Why does Negative Equity= Not Paying anymore ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

four18

Registered User
Messages
23
There is a lot of ''Wont Pay's on here ! A lot of genuine hardship cases but I suspect some have decided not to pay in case Debt Forgiveness cuts them some slack and let the Taxpayer sort me out. Once there is a difinitive ruling the floodgates will open and arrears will rocket !
How can you seperate the Wont pays from the cant pays ? Why should the guy up the road/ around the corner have 200k slashed from his debt and I pay for all of mine ? Even if the rent received from my BTL covers the mortgage I am still not paying...etc....Why should I, Its only worth half what I paid etc

Just an observation, but Revenue will have to be called in to see what paye workers are actually getting and what they tell the bank they are getting.
I can see the Taxpayer getting slaughtered big time !

This only a personal opinion and I will probably be banned for daring to post this as sometimes the truth hurts some more than others but would welcome some opinions on this.
 
I can't see you getting banned for that, but the substance of your post has been discussed on other threads already.
 
I know but I wanted to post it where the chancers might see it and not hidden on another obscure part of the site. Let Revenue have the final say because only they have real power and Its about time they showed their teeth
 
four18 said:
I know but I wanted to post it where the chancers might see it and not hidden on another obscure part of the site. Let Revenue have the final say because only they have real power and Its about time they showed their teeth
Click to expand...

What's it got to do with Revenue?

If they are tax compliant Revenue don't care about anything else - Revenue's teeth as you put it, only come to bear (pun intended) if these people are under declaring income / underpaying taxes. Even then that's still unrelated to the person's relationship with their bank.
 
Yes, I am talking about people under declaring income to their mortgage provider and bleating hardship, Thats why I said let them have the final say. If a bank/ building soceity write off x amount they run to the government looking for money AND who pays it ? Correct, The taxpayer, And who collects money from the taxpayer for the state ? Revenue !
 
If someone is pleading hardship they'll need to produce statements of their means, which includes their balancing statements / tax assessments from Revenue.

What you're saying makes no sense.

Revenue's job is to administer the tax system.

The banks, while some are nationalised, are still run as private entities, and it's their job to deal with these cases.

Do you want Revenue to take over the banking sector, is it?
 
They mighy do a better job than the overpaid clowns currently running the banking sector or do you think bankers are compedant at their job ?
 
I am fully with Mandlebrot here. Banking debt, negative equity, write-off etc are banking matters-nothing to do with revenue. They are not even listed as having a role in new debt legislation. The reason is simple-banking is not their domain, and your suggestion that it should be is way off.
Banks got a lot of tax payers money to write down/off bad debts. As an individual taxpayer, you have no say in what or who they use this for. Should every taxpayer have to agree to how every cent of ther money is spent? Never going to happen!
How can you be so sure there are loads of won't pays and loads that will get deals they should not get? Seems just a throw away remark to get a heated debate going rather than a factual statement.
A fairly rigorous statement of means and thrawl through peoples affairs, not to mention strict spending limits imposed if successful, will make most 'won't pays' abandon that strategy!
I repeat that all this had been discussed elsewhere and does not need another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top