CBA doesn't own 80% of your IPs. They are owed a $ amount equivalent to the current value of 80% of your IPs. That's a very important difference.
Help please: Bankruptcy and saving my house
- Thread starter smileyface
- Start date
CBA doesn't own 80% of your IPs. They are owed a $ amount equivalent to the current value of 80% of your IPs. That's a very important difference.
Capitalism works in cycles.
IF you had no provision under the law for during the ebb in the cycle for people to escape their debts then capitalism simply would not work.
You would have a percentage of the population forever endebted to otehr parts of the population and during each ebb this part of the population would grow.
The banks can cry poor in the USA but they were the ******s who got us into the mess we are in (well especially in the USA and the UK)
They cannot now want to hold people to a debt which the law has always held can be eliminated through a bankruptcy.
Imagine kathryn if tonight you left a tap on in your apartment accidentally and the people under your floor had their picaso painting ruined by the water. Do you think it fair if you were found to have acted negligently to now be effectively owned by them for the rest of your productive days? You would in effect become a slave to them. It is a lawfull debt and should it be several million dollars this is as lawfull a debt as the ATO debt smilyface has. Should you a) have to work the rest of your life payingn for this mistake as would be the case in the emerites or a stint in debtors prison or b) be allowed to give up absolutely everything you own and move on after a few years in the sin bin?
I would nearly go as far as to say bankruptcy is as important a part of market economics as the free market itself.
Maybe the time in the sin bin should be increased, I could accept that perhaps, but I can assure you our economies would not work without some provision for bankruptcy and protection from your own debts.
Yes, that's what I said. I know what happens with regard to CBA's part, just not what happens with a 2nd mortgage or other kind of 'registration of interest' (I don't even know what terminology to use for doing that).
I can see Kathryn's point of view; if interest stopped accruing, then I could theoretically pay say $125 a week for 49 years (not that I'll be around then). However as said before when I've tried and struggled to make payment arrangements with them, the longest they would accept was 2 years, not 49.
You want to go there??
We have taken tenant insurance,(which includes our liability, our personal contents, and lots of other perks) and so have our adult children who also reside in the 5 - unit apt building we own.We also have property insurance on the building itself.
So if we "accidentally" do any major damage, we are covered.
Our tenant insurance covers this scenerio..and we also require our regular tenants to have Tenant Insurance. We also use very similar wording including the Picaso painting, when emphasizing the importance of this insurance. By the way, this insurance is available in Australia.
So, as adults, we do take responsibility for our actions.
I'm starting to think Rob and I may be in the minority.
Though not having a view one way or the other on smileyface's predicament, as a general proposition I have no issue with the ATO pursuing any and all taxpayers for all monies owed.
Businesses who fail to pay their tax obligations are in a postion to unfairly compete with those that do. The worst culrpits, those that collect GST, use it for operating expenses and then go belly up owe the ATO a bucket-loand have stolen both from consumers and taxpayers. Phoenix companies pulling these sort of stunts cost the taxpayer several billion per year which simply means poorer services or higher taxes for the rest of us.
Currently businesses owe the ATO something like $10B.
That buys a lot of flood relief....
Businesses who fail to pay their tax obligations are in a postion to unfairly compete with those that do. The worst culrpits, those that collect GST, use it for operating expenses and then go belly up owe the ATO a bucket-loand have stolen both from consumers and taxpayers. Phoenix companies pulling these sort of stunts cost the taxpayer several billion per year which simply means poorer services or higher taxes for the rest of us.
Currently businesses owe the ATO something like $10B.
That buys a lot of flood relief....
I have got no issue with people pursuing lawfull debts. Of course the ATO should be able to recover debts owed to them and they should pursue them. This is different though to saying individuals should live a life of servitude should their debt become too much for them.
People in Australia have recently learned you cannot insure for every concievable risk.
It would also be a weight around capitalism if every start up businesses attempted to limit there risk in every way as a result of trying to avoid a life of servitude.
Far better the financial risk to people is limited.
I assume you also do not believe pty ltd companies can declare bankruptcy either? perhaps the directors should go into servitude? If not why is it OK for pty ltd companies to fold and not for individuals?
thats right. And any increase in value will be the trustee in bankruptcy's.
very much so. the 'solidness' of property has been brought into question. what would the value of that block I saw in christchurch be - premium block, top suburb, ocean views, now uninhabitable as it os on the edge of a cliff and half of it has given way. Which insurance polciy do you turn to for that?? um... uh oh, nothing in the policy about the land being destroyed! Lock the guy up and throw away the keys I say, dirty little thief who can't pay his debts.
http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Science/Natural-Hazards/Earth-s-Forces/Earthquakes
quote:"Every year, thousands of earthquakes occur in New Zealand that are too small to be felt. However, in the 15 years between 1992 and 2007, New Zealand experienced over 30 earthquakes of magnitude 6 or more. "
Who in their right mind would buy property here,if you don't have insurance against it?
It's no different than buying on a flood plain..as many have said here on SS, should not be done
Some people would not buy there. Different people have different risk appetites and I don't think living on New Zealands south island is for everyone.
However humanity would be a far weaker proposition if we never took risks. Dare I say it we may have never ventured out of Africa.
Risk taking is part and parcell with progress. Someone has to take the risks.
Now I wan't to be clear on one thing though. From your attitude aroudn bankruptcy hopefully you would agree with me on this: governments should not bail people out from their own misadventures.
I do believe in bankruptcy provisions but I certainly do not agree with the government coming to peoples aid at every turn. People should be left to take risks and if they muck it up sure you have bankruptcy, but you should not be entitled to government assistance just because you have had bad luck. Welfare, sure but no more special handouts etc.
The governments role is to invest in the productive capacity, welfare and security of this country and leave the rest to the market.
I have only ever heard of insuring buildings, not the land itself. I doubt many SSers have insurance against the destruction of their land. anybody?
This does mention land..so it does seem to be available?
http://www.eqc.govt.nz/
quote:
"Following the earthquake on Tuesday 22 February, the Earthquake Commission’s (EQC’s) primary focus is to respond to requests for emergency repairs to residential properties in Canterbury. EQC insurance covers emergency repairs around safety, weathertightness and habitability, i.e for damage to sewerage and water systems, holes in roofs and damaged chimneys etc. If you require emergency repairs, call EQC on 0800 DAMAGE (0800 326 243). Homeowners with general house insurance are automatically covered by EQC’s natural disaster insurance. You can find more information about what is covered here.
The claims lodgement process remains operational following the earthquake. Claims for damage to residential buildings, land and contents can be lodged by telephoning 0800 DAMAGE (0800 326 243) or online here. Claimants have up to 3 months from the date of the event to lodge a claim. "
let's not focus on this specific example - I have no idea if the govt will bail out owners of destoyed land in NZ (the owners probably dont either)... think of coastal inundation from global warming. Who will pay my bank out if half my beachhouse becomes a tidal inlet? Or... a 200 year old mineshaft collapses under my house or a huge sinkwell envelopes the neighbourhood (that was canada wasn't it?), or the house is destroyed by a terrorist bomb. Or the often quoted example - pleasant sunday morning and you tee off, hit someone in the head and they go veggie and you are hit with a $15m bill. Point is life is unpredictable and there is only so much you can try to foresee and only so much youcan get insurance cover for.
out of interest my car insurer doubled the standard premium in the space of a week. i told them to shove it and went elsewhere however i have a feeling premiums will soon double or more across the board. Self insurance looking more appealling. at the end of the day SOMEBODY has to foot the bill, there cannot be a free ride
out of interest my car insurer doubled the standard premium in the space of a week. i told them to shove it and went elsewhere however i have a feeling premiums will soon double or more across the board. Self insurance looking more appealling. at the end of the day SOMEBODY has to foot the bill, there cannot be a free ride
actually here's one that i am not sure if many people consider... you drive a car and have an at fault accident, you kill the other person and break your own back and can never work again. you have compulsory 3rd party personal injury insurance. what's the wash up? (ignore motor damage as it would be the least of your worries)
At risk of getting back on topic...
Registering a second mortgage or transferring the loan doesn't change ownership. This requires transfer of title. This would incur stamp duty (and potentially CGT and loan break costs) as there are no "love and affection" rules in Qld. If you don't transfer title you remain the owner so any future increase in value may be deemed to belong to your creditors.
If you transferred a proportion equivalent only to the equity, say 20% (assuming the bank would let you do so) you'd still retain the other 80%. 80% of any future increase in the value may still be deemed to belong to creditors.
Registering a second mortgage or transferring the loan doesn't change ownership. This requires transfer of title. This would incur stamp duty (and potentially CGT and loan break costs) as there are no "love and affection" rules in Qld. If you don't transfer title you remain the owner so any future increase in value may be deemed to belong to your creditors.
If you transferred a proportion equivalent only to the equity, say 20% (assuming the bank would let you do so) you'd still retain the other 80%. 80% of any future increase in the value may still be deemed to belong to creditors.
Ausprop,
There are always going to be things you cannot easily insure for.When you purchase anything you are taking a risk.When you purchase property in a specific area, you accept the responsibility and consequences.
The prior questions had to do with a person and should they be able to walk away from their financial responsibilities. No one forced them to take the money they had earmarked for tax payment, and instead use it for another venture..that he said went south.
Most, if not all, bankruptcies are caused by a bad decision, followed by more.Usually in an attempt to fix the first bad decision.
The person knew the consequences if this venture went bad.He was not gambling with his money, he was using the tax payers money.
Bankruptcy should have consequences.Being an inconvenience for a few years, is not good enough. Restitution needs to be made.
There are always going to be things you cannot easily insure for.When you purchase anything you are taking a risk.When you purchase property in a specific area, you accept the responsibility and consequences.
The prior questions had to do with a person and should they be able to walk away from their financial responsibilities. No one forced them to take the money they had earmarked for tax payment, and instead use it for another venture..that he said went south.
Most, if not all, bankruptcies are caused by a bad decision, followed by more.Usually in an attempt to fix the first bad decision.
The person knew the consequences if this venture went bad.He was not gambling with his money, he was using the tax payers money.
Bankruptcy should have consequences.Being an inconvenience for a few years, is not good enough. Restitution needs to be made.
Restitution cannot be made though in this case and so the individual has this out.
If I lend you money, I know what the laws are. You have not promised to work for me for life should you not be able to pay me back?
I am not lending you money in return for your second born son? It is simply a loan with all the regulation that might protect me and you then with any common law or equitable principles that might be available to either of us?
The market works with an overlay of bankruptcy provisions 90% of the time (yes their are some times it can get ugly when 1/20th of a population walk away from their homes in negative equity...)
Basically when you make someone a loan just keep in mind that they can declare bankruptcy. Check they have suitable assets or have a history of paying their debts in the case of businesses.
Then do not lend all your money to one individual. i.e. eggs in one basket.
Can you imagine without bankruptcy provisions what banks would be lending out to people. They would have even less view to seviceability than they had in the early 2000s. They would be in the process of recruiting their army of slaves right now, after loaning more that people could afford to half the Australian population who generally take what they can get.
I really abhor that phrase 'tax payers money'. Besides the fact that he's being forced by law to hand over his money... It doesn't belong to the 'taxpayer' until it falls due. Before it falls due, it's still his money.
I guess it's similar in some ways to the phrase 'kids inheritance'.
