companionship?

Has society really become so unfeeling?

There is a serious lack of apathy in this country and it has been magnified by the recession. All you hear nowadays is "I am not paying for those idiots who bought a house in the Celtic Tiger, sure I only rented". You can see across the politics, AH and Irish economy threads that people really could care less about their fellow human so how do you expect them to even think twice about a dog.

I fully understand that there are suppliers, sub-contractors etc left hanging and unpaid. Even with bankruptcy and insolvency they are at the bottom of the rung anyway. Revenue, banks and other creditors come first and if they are very lucky they may get some payment. So those people using examples of suppliers being left hung and dry what about the banks getting their money before the supplier? Where is the outrage there?
Pets are not a luxury they form part of the family for many people.

Bullseye1

desertcircus wrote: »

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

Would you actually consider bankruptcy in Ireland?

kunst nugget

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Seems that way.

Or it could just be that the posters on this thread that think that pets are disposable aren't pet owners, they just saw this thread on the front page of boards. Cos none of them are regular contributors to this forum, most of this using this thread as their first post here.

I'm a pet owner, I have a two year old yorkie which me, my wife and our kids adore. We're pretty stretched most of the time but all our bills get paid and we are nowhere near insolvent and there is no danger of that happening at the moment. If we were to be made insolvent, I wouldn't get rid of our dog but I would use the discretionary money in the budget to pay for the dog. I wouldn't expect to be allowed to have any more money in the budget just because I have a dog. Again, where is the problem in this line of thinking?

Bullseye1

kunst nugget wrote: »

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.

That maybe the case with some but I get the feeling from reading many threads in the politics and economics areas that some people are really happy to see some people suffer for what they perceive to be greed, ie buying a family home, losing your job and now unable to service your mortgage. These people are tarred with the same brush as people who bought 3-4 houses. Some make no distinction. If it were not for the fact that the banks were nationalised these same posters would not be so riled up.

It is not in this country’s economic interest to have 30,000-50,000 people who are insolvent for 5-7 years. The insolvency bill is far too draconian and the period is far too long when compared to other jurisdictions.The perceived micro-management by the banks is quite galling since it was the decisions made by them that has the country in the mess its in.

kunst nugget

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I fully understand that there are suppliers, sub-contractors etc left hanging and unpaid. Even with bankruptcy and insolvency they are at the bottom of the rung anyway. Revenue, banks and other creditors come first and if they are very lucky they may get some payment. So those people using examples of suppliers being left hung and dry what about the banks getting their money before the supplier? Where is the outrage there?

What has that really got to do with the issue in hand which is funding having a pet if you're made insolvent?

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Pets are not a luxury they form part of the family for many people.

So fund them out of your discretionary spending instead of using it to buy beers or get Sky.

Bullseye1

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm a pet owner, I have a two year old yorkie which me, my wife and our kids adore. We're pretty stretched most of the time but all our bills get paid and we are nowhere near insolvent and there is no danger of that happening at the moment. If we were to be made insolvent, I wouldn't get rid of our dog but I would use the discretionary money in the budget to pay for the dog. I wouldn't expect to be allowed to have any more money in the budget just because I have a dog. Again, where is the problem in this line of thinking?

I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

Bullseye1

kunst nugget wrote: »

What has that really got to do with the issue in hand which is funding having a pet if you're made insolvent?



So fund them out of your discretionary spending instead of using it to buy beers or get Sky.

I was responding to another poster who brought up the subject of suppliers being left without payment.

Anynama141

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!

I think you are showing severe insensitivity to other peoples' emotions here. You can equate your pets to whatever you want, and other people can equate their yachts or vintage cars or stamp collections to whatever they want. Who are you to say their feelings are wrong?

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

A pet is a living being with feeling, emotions, ability to learn, feel pain and give love. Like a child does.
A bike does not.

So you should be able to leave a creditor short to pay for you goldfish or donkey or dog or yacht or whatever, even though that creditor might be relying on that money to provide for his goldfish/child/dog/yacht?

Doesn't sound fair to me.

Bullseye1

Anynama141 wrote: »

So you should be able to leave a creditor short to pay for you goldfish or donkey or dog or yacht or whatever, even though that creditor might be relying on that money to provide for his goldfish/child/dog/yacht?

Doesn't sound fair to me.

The creditors you are talking about will be burnt anyway as Revenue and the Banks get first dibs.

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I fully understand that there are suppliers, sub-contractors etc left hanging and unpaid. Even with bankruptcy and insolvency they are at the bottom of the rung anyway. Revenue, banks and other creditors come first and if they are very lucky they may get some payment. So those people using examples of suppliers being left hung and dry what about the banks getting their money before the supplier? Where is the outrage there?

I don't know where you got the idea that suppliers are a lower priority in insolvency and bankruptcy than the banks?

The taxman comes first, AFAIAA, but after that everyone is on the same level.

Bullseye1

Anynama141 wrote: »

I don't know where you got the idea that suppliers are a lower priority in insolvency and bankruptcy than the banks?

The taxman comes first, AFAIAA, but after that everyone is on the same level.

The banks have secured debt. They come before any supplier.