Re: so bloody hard work
 

I accept your knowledge of the reason for bankruptcy laws. My comments related to why responsible people make the difficult decision to choose bankruptcy.

My response was both heart-felt and meant to provide some comfort to Gary123 and his family, and in no way was I suggesting bankruptcy is an "easy out." It isn't. If debtors prison was the option when my disability outlasted my savings, I would have ended up there.

Oh, an employer declaring bankruptcy while owing me salary, you say? Indeed. It would be out of character for me to consider companies to have the emotional depth of, or the capacity for honour like a human being. I knew the law gave me lowest priority for getting paid in that situation. The company did what it had to do, and worked within the laws of the land. And then we all moved on.

And, with time, I trust that Gary123 will be able to put this behind him (something I'm sure we can also agree on).

Re: so bloody hard work
 

Nice post.

Re: so bloody hard work
 

No. Lenders need to be more careful about who they lend to.

Re: so bloody hard work
 

Thanks Guys

i like to think that i did everything i could to stop this happening, a few days away wow that would be good, but money wise just can't do that yet , perhaps in a few months.

i have faith that i was brought to canada for a reason and the good lord did not bring me here to fail !

but my wonderful sophie ( english cocker spaniel) as hurt more than any amount of owed money could ...

advise , perhaps a shoulder to cry one would of been a better way of asking

Thanks Guys , you've been great

gary

Re: so bloody hard work
 

Brampton

Re: so bloody hard work
 

I agree. I guess this thread will soon turn into a debate about addiction and personal responsibility with some advocating that people must be protected from their own actions.:D

Re: so bloody hard work
 

Are you hedging your bets by asking for help on here AND from 'the good lord'?

Re: so bloody hard work
 

Take a day trip, pack sandwiches and a flask, just have a day off from it all. I will do no end of good. There was a time in my life where I didn't have two pennies to rub together, taking my daughter away from home for a day and didn't have much in the way of petrol money either so we couldn't go far, just far enough to be away from the usual daily routine, did us wonders.

Re: so bloody hard work
 

$14 to take a car full of people into a provincial park;) Local conservation areas are usually free.

Re: so bloody hard work
 

I disagree. People who borrow money they can't afford to pay back should not be protected from their own actions any more than lenders should be protected from theirs.

- Lenders should do due diligence and either charge appropriate interest rates or refuse to lend.
- Borrowers should act in good faith and not borrow with no intention of paying back.

The existing bankruptcy and fraud laws are good enough to protect both sides from illegal activity and bad luck, failed ventures etc. The problems only occur when either side is bailed out (default is a necessary part of the economy and should be allowed to happen).

Re: so bloody hard work
 

Not sure what you are disagreeing with here. I am sure you do not believe that I believe that anyone should be protected. My feet are firmly placed in the personal responsibility side. My philosophy is: take a punt, if it goes pear shaped, it's your look out.

I have never advocated for the banks to be bailed out. I do believe, however, that had they not been, those that lost their deposits would be the first to complain that the "Government" hadn't protected them. Their hypocrisy, of course, would fly 100 feet over their own heads. They complain if the Government bails the banks out, they complain if they don't.

Re: so bloody hard work
 

I just assumed you were being argumentative;)

Ordinary depositors should be offered some level of protection. The federal limit of $100k is good enough (the UK and US have equivalents) - if you have more than that, then you should reasonably be expected to look after it.

Re: so bloody hard work
 

I don't think this follows. People don't generally acquire wealth through being good with money so there's no reason to think that someone who has more money than another is better able to manage it and so less deserving of protection for that money than another person. If it's right for the government to protect $50,000 deposits then it should also be right for the government to protect $500,000 deposits. It's not the fault of the person with $500,000 that he or she had richer parents than the one with $50,000.

Re: so bloody hard work
 

It's not about being good with money, you can't protect people entirely from their own stupidity. The limit is there to protect ordinary people from losing everything, not to keep rich people in their lifestyles risk free.

If you've got $500k and have put it in all in dodgy bank plc which goes tit's up, then tough shit - you've lost $400k. You chose to put it there when you could have opened a few different bank accounts - it's not as if the $100k limit is a big a secret or anything.

Maybe $100k is too low, but that a limit exists is the right policy. Ultimately, there is a choice. If government pays back rich people when their investments go bad then it has less cash for other things. My view is that if you want a law to protect people, then make banks tell people that their deposits above $100k are at risk when they open the account.

(btw, equity and bold holders should have no protection at all)

Re: so bloody hard work
 

I don't know if that is justified; it's not as if I have done so before:D