Get rid of your pets to go Insolvent??

borderlinemeath

Anynama141 wrote: »

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?

Because as far as I, and most people with a degree of emotion are concerned living beings take precendence over inanimate objects every single time.

This isn't AH so if you were attempting sarcasm, it fell short. If you're just unfeeling and unemotional, I feel a bit sorry for you.

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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

Yes, but that's only for mortgage debt. Ordinary loans are the same as any other debt.

Bullseye1

Information.

What do creditors get in bankruptcy?

There is a hierarchy of creditors in all bankruptcy proceedings. Secured creditors, whose money is backed by a particular asset of the company, are at the top of the list. Then there are unsecured creditors, which can include suppliers and others who are owed money. They have no claim on any particular asset, so they are paid only after secured creditors are satisfied.

link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30087381

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Because as far as I, and most people with a degree of emotion are concerned living beings take precendence over inanimate objects every single time.

Says you. That's just an opinion, yet you state it as fact. I've no idea what you mean by 'take precedence' either. You'd rather burn the Mona Lisa than an ant? You'd rather see the Coliseum destroyed than see someone eat a fish?

We are talking about money that you owe being spent on something that is not strictly necessary. Try telling someone who has spent 40 years building their stamp collection that it isn't necessary, or who rebuilt a classic car from the ground taking years of their life.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

This isn't AH so if you were attempting sarcasm, it fell short. If you're just unfeeling and unemotional, I feel a bit sorry for you.

I was not being the slightest bit sarcastic. I think it is pretty clear that you are the one who lacks empathy, as you totally fail to empathise with people who love things other than animals.

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Information.



link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30087381

Yes, but this is just common sense - as I said, ordinary bank loans are ranked at the same level as all the other unsecured debt.

borderlinemeath

Anynama141 wrote: »

Says you. That's just an opinion, yet you state it as fact. I've no idea what you mean by 'take precedence' either. You'd rather burn the Mona Lisa than an ant? You'd rather see the Coliseum destroyed than see someone eat a fish?

We are talking about money that you owe being spent on something that is not strictly necessary. Try telling someone who has spent 40 years building their stamp collection that it isn't necessary, or who rebuilt a classic car from the ground taking years of their life.

I was not being the slightest bit sarcastic. I think it is pretty clear that you are the one who lacks empathy, as you totally fail to empathise with people who love things other than animals.

Talk about melodramatic comparisons. As it happens my partner has a good few classic cars, that he loves and has always intended to keep as they are increasing in value as time goes by. But he would give them away in the morning if it was a choice between them or our pets.

You can't 'love' an object like a stamp collection or a car like a pet. It has a monetary value, certainly you can take great pride in it, but it doesn't 'love' you back. Your stamp collection has a value to another collector but the bond that an owner has with a pet who is a family member is completely different and I find it flabbergasting to believe that there are so many posters here that think otherwise. (or are just flaming/trolling)

HurtLocker

I don't know much about the guidelines but I very much doubt they'd force you to get rid of your pets, as long as you budget for them.

I'd say this is to stop people getting new pets as they go insolvent or are already in a insolvency budget and demanding they need more money to take care of the animal. Don't think creditors would be impressed if you did that and they had no comeback other than increase your
budget.

wolfpawnat

timetogo wrote: »

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.

Which, unless they have high medical costs, is a reasonable sum.

That said, they also assume electricity should cost no more than 20 odd euro a week and what not too, they really are not factoring in realistic costs. Sure there was a statement made that if a child is in creche a parent should have to stay home with it if their income was not much greater than the creche fees, surely even an extra €15 a week should be factored, but to them apparently not. They need to set very realistic guidelines.

Though the one rule for the wealthy and another for the poor is getting really old, really fast.

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You can't 'love' an object like a stamp collection or a car like a pet.

Yes you can. People love art, people love cars, people love lots of things.

I love animals and would never deliberately harm one, but I'm not so arrogant as to tell people that they can't love stamps or their yacht or car or anything else.

Based on what you are posting, you lack empathy and understanding.

Bullseye1

Anynama141 wrote: »

Yes you can. People love art, people love cars, people love lots of things.

I love animals and would never deliberately harm one, but I'm not so arrogant as to tell people that they can't love stamps or their yacht or car or anything else.

Based on what you are posting, you lack empathy and understanding.

If I guy has a dog and it costs him €15-20 a week how is this comparable to a guy who has a yacht?

Corkbah

Anynama141 wrote: »

Yes you can. People love art, people love cars, people love lots of things.

I love animals and would never deliberately harm one, but I'm not so arrogant as to tell people that they can't love stamps or their yacht or car or anything else.

Based on what you are posting, you lack empathy and understanding.

by that logic big developers should be allowed keep their lifestyles (ie spending huge sums of money, holidays abroad several times a year, fancy cars, yachts, helicopters etc)

Those that are financially in trouble "love" their lifestyle but cannot afford it anymore, so we (the taxpayer) end out footing the bill !!

I have a nearly 3yr old yorkie cross - she's part of the family ...and she is spoilt rotten - but if I cant afford to pay bills the costs associated with keeping a dog will be looked at and if its a choice between feeding myself or the dog, or clearing my debts or the dog ... the dog will be re-homed....I hope to god that I never have that problem but its a fact of life, my financial responsibility is my choice and if I find myself in financial difficulties I will use whatever method I can to fix it (even if that means not eating proper meals)

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If I guy has a dog and it costs him €15-20 a week how is this comparable to a guy who has a yacht?

Point 1: As another poster has said, if the €29 per week for socialising etc. is directed towards the upkeep of the dog, then I'm all for it.

Point 2: If the yacht has little resale value, and costs €20 a week to keep in petrol and paint, what is the difference?

What about somebody who loves opera? Is it ok for them to get a separate allocation every month to spend on that?

I'm questioning where it is fair to draw the line, and I'm pointing out that 'loving' something is entirely a subjective experience. I'm not sure either should be particularly controversial.

Pumpkinseeds

Anynama141 wrote: »

Yes you can. People love art, people love cars, people love lots of things.

I love animals and would never deliberately harm one, but I'm not so arrogant as to tell people that they can't love stamps or their yacht or car or anything else.

Based on what you are posting, you lack empathy and understanding.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that post, although it does sound like trolling. There is a vast difference between people spending money on basic provisions for their pets and those who indulge themselves with cars and yachts. Many people who find themselves in difficult financial circumstances will prioritise the needs of their pets over their own needs.

Only a person lacking in the most basic of common decency and moral fibre would propose that a person, particularly someone who has lost everything and who finds themselves needing to avail of insolvency, should be forced to part with their companion animal/animals.

You can tell a lot about a persons character based on their views on animal welfare.

borderlinemeath

Anynama141 wrote: »

Yes you can. People love art, people love cars, people love lots of things.

I love animals and would never deliberately harm one, but I'm not so arrogant as to tell people that they can't love stamps or their yacht or car or anything else.

Based on what you are posting, you lack empathy and understanding.

For the purposes of gaining insolvency from the banks, nobody should claim to 'love' their art collections or cars or what have you. If people want to 'love' their collections, fair enough but I will reiterate once more that it is not the same as pet ownership, the responsibility for a living being that you committed to when you got that pet. For the government or the bank to insist that you get rid of your family pet is not the same as keeping ones yacht in Dun Laoire harbour.

You have no idea about me, or my empathy or understanding. You're really just trying to goad me into an argument.

Anynama141

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

You can tell a lot about a persons character based on their views on animal welfare.

Indeed - and perhaps an animal's welfare would be better served living with a family that have the resources to provide for it? How many horses and donkeys are starving around the country in the hands of 'animal lovers'?

Anynama141

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You have no idea about me, or my empathy or understanding. You're really just trying to goad me into an argument.

I'm not trying to goad anyone: you (and anyone else) will notice that it was you who first made claims about my character.

My broader point, if you are willing to discuss it without personalising the discussion, is that lots of people have to give up things that they love when they go bust - their lifestyles, their hobbies, their possessions. It seems to me that keeping a family pet - a cat or dog or whatever - whose maintenance can be covered by the socialisation element of the permitted budget is absolutely fine and, indeed, ideal.

Keeping several dogs, or a horse, or expensively maintained snakes or whatever - that does not seem fair or fine to me, as you are basically demanding that the taxpayer or your creditors pay for you to keep them, and I see no difference between that and some other person expecting the taxpayer to pay for their opera tickets (due to their love of music) or for vintage Porsche spares or whatever.

Pumpkinseeds

Anynama141 wrote: »

Indeed - and perhaps an animal's welfare would be better served living with a family that have the resources to provide for it? How many horses and donkeys are starving around the country in the hands of 'animal lovers'?

There are plenty of animals being neglected by people with ample finances, so really implying that people with limited means are neglecting animals is a bit of a stretch. The vast majority of pets affected by this will be cats and dogs. Quite often the companion animals such as cats and dogs in Rescues and Pounds are adopted by people with limited means.

I'm surprised that this clause is even legal, given the fact that the most likely outcome for a pet that someone is forced to surrender will be euthanasia, I doubt it would be difficult for someone to successfully challenge it in court.

wolfpawnat

Anynama141 wrote: »

Indeed - and perhaps an animal's welfare would be better served living with a family that have the resources to provide for it? How many horses and donkeys are starving around the country in the hands of 'animal lovers'?

Ironically a lot of them are still considered wealthy and have 11 reg-ed BM-ers. My partner is studying veterinary, a lot of the wealthy see their car as more important that a living animal. It is seldom the normal Jane soap that had a pony.

Anynama141

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

There are plenty of animals being neglected by people with ample finances, so really implying that people with limited means are neglecting animals is a bit of a stretch.

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are saying here - are you suggesting that people with the money to look after their pets are more likely to neglect them?

kunst nugget

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that post, although it does sound like trolling. There is a vast difference between people spending money on basic provisions for their pets and those who indulge themselves with cars and yachts. Many people who find themselves in difficult financial circumstances will prioritise the needs of their pets over their own needs.

Only a person lacking in the most basic of common decency and moral fibre would propose that a person, particularly someone who has lost everything and who finds themselves needing to avail of insolvency, should be forced to part with their companion animal/animals.

You can tell a lot about a persons character based on their views on animal welfare.

I've a pet giraffe that I love dearly that only costs €300 a week to maintain. I know I'm insolvent but I need the extra money to keep this animal I dearly love…

I know I'm sounding facetious but the reason pets aren't given special consideration is probably so they can't be exploited to try and get extra money like in the above example. The rationale behind it being that if you can afford to keep the animal on the meagre allowance you will have then fair enough but if you can't then sorry but that's not really the problem of the people handling your insolvency - I don't think it's an issue of common decency and moral fibre but one of cold, hard reality.

Pumpkinseeds

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are saying here - are you suggesting that people with the money to look after their pets are more likely to neglect them?

No, I was countering your insinuation that the neglect of donkeys and horses in Ireland is a result of people of limited means being unable to afford them.

ISDW

Corkbah wrote: »

I have a nearly 3yr old yorkie cross - she's part of the family ...and she is spoilt rotten - but if I cant afford to pay bills the costs associated with keeping a dog will be looked at and if its a choice between feeding myself or the dog, or clearing my debts or the dog ... the dog will be re-homed....I hope to god that I never have that problem but its a fact of life, my financial responsibility is my choice and if I find myself in financial difficulties I will use whatever method I can to fix it (even if that means not eating proper meals)

But the problem is, all of the pounds and rescues are full to bursting, so the chances of rehoming the dogs are almost nil, so in fact the option you would be given would be to have the dog killed.

Anynama141

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

No, I was countering your insinuation that the neglect of donkeys and horses in Ireland is a result of people of limited means being unable to afford them.

I'm suggesting that people who are in financial difficulty are more likely to neglect their pets than people who are not. It's hardly rocket science.

ISDW

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'm suggesting that people who are in financial difficulty are more likely to neglect their pets than people who are not. It's hardly rocket science.

It may not be rocket science, but there is actually no proof of that, unless you have some?

Pumpkinseeds

kunst nugget wrote: »

I've a pet giraffe that I love dearly that only costs €300 a week to maintain. I know I'm insolvent but I need the extra money to keep this animal I dearly love…

I know I'm sounding facetious but the reason pets aren't given special consideration is probably so they can't be exploited to try and get extra money like in the above example. The rationale behind it being that if you can afford to keep the animal on the meagre allowance you will have then fair enough but if you can't then sorry but that's not really the problem of the people handling your insolvency - I don't think it's an issue of common decency and moral fibre but one of cold, hard reality.

I take your point, but realistically the money collected from people who are insolvent by forcing them to have their moggy or mutt killed really is negligable and isn't going to make a huge difference to the payment of the average debt. Its inhuman and I doubt the Quinns will be slaughtering the family pets to satisfy their creditors. I can't recall the exact figure they wanted the courts to allow them each for living expenses per month although I do recall it being obscene.

Pumpkinseeds

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'm suggesting that people who are in financial difficulty are more likely to neglect their pets than people who are not. It's hardly rocket science.

I disagree, as I said in an earlier post many people will often put the needs of their pets before their own needs.

Bullseye1

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'm suggesting that people who are in financial difficulty are more likely to neglect their pets than people who are not. It's hardly rocket science.

Tell that to the guy living on the streets in Dublin who had his pet rabbit thrown into the river.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/yob-locked-up-for-throwing-homeless-1472845

Ability to pay for an animals well being is not guaranteed by someones financial status. Sure there is plenty of pet owners who can afford their pets but threat them appallingly.

desertcircus

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Keep up. desertcircus posted this:





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.

I specifically said that a pet wasn't the same as a bike. The reason I was comparing them at all was to draw attention to the flaws in an argument based on benefit to the person.

That said, a pet should NEVER be equated with a human child. Treating them as such is nonsensical and outright dangerous.

Pumpkinseeds

Anyways I've to leave the debate for now. I've to got to go and collect a stray sick cat that we paid to have treated, neutered and microchipped. We aren't wealthy and the treatment won't have been cheap, but we will do without luxuries for a while. It isn't easy to find the money but its a damn site easier than trying to turn a blind eye to suffering. He's part of the family now.

Anynama141

ISDW wrote: »

It may not be rocket science, but there is actually no proof of that, unless you have some?

Aside from common sense, you are right, there is no proof. Would you be equally dubious if I said that people who are in financial difficulty are more likely to neglect the maintenance of their cars?

I have no proof of that either.