Debt Collectors Are Bankrupting Australians over Small Credit Card Debts

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-13/debt-collectors-suing...

So.

  1. Living off the public purse (public housing).

  2. Has more children than they could (ever) afford (5 kids).

  3. Buys things they can't afford (a bed and a washing machine using a credit card).

  4. Buys more things they can't afford (car financed too).

  5. Stops paying what they owe despite being able to (repaid debt when forced).

  6. Complains about having to repay what they borrowed and owe.

Typical.

Lessons? Exercise financial responsibility. Don't be like these people.

Comments

    • +2

      Surely the media would never try to twist a story to suit their own agenda, especially not our beloved ABC?

    • +3

      No credit card charges 30% interest.

      Yes they do. Here's just one (the subject of the article).

      https://www.gomastercard.com.au/features/rates-and-fees.html

      • +1

        Curse you and your FAKE NEWS links to the actual product page!

    • 30% with creditline until recently!

    • +1

      Sorry but that is NOT a small credit card debt by any measure. not when many of us have limits of $3000 and $5000. (Gross exaggeration 2).

      Do you think that credit card providers stop charging you interest once the interest generated tips you over your spending limit, or do you think the debt just keeps increasing?

      Say someone has a debt of $3000 that they're being charged 30% interest for.

      That's $900 interest per year

      It's not hard to see how the debt can quickly ramp up as the interest compounds, especially if you're not especially financially literate and use the card for day-to-day expenses.

    • Dont beleive what you read in the news!

      What a load of RUBBISH!
      No credit card charges 30% interest.

      Hmm.

  • +3

    To be honest most companies make money out of "average Joe".

    The marketing and strategies are becoming so good now especially with social media and the digital age.

    Even with ozbargain there are many tactics the retailers are using.

    It's harder than ever now to defy the urge to spend especially with payday lenders.

    The situation has always been like this though, it's slightly worse now, but the lower incomes will always whinge but they're the ones that get sucked in the most.

    How do we combat this?> Education, read and more education.

    *Rule of thumb, if you don't have the cash, don't buy it.
    *Save 10% of everything you earn, at a minimum.
    *Only buy what you NEED.

    • I reckon for the 'average joe' to stop feeling like the worlds is against them, they need to save 60-70% assuming they are on average wage. Then flip it upside down and think if they can live on 30%…if not then that mortgage isn't for you.

  • +3

    Dont ignore the other obvious one.

    1. Didnt use ozbargain and paid RRP.

    Edit. My 7 looks just like a 1 but it is a 7 but now my 7 is a 7 in the edit but not above.
    Glitch in the matrix or something or ozbargain gods think it should be no.1

  • +1

    What's the smallest debt you guys have even known of to be sold to a debt collecting agency?

    From my time working in lending and and credit analyst positions at a few big 4 banks, I remember coming across a couple of reasonable loan applications in particular that were initially declined due to bad credit associated with unknown unpaid:

    • $12 overdue library book fee.
    • $14 unpaid missed direct debit fee.

    That shit is crazy. Why would you even buy a debt that low from anyone to try and chase down in the first place?

    • I suppose that the idea is a bank might sell a small debt more cheaply. Then if you have 15,000 X $5k debts on the books, all bought for $1k, as a debt collector, you try and squeeze that portfolio for what it's worth. I'm sure it could be a profitable venture, but it's as tasteful as working for a cigarette or gambling company.

      • I know one particular phone company will only write off debts under $20. So yes, they will sell or assign debt of $21 to another mob.

  • +6

    I agree that the family with 5 kids should exercise financial responsibility. I strongly disagree with the methods used by lion finance to recover their debt.

  • +1

    I thought they were complaining about the debt collector intimidatory behaviour by threatening to take their house over a $17500 debt.
    Is lions actions really okay with you High&dry ?

    • +2

      The ball was in their court - they owed the money. If they'd just paid, like they did in the end anyway, there wouldn't have been an issue. Debt collectors collect debts - there's a legal process they have to follow, which society has set out as the accepted method, and they followed it. Would bikies have been a better option?

      • -4

        All of posts are relating to similar r*t***** tones https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/191082/nodes
        Are you in Debt Collection and work as a collector making calls. I know there is a lot of pressure for a Royal Commission on them along with the PayDay sector. And if they have one, expect most of them to shut shop and move back to UK, where they came from

        • +1

          All of posts are relating to similar r*t***** tones

          U wot m8?

          No seriously though, no idea what you're trying to say, and I've got a niggling suspicion you don't know how to spell it either…

          (But no, fyi I don't work in debt collection. Good god, what a soul-killing line of work that'd be.)

          • @HighAndDry:

            U wot m8?

            Based on the number of asterisks, I assume the poster is self-censoring the word "retarded".

      • +1

        Not bikies (I didn't mention bikies; is this just hyperbole?) but maybe better laws and more alternatives than moving to sell someone's house when the debt is not overly large (in comparison to the price of a house); I would find it hard to believe that 'society' would be happy with putting a family of 7 out on to the street in this scenario. Apparently you think its all fine because it is legal.
        If, as you say Lions methods were legal, then perhaps it is a red flag that laws ought to be changed.

        • +1

          but maybe better laws and more alternatives than moving to sell someone's house when the debt is not overly large

          There are - they're exhausted far before the debt is sold to debt collectors in the first place. Again, this is the legal way to force someone to pay money they owe. I mentioned Bikies because that'd be the not-legal way.

          What alternative would you propose?

          • +1

            @HighAndDry:

            What alternative would you propose?

            They continue accepting the $50 a week they negotiated with them and was being paid by them.

            • +1

              @zeggie: Maybe you'll get some sort of acknowledgement that this was happening. I've raised it and got nothing in response from OP.

            • +1

              @zeggie: This only happened after the threat of bankruptcy. They likely avoided paying anything for years, if they had actually paid it off as agreed, it never would have gone to debt collectors.

              • @brendanm: No. Read the article. Lion bought the debt in May 2018.

                "Once the debt collector took over the couple's debt, Ms Forrest re-commenced repayments at $50 a week."

                September 2018 they issued the bankruptcy notice.

                They should have continued to accept the repayments of $50 but renegged on that to try and weasel the entire amount pronto. But hey, we're talking debt collection mobs here. Snakes.

                • +1

                  @zeggie: Why wasn't she paying the $50 a week before they took over? They would have told her about the impending bankruptcy as a threat over the phone to get her to start paying.

                • @zeggie: The negotiation was with the bank not the debt collector.

                  Once the debt is sold, t is a new set of rules set by the collectors

                  IF you don't play by the banks rules, sooner or later you have to play by the harsher debt collectors ones.

                  I thought this is common knowledge.

  • yawn

  • +2

    Going bankrupt over 10k is absolutely nuts, that 21 day timeframe is insane, drive a cab/stack shelves/sell shit whatever. Easier said than done

    • +3

      Agree with you on all points - with just one caveat: That 21 day timeframe is really 21 days on top of how ever many years they've been kicking that debt down the road.

      But that's also what annoys me - they managed to pay it once they were pushed to do it, why not face their responsibility to repay without having to be pushed in the first place? It's not as if they didn't know or agree that they owed the money.

      • +2

        But that's also what annoys me - they managed to pay it once they were pushed to do it,

        By taking out another loan. It's not like they had savings on hand just squirreled away and were actively choosing not to pay.

        It's not as if they didn't know or agree that they owed the money.

        They did know because they recommenced paying off the debt at $50 per week when it was sold off to Lion Finance.

        • But they could've taken out a loan to repay it before - and chose not to do that. And yes, my point is they knew they owed money, and on what terms, and deliberately chose not to uphold what they had agreed to.

          • +1

            @HighAndDry:

            But they could've taken out a loan to repay it before

            And here's the backflip. You're crucifying this couple for this debt and here you are recommending they take out another loan?

            Exactly how individuals in their circumstances get into these messes.

            • +3

              @zeggie:

              And here's the backflip. You're crucifying this couple for this debt and here you are recommending they take out another loan?

              What? This is how responsible debt management works. What do you think debt consolidation is?

              You take out a fixed term, lower interest loan to repay multiple loans or credit card debts incurring higher interest.

              I think I'm done here, if you either don't understand debt consolidation, or are wilfully being blind to this in order to keep the argument going.

              • +1

                @HighAndDry: There's no indication they had any debt other than their secured mortgage and this credit/card interest free debt.

                If the debt was sold then their credit rating is toast and they won't get finance from anyone other than the most shady of mobs (which sounds like they ultimately had to). They're probably on an astronomical interest rate now with this new mob, they just don't have imminent bankruptcy looming over them. And down and down they spiral.

                • @zeggie:

                  There's no indication they had any debt other than their secured mortgage and this credit/card interest free debt.

                  Since you still seem to not have read the article but want to keep arguing it… Yeah I give up. From the article:

                  Along with their mortgage, there were bills and other ongoing direct debits, including their car finance.

                  • +1

                    @HighAndDry: There's no indication they had any debt suitable for consolidation. That was the entire premise of your post.

                    1. The car is the security. You can't consolidate it, nor with the finance company permit it.
                    2. Nothing there saying they were behind on that payment, nor even still have the car.
                    • @zeggie: Hahah who's backtracking now? You said "secured mortgage", you weren't talking about the car finance.

                      • +1

                        @HighAndDry: You said they should get another loan.

                        I laughed at that idea as you said they are "unfit" financially for that.

                        You said your post is legitimate because they should "consolidate their loans".

                        There is no evidence, from the article, that they have any other loan or debt requiring or able to be consolidated.

                        • +1

                          @zeggie:

                          I laughed at that idea as you said they are "unfit" financially for that.

                          No, I said people who can't be financially responsible - and exercise the right to contract that comes with being an adult while fulfilling the same responsibilities - aren't fit to adult.

                          The article only focuses on one debt, because the company only sued them for one debt. They also had car finance, and almost certainly other debts because it refers to "direct debits", plural.

                          So again, I'm done here because you're now just nitpicking to try and save face.

                          • +1

                            @HighAndDry: Even if you're made bankrupt your car can only be repossessed by a creditor who isn't named in the car finance contract if you satisfy certain conditions.

                            https://www.afsa.gov.au/insolvency/cant-pay-my-debts/what-ha...

                            Not sure what you think their other direct debits might have been, but stuff like power bill deductions etc. spring to mind for me. Neither of us know so it's all pure speculation.

                            There's no doubt that those direct debits took precedence over their other financial responsibilities, which shouldn't have happened. The fact is, it did, and the debt collector had a number of options on the table to deal with the issue. It opted for the most extreme course of action, despite the fact that repayments were being made at $50 per week.

                            • +2

                              @Nomadesque:

                              the debt collector had a number of options on the table to deal with the issue.

                              Payments of $50/wk is possibly not even treading water considering they owed about $10k, and the debt collector evidently - as the results show - chose the right option. Again - it was only the threat of bankruptcy, the couple weren't actually bankrupted.

                              • +1

                                @HighAndDry: How is it the right option when you yourself have said that people without a modicum of financial literacy shouldn't be able to operate in the loan market if they can't meet their obligations?

                                Also, if Lion Finance truly believes the below, I'm unsure how getting a peer-to-peer lender loan fits with that goal.

                                Lion Finance said its focus was always on helping customers "rehabilitate their finances, enabling them to get back on the road to financial freedom".

                                • +1

                                  @Nomadesque:

                                  How is it the right option when you yourself have said that people without a modicum of financial literacy shouldn't be able to operate in the loan market if they can't meet their obligations?

                                  Because it actually resulted in the debt being repaid, when up to then it wasn't.

                                  Lion Finance said its focus was always on helping customers "rehabilitate their finances, enabling them to get back on the road to financial freedom".

                                  Of course they don't believe it, they're debt collectors, their job is to collect as much of a debt as they can. That's just not as PR-friendly, and as this thread shows, being PR-friendly is important because a lot of people work on emotion more than logic.

                                  I'm sure if people in this thread had a better way of getting the loan repaid, Lion would love to hear it.

                                  • +2

                                    @HighAndDry:

                                    Because it actually resulted in the debt being repaid, when up to then it wasn't.

                                    The debt hasn't been repaid. It's effectively been transferred to another lender and a new loan has been created.

                                    You're supporting these people taking out a loan to repay a debt collector but admonishing them for taking out a loan to buy personal items for their house which was subsequently transferred to the debt collector.

                                    It's the same debt, the repayment mechanism is the same, and it's presumably a legally binding contract which you say they shouldn't be allowed to enter into based on past behaviour. So why the different attitude?

                                    Surely a better approach would be to get these people off the loan roundabout and free from financial contracts that they have no hope of honouring?

                                    This could be done by garnishing wages, as stated in the article. The money goes straight to the debt collector from the employer each pay period. I'm reasonably sure that the ATO does this for people who don't meet agreed repayment schedules.

                                    • +1

                                      @Nomadesque:

                                      garnishing wages

                                      Exactly. Cheap and effective way for creditors to get their debt repaid over a period of time. $50-100 a week. It eventually gets paid off.

                                      Problem is they want their money now. Problem with Lion is, they make more money if they take it all the way to bankruptcy. Them sweet legal fees.

    • +5

      They didn’t need to purchase new washing machine and bed. Plenty of cheap second hand items on gumtree. Could purchase both of these for under $100 if not cheaper, yet they chose to go into debt.

    • +1

      They had 50 months interest free to pay back the loan. They chose not to.

      They've been in public housing for many many years, somehow while they both worked.

  • -1

    Im pretty stunned by commenters lack of sympathy for these people. I can understand if you don't think their decisions were wise but lets put it in perspective.

    They had a debt of $9600. The debt collector took on the debt, added interest and fees, and to recover that debt the debt collector chose to bankrupt them. This means the debt collector will get their assets including their house. Obviously the house would sell for far higher than the cost of the debt, which would leave the family without a home and financially ruined.

    The debt collector makes a huge amount of money off them, while the family would likely have to turn to government benefits and end up costing society more.

    Also have a look at the graph in the news article. The ATO is dropping the amount of bankruptcies while Lion has increased theirs dramatically. Obviously its in their business model to bankrupt people to make money off their debts. The big banks have barely changed their amount of bankruptcies and they would have a much larger amount of debts on their books.

    Put yourselves in their shoes. Is it fair for someone to lose everything they have over a debt thats not even 10K. Thats morally bankrupt in my opinion.

    • +5

      Obviously the house would sell for far higher than the cost of the debt, which would leave the family without a home and financially ruined.

      I'm sorry but are you under the impression the debt collector gets the ENTIRE house or the equity in it?

      • Don't be dense. That's clearly not what they posted. Those are your words.

      • +1

        The debt collector takes posession of your property.

        The debt collector then sells the property on the open market.

        The debt collector deducts expenses and unpaid debts from the property sale and then either gives you the remaining money back if you own the asset outright, or pays your financial institution what they are owed and then you if there's anything left over.

        End result is that you still lose your house regardless of whether you get $500,000 back or zero (or are still left with a debt due to your property being worth less than you paid for it).

        Obviously there are further expenses incurred in purchasing a new property (e.g. stamp duty) if you're lucky enough to be left with sufficient funds to do so. You definitely lose more than just the value of the debt you owe.

        This can happen over a debt of $5000. Doesn't seem like punishment commensurate with the offence to me.

        • +3

          End result is that you still lose your house regardless of whether you get $500,000 back or zero

          True, but if you had equity, that'll be enough to put down a rental bond and still have some place to live.

          (or are still left with a debt due to your property being worth less than you paid for it).

          If there's no equity, the creditor wouldn't sell it - that'd be pointless unless they were the one holding the mortgage.

          This can happen over a debt of $5000. Doesn't seem like punishment commensurate with the offence to me.

          This isn't punishment. If you owe money and can pay it back, you should. If you owe money and can't pay it back, your assets - even if it's a house - are seized to pay it back.

          It's as much a punishment as not looking where you're stepping while on a hike and tumbling down the side of a mountain. Disproportionate results for a trivial error, but consequences are consequences.

          • +1

            @HighAndDry:

            The debt collector then sells the property on the open market.

            If there's no equity, the creditor wouldn't sell it

            Neither actually. The Trustee in Bankruptcy will. The debt collector, creditor, whatever, don't get a say in anything.

            If there's no equity they will still sell it as they have a fiduciary duty to the bankrupt. If the bankrupt can't afford it then the Trustee needs to offload it.

            If you thought debt collector fees were bad, you should see what Trustee fees compose of…

            It's as much a punishment

            Right. So their error should be a punishment that can ruin their lives. But when financial institutions make an error, their consequences are a minor slap on the wrist and a monetary fine that is inconsequential compared to their profits? Sounds even.

    • I've suffered being debt-ridden, and I know what it's like, and I sympathise with anyone in that situation. It's no fun, and I wish them only the very best. It must however be noted that getting out of debt would only happen to someone only if they made an effort to change their ways with how they spend money (especially the money that they don't have - like, using a credit card).

      debt collector chose to bankrupt them. This means the debt collector will get their assets including their house. Obviously the house would sell for far higher than the cost of the debt, which would leave the family without a home and financially ruined.

      All of this is imaginary though, as nobody in their right minds would elect go go bankrupt over $10000. I suppose the finance company did this as it seems to be the only way to make these people take responsibility and repay the debts that they owe. I bet that washing machine and bed wasn't worth this much trauma, after all. Why not buy something off gumtree for cheap if they don't have the money to buy brand new, or the means to repay if they make that purchase with borrowed money? This could probably be attributed to their ignorance with financial matters, I'm not discounting that possibility.

      Also have a look at the graph in the news article. The ATO is dropping the amount of bankruptcies while Lion has increased theirs dramatically. Obviously its in their business model to bankrupt people to make money off their debts.

      The graph is not showing bankruptcies, but who is suing for bankruptcies. That is a very important difference, and I am confident that nobody would go bankrupt over small loans such as this - it only appears to be used as a tactic to threaten people enough so they pay the debts back. A shady and disgusting practice, yes. But one that should probably work, given how much their suing has increased over time.

      • +2

        it only appears to be used as a tactic to threaten people enough so they pay the debts back.

        Actually, for Lion Finance it's a tactic to get a constant income stream for the Law Firm they own. They'll get $3000-6000 in costs for every matter than gets to a creditor's petition. Thus why they issue so many. They don't negotiate. It's more money!

        • +1

          That makes sense.

        • +2

          Both the cases in the article never got to actual bankruptcy - it's a tactic to get people to repay, and one that works.

          • +1

            @HighAndDry: "In court, the debt collector claimed Steven owed more than $11,000."

            It went past the issuing of a bankruptcy notice to the creditor's petition hearing. It was just a tactic or threat they would have stopped at the former.

            • +2

              @zeggie: They weren't bankrupt, therefore it never actual got to actual bankruptcy.

              Obviously nothing was repaid any earlier, because the court action was stopped as soon as the money was repaid. Ergo it's a tactic.

              • +1

                @HighAndDry: They negotiated and agreed to a $50/week repayment plan. Lion renegged on that for a payday.

                Good racket isn't it?

                Buy a $5000 debt for cents on the dollar. $1000 maybe.

                Add more interest on top of the interest in the original debt.

                Give the work over to the Law Firm you own and issue a bankruptcy notice. $1500 in fees right there.

                Issue in the FCC. Another $2000-3000 in fees and filing fees.

                Finally squeeze blood from the stone. $11,000 payment from that $1000 purchased debt. Court fees taken out it's a nice ~80% profit margin.

                Rinse and repeat 512 times a year.

                • +2

                  @zeggie:

                  They negotiated and agreed to a $50/week repayment plan.

                  Where does it say that?

                  Finally squeeze blood from the stone. $11,000 payment from that $1000 purchased debt.

                  The saying is "can't get blood from a stone". If something's coming out, it's not a stone. Plus, it was $9,600 original debt, where are you getting $1,000 from?

                  FFS you still haven't read the article have you?

                  • @HighAndDry:

                    Where does it say that?

                    "In May 2018, the credit card company sold the debt to collector Lion Finance…. Once the debt collector took over the couple's debt, Ms Forrest re-commenced repayments at $50 a week."

                    The saying is "can't get blood from a stone".

                    https://giphy.com/gifs/xT9IgHCTfp8CRshfQk

                    it was $9,600 original debt

                    "5 years ago bought a bed and a washing machine"

                    The bed and washing machine did not cost 9 grand. The rest is interest and fees.

                    where are you getting $1,000 from?

                    I hazarded a guess at what the debt collection mob paid for the debt from the finance company (assumed to be GE). Going rate is about 5-20% of the debt at the time of default. That's how the debt collection mobs make their money.

                    • +1

                      @zeggie: The only reason they have that amount of interest and fees is because they did not pay off the original debt. That is their fault, and their fault alone. If they had simply done what they were meant to, there would be no extra fees, there would have been no extra interest, and there would be no lion finance. They thought it would go away as it was a small amount, they thought wrong.

                      • +2

                        @brendanm:

                        and there would be no lion finance.

                        Strange. Why why there a Royal Commission again?

                        Why have they been fined over half a dozen times the last decade?

                        Is it possible, just possible, that money was lent to people they can't afford to repay it? Irresponsible lending? Let's ask the Commissioner

                        • @zeggie: As I said, people can figure out for themselves what they can afford to pay. If they paid it, there would be no need for lion finance, as there would be no debt to collect. At any rate, these peoples situation has nothing to do with "responsible lending". It was probably $1000-1500, over a 4 year period. That is under $10 a week. They simply chose not to pay it, and have now suffered the consequences of their own actions.

                          • +1

                            @brendanm:

                            these peoples situation has nothing to do with "responsible lending"

                            Millions of dollars in fines and a Royal Commission suggests otherwise.

                            They simply chose not to pay it

                            She didn't choose to get injured and forced to retire.

                            • @zeggie: They only had to pay $8 a week. Pretty sure they weren't paying it before she was injured.

                              $8
                              A
                              Week.

    • +1

      Do you feel sorry for those that get a speeding fine and refuse to pay it and a few years later, the $100 fine is now $3000?

      I agree there should be some maximum limit or admin fee that can be applied

  • I agree with 99% of highanddrys comments, plus Im not a big fan of the banks/debt collectors etc.

    but hypothetically, if the bank gave this family a credit card with limit $100k, we all be screacming black and blue "how could the banks lend such a huge amount to these people"
    and yet the debt collectors are/were trying to bankrupt these people over $10k

    the banks have to be responsible in lending, there are laws for that (sufficient or not, thats another story)

    But i have a huge problem with this family making it sound as though they are the victims,
    and ironically with the threat of bankruptcy, they managed to get the money quikc smart,

    so they obviously would prefer to be in debt to friends and family, instead of debt collectors, if thats their choice they need to be prepared in getting hassled by them,
    but yet 10k bankrputcy to me isnt that unreasoanble , thats in my opinion

    • +1

      the banks have to be responsible in lending, there are laws for that (sufficient or not, thats another story)

      Problem is and what people fail to see, which is being missed in this thread, is the processes and methods in place, in that particular chain of stores that they took up the original finance, are now illegal and no longer occur in that way.

      Why are they illegal now? For some of the reasons in this article.

      they managed to get the money quikc smart,
      debt to friends and family,

      Peer to peer lender. They had to obtain a second mortgage or accept a caveat on their house from another shady finance mob. Ruined financially now.

      • +3

        thats very true, thats a legal matter which could go either way and could take a long way

        judging by their spendigng behaviour, I think they were financially ruined before all this happened too, so not giving these people any more credit isnt a bad idea

        this discussion would be so much different if the original news article said "we stuffed up, we need help, please give us free financial education or give us free access to debt consolidation"
        and not "its not our fault, debt collectors are bad, we are innocent" type attitude

        • +1

          I think they were financially ruined before all this happened too,

          Injury and single income more likely.

          Suddenly their income is halved. Gotta pay the mortgage or the kids don't have a roof. Need to pay the car or husband can't get to work. Something had to give. And it was the credit card.

          • +1

            @zeggie: yep absolutely,

            when I first moved out when I was 18, I made sure that I had a months rent saved up, it was my safety net, in case something happened,
            there were a few times I had to borrow $100 from my GF at the time or had zero money in my bank account after paying all bills, and it made me feel crap

            unfortunately, life throws curve balls at you, you could have a car accident, a parking fine, someone breaks your window, anything could happen,
            for me, having a buffer even when I was 18 was crucial

            • +3

              @Samsungnote10: Agreed. A buffer is important to have.

              However being ~50 years old couple with kids and a mortgage can make it difficult for a lot of families to have a buffer, or replace the buffer if it is used. Thus the sheer amount of debt support services now available.

  • -2

    Debt collection is a industry destroyed by left wing politics - the idea of a 'fair go' taken advantage of by bogans and junkies

    Similar story to residential landlords if you chasing a old tenant for rent unpaid the system treats YOU like a the criminal!

    • left wing politics

      You do realise which wing government was and is in power when the majority of the reforms came in, right?

      • +2

        I think the "left wing" vs "right wing" is but a giant load of crap in general. I find it impossible to agree with (or disagree with) everything that any one side of the political wing has to offer.

    • +1

      destroyed by left wing politics

      Typical right wing! They would never stop blaming labour even if they govern for more than 50 years. They would still come back and say labour, labour, labour!

      Stop (profanity) shift blaming for your incompetency. Get on with your job and focus on what you have to offer.

  • +1

    Im assuming their 5 kids are all (mostly) adults now. Surely they can help out their parents as well?

    • +3

      if you grew up watching your parents financial behavior
      chances are they will be behaving the same manner

      • fair point

      • Very very true.

  • +1

    (profanity) me people are stupid

  • You have an absurdly distorted grasp of what it is like to exist in a community bereft of employment and education opportunities.

    Grow up.

    • +3

      and education opportunities.

      K-12 Education is free in Australia.

      Grow up.

      Funny, that's what I think the solution is too.

    • Australia is full of education and employment opportunities for those that want them.

  • +1

    If it's only $11k why not sell the house, pay the $11k then buy a house for $11k less? Simple example of course disregards stamp duty, fees etc. But surely beats bankruptcy?

    • +1

      Or they can just sell the car and a few things at home. The kids should be grown up so just a bit of help and they should be fine.

    • Pop quiz, what are real estate agent commissions in your area, and stamp duty in your State?

      • Pop quiz, significantly less than the sell price

  • +1

    Lost me at living of the public purse. This instantly identifies the writer as a sanctimonious Murdoch reader. A lot of people are a few paychecks from trouble and without family to bail them out and when you are poor the credit available is massively expensive. A broken down car can put you in a world of pain if you're rural.

    There is a lot of middle class welfare in Australia, negative gearing and franking credits being two key ones. A lot of wealthy people are paying bugger all tax looking down on low income earners who do.

    Newstart is a joke, anyone with a family to support will instantly struggle if the breadwinner isn't earning.

    It's a lot easier to laugh at the odd feckless family in debt. Most are just doing it tough with few breaks which the banks take full advantage of.

    • Lost me at living of the public purse.

      The funny thing is that they aren't living in public housing and are now paying off their own home.

      FAKE NEWS!

  • +1

    There’s no point in criticising them.

    Let’s all just happily adopt lessons learnt as they befit our own morals.

  • Trying to keep up with the Jonas is what it is, these guys haven't felt the full blown recession yet.

    • From the article it's pretty clear they lived and raised kids through the early 90s one.

  • Ability to make repayment should be the first thing to consider when apply to all type of loan. Basic finance management 101.

    • +1

      How dare you insist that someone should actually budget or use their brain when taking out a loan! Blasphemy!

    • Ah yes. Another News Limited "think piece". Guess they found their target audience in you :)

      Shall I start a new thread regarding Baby Boomer company directors racking up company debt, phoenixing companies at will repeatedly, to avoid paying anything back to creditors? Will that obtain the same level of outrage?

Login or Join to leave a comment