Insolvent? 'Sell your wedding ring' - Alan Shatter

davet82

Justice Minister Alan Shatter has today ruled out exempting wedding rings from the assets of people seeking a personal insolvency deal.

Minister Shatter's refused to accept a proposal at committee stage of the legislation that would allow one item of jewellery of 'ceremonial significance' not be counted as an asset.

However, Mr Shatter said that would simply not work.

"One individual's €100 ring that has ceremonial significance might be another individual's €200/€300,000 'diamond bazooka', where we're talking about debt relief notices and people having debts of no more than €20,000, I can't for the life of me figure why you'd want to exempt major items of ceremonial jewellery."

Should you be allowed to hold on to your wedding or engagement ring if you are bankrupt? Maybe its a ring that has been past down through generations of your family? Or should it all be up for grabs if you find yourself insolvent?

partyatmygaff

Why stop at wedding rings? Selling off your children to work as factory workers or selling off your kidney to the HSE would generate some revenue too.

shedweller

The solution here is to "lose" the ring. Problem?

Lollipops23

I see the man's point. Jewellery is jewellery. I would have thought the wedding ring was of reasonably little significance, unless it's a family heirloom or something.

inforfun

If someone took out a loan of €20.000 to pay for said ring i dont see why they should keep that ring if the €20.000 cant be paid back any other way.

Squ

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why stop at wedding rings? Selling off your children to work as factory workers or selling off your kidney to the HSE would generate some revenue too.

Do you really put your children on a par with a ring?

partyatmygaff

Squ wrote: »

Do you really put your children on a par with a ring?

For one I don't have any children and even if I did, you've still missed the point of that post. First they make you sell off any sentimental items and then they'll resort to selling off your organs and children.

EoghanConway

davet82 wrote: »

Should you be allowed to hold on to your wedding or engagement ring if you are bankrupt? Maybe a watch past down through generations of your family? Or should it all be up for grabs if you find yourself insolvent?

The first question should be "Should you be allowed to hold on to your wedding or engagement ring worth €200,000/€300,000 if you are bankrupt?"

Simple solution is to put a upper limit on the value allowed. Besides, isn't this just a kite-flying exercise? No decision made yet.

Where To

They are pieces of metal you only have the loan of, can't take them with you when you're dead.

seamus

The logic is perfectly sound.

The likes of Seanie Quinn, at the first sign of trouble would be off to antwerp to spend €500,000 on the most ridiculously expensive piece of jewellery he can find and then declare it to be of "ceremonial significance". Once the proceedings finish then he sells it on and he's laughing at us.

Though common sense would dictate that there's a way you can work it by putting an upper limit on the value of the item (say €2,000).

Excluding the scammers like Sean Quinn, Shatter is also correct to say that if your debt is relatively small (let's say €20k) and you're sitting on a piece of jewellery worth €15k, refusing to sell it because it has sentimental value, then quite frankly you should cop the fnck on and sell it.

Dravokivich

Ah Dave, calm down. If there's expensive jewellery, all he's saying is that it's a commodity with value that can be used against financial disputes. But he is not looking to chase down those that are of modest value in comparison.

Sykk

Squ wrote: »

Do you really put your children on a par with a ring?

You need to get a new sarcasm detector

davet82

Dravokivich wrote: »

Ah Dave, calm down. If there's expensive jewellery, all he's saying is that it's a commodity with value that can be used against financial disputes. But he is not looking to chase down those that are of modest value in comparison.

I am calm, I cant afford jewellery :pac:

seriously i'm just posting for discussion, i was interested in peoples opinions

the only thing that wouldnt be right in any case would be if a wedding ring that had been passed down from a great grand mother and being forced to sell it, i think that would be shítty so for me family heirlooms should be exempt no matter who it is.

Biggins

As others have said, if its really expensive jewellery and bills have to be paid, food has to be put on the table, its unfortunate but some things like kids (should) take without hesitation, take preference.

That said, Shatter will never have this problem! He's made for life now.

It should be one of the last things to go still I feel.

ebbsy

Dear Alan,

Eat my biscuit.

Yours,

Ebbsy

Gurgle

EoghanConway wrote: »

Should you be allowed to hold on to your wedding or engagement ring worth €200,000/€300,000 if you are bankrupt?

If you have an asset worth €200k, you're not bankrupt yet.

El Siglo

Sure let them eat cake as well...

Fucking joke so it is. Easy for him to say when he's on a massive salary with a massive pension afterwards, he'll never be in debt. I mean, money and paying bills etc... I understand, these need to be done. However, there are some things that do have significance in your life and a wedding ring is one of them.

yellowlabrador

I doubt that a plain gold band would be worth very much, you'd only get scrap value as most would be well worn and maybe engraved. If they put an upper limit of 100 e it would cover most rings.People spend fortunes, believing that jewelry will keep it's value, but there's a hefty markup and most rings will be worth only their weight. I doubt that for the ordinary person in debt, it would make much difference.

later12

Biggins wrote: »

That said, Shatter will never have this problem! He's made for life now.

Shatter was a successful solicitor and legal author before he became Minister. Anyway if you think people occupying positions like his are 'made for life' just look at Ivan Yeats.

I'm sure the Minister would be open to the suggestion that pieces of jewellery under a certain threshold would be exempt. Or what's the point of even doing that; as shedweller said, people are just going to lose the ring.

In principle, this is an entirely reasonable position for the Government to take.

Biggins

later12 wrote: »

Shatter was a successful solicitor and legal author before he became Minister. Anyway if you think people occupying positions like his are 'made for life' just look at Ivan Yeats.

I'm sure the Minister would be open to the suggestion that pieces of jewellery under a certain threshold would be exempt. Or what's the point of even doing that; as shedweller said, people are just going to lose the ring.

In principle, this is an entirely reasonable position for the Government to take.

Yates will always have a bare minimum of income, his pensions from the state.
Others are not that lucky sadly.
He can defer selling any rings by showing a court that he has even a bare minimum of incoming revenue so I seriously doubt he would ever have to sell his wife's wedding right - not would I expect a court to tell him/her to.

I can see the point the government is trying to make - when the mighty fall - however for the already average low paid citizen, most times they should be allowed to hold onto that which in symbol ...which binds lives of love together.

davet82

actually who owns the wedding ring?

the husband who bought it or the wife who recieved it?

Biggins

davet82 wrote: »

actually who owns the wedding ring?

the husband who bought it or the wife who recieved it?

If it was given as a gift - the wife.

If it was bought through a joint account or by people living together, sharing other living costs, possibly both.

Legally its difficult and many countries have different outlooks and legal points on the above (short version) matter.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Random joke about Jews and jewellery anyone?

Colmustard

Shatter is right, a ring is an asset, it may have sentimental value, but the person wont be buried with it, someone will inherit that asset. There was crazy money spent on bling during the Tiger years and I ask which has more value your ring or a roof over your head.

I am sure after the insolvency deal, the couple will have the option of selling the ring.

Colmustard

Cuchulainn1. wrote: »

Random joke about Jews and jewellery anyone?

Random stereotypical bullshti bordering on an anti semetic post.

mikom

Harei at mekudeshes li b’taba’as zo k’das Moshe V’Israel

SmilingLurker

I agree with selling wedding rings. You went into debt, you should pay it back. A wedding ring should be sold for food and family expenses well before a house gets repossessed.

I am paying my mortgage in massive negative equity. They can have my wedding ring if I cannot pay, it cost around 20 euro.

seamus

davet82 wrote: »

actually who owns the wedding ring?

the husband who bought it or the wife who recieved it?

It's a family asset. Both parties own it equally.

An engagement ring remains the property of the person who bought it, until the marriage is made. Under Irish law the engagement ring is considered part of a contract and does not become the woman's property until the marriage is completed. If either party calls off the wedding, the engagement ring must be given back.

In a typical situation where a marriage breaks down it would be very odd for a court to require either party to sell or hand over their jewellery unless there was a massive disparity in value. The engagement ring would remain the wife's property, but if her (or indeed his) wedding ring was very expensive, the court may order that it is sold and split.

Colmustard

Why stop at wedding rings, why not the rolex watch my missus bought me for our first xmas together,,"it means the world to me I would never part with it".

Sentimental value is an undefined thing and could be highly subjective it could mean anything.

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

It's a family asset. Both parties own it equally.

An engagement ring remains the property of the person who bought it, until the marriage is made. Under Irish law the engagement ring is considered part of a contract and does not become the woman's property until the marriage is completed. If either party calls off the wedding, the engagement ring must be given back.

In a typical situation where a marriage breaks down it would be very odd for a court to require either party to sell or hand over their jewellery unless there was a massive disparity in value. The engagement ring would remain the wife's property, but if her (or indeed his) wedding ring was very expensive, the court may order that it is sold and split.

All well explained above. Fair dues!

I should point out that in some cases (like in the USA for just example), there has been legal battles where the ring has been found to belong to the woman after its has been given to her.
Some judges come to the conclusion that as it was given as a gift as such, transfer of ownership has taken place.

Its a legal mess to be honest.

(Been divorced myself. Had to deal with all this crap. I let her keep her rings. Not worth the hassle.)

starbelgrade

Alan Shatter looks like he was modeled on a Spitting Image puppet of Julio Iglesias.

http://admin.newstalk.ie/wp-content/files/2011/12/Alan-shatter.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Julio_Iglesias09.jpg/220px-Julio_Iglesias09.jpg

Colmustard

starbelgrade wrote: »

Alan Shatter looks like he was modeled on a Spitting Image puppet of Julio Iglesias.

http://admin.newstalk.ie/wp-content/files/2011/12/Alan-shatter.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Julio_Iglesias09.jpg/220px-Julio_Iglesias09.jpg

Wasn't Iglesias some sort of x symbol, I never realised Shatter was so handsome.

davet82

Colmustard wrote: »

Wasn't Iglesias some sort of x symbol, I never realised Shatter was so handsome.

he's dreamy :rolleyes:

Thrill

Halloween Barn Bracks could become even more popular soon.




.

Bruce7

later12 wrote: »

Shatter was a successful solicitor and legal author before he became Minister. Anyway if you think people occupying positions like his are 'made for life' just look at Ivan Yeats.

I'm sure the Minister would be open to the suggestion that pieces of jewellery under a certain threshold would be exempt. Or what's the point of even doing that; as shedweller said, people are just going to lose the ring.

In principle, this is an entirely reasonable position for the Government to take.

Shatter's firm are notorious for being the most expensive solicitors in Ireland to use in a divorce. They gouge massive sums out of people whose marriages have broken down. His firm make an average of 200,000 - 300,000 per divorce.

Suffice it to say that he is not sentimental about marriage, and sees everything as an opportunity for financial gain.

smash

seamus wrote: »

The likes of Seanie Quinn, at the first sign of trouble would be off to antwerp to spend €500,000 on the most ridiculously expensive piece of jewellery he can find and then declare it to be of "ceremonial significance". Once the proceedings finish then he sells it on and he's laughing at us.

Sells it to who? cash for gold?

The margin on jewelry is massive, spend 500k on something and trade it in later for 50% cost max.

seamus

smash wrote: »

Sells it to who? cash for gold?

The margin on jewelry is massive, spend 500k on something and trade it in later for 50% cost max.

You don't go to a jewellers to buy a €500k piece of jewellery either. The whole thing can be organised through proper brokers and experts who will take the thing off your hands again. Sure, there'd be a loss, but a 50% loss is better than a 100% loss.

Witchie

They can have all my jewellery (except the cameo necklace I got from my granny's estate when she died) in exchange for my debts. No problemo. Where do I sign up?

I wish I could clear my mortgage with my total jewellery haul of about €400.

Ghandee

Where To wrote: »

They are pieces of metal you only have the loan of, can't take them with you when you're dead.

Leave it to the creditors in your will so.
Make use of it when your alive.

TommyKnocker

It would be my opinion that Alan Shatter and his ilk can **** right off with this idea tbh.

The only folks who this would affect would be the normal Joe/Joesphine Soap.

The like of Seanie and his mates would transfer ownership of any jewelry over to their cat or budgie and get away with it and usual by hiding in up north, while 85 yr old magie would have the rings ripped from her fingers becuse she didn't pay her household charge.

cournioni

I don't see how people who win a popularity contest and earn hundreds of thousands of Euro per year as a result should be able to make such decisions.

Biggins

TommyKnocker wrote: »

It would be my opinion that Alan Shatter and his ilk can **** right off with this idea tbh.

The only folks who this would affect would be the normal Joe/Joesphine Soap.

The like of Seanie and his mates would transfer ownership of any jewelry over to their cat or budgie and get away with it and usual by hiding in up north, while 85 yr old magie would have the rings ripped from her fingers becuse she didn't pay her household charge.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/home-tax-owners-to-decide-on-the-value-of-their-own-property-3228907.html

HOMEOWNERS will assess the value of their own house to pay the property tax, the Irish Independent has confirmed.

It has also been revealed that there will be severe penalties for anyone who undervalues their house -- with the fines being imposed by the taxman.

Revenue will carry out an information blitz ahead of next spring and will write directly to homeowners informing them of their obligations.

The form will contain personal details and offer various ways to make the payment, including by credit card, direct debit, instalments or monthly deductions from wages for PAYE workers.

Might have to sell those rings after all!

Iwasfrozen

TommyKnocker wrote: »

It would be my opinion that Alan Shatter and his ilk can **** right off with this idea tbh.

The only folks who this would affect would be the normal Joe/Joesphine Soap.

The like of Seanie and his mates would transfer ownership of any jewelry over to their cat or budgie and get away with it and usual by hiding in up north, while 85 yr old magie would have the rings ripped from her fingers becuse she didn't pay her household charge.

Maggie better start filling out them forms so. Maybe she has some gold fillings too.

TeddyTedson

inforfun wrote: »

If someone took out a loan of €20.000 to pay for said ring i dont see why they should keep that ring if the €20.000 cant be paid back any other way.

€20, 000 I think you mean
If not and she said yeah you're definitely on to a keeper there

Dyr

Shylock shatter, has a ring to it ha ha

Sleepy

I think the 200k rings are by far the exceptions. There'd be lots of engagement rings about that lads spend 8-10k on during the boom though. Of course, they're worth a fraction of that because the only real value in diamonds is their de-facto standard stone in an engagement ring.

So, whilst Johnny may have paid 10k for the ring on an engagement trip to Antwerp/New York, odds on the ring is worth 2/3k at most. The question then becomes, how much should one be allowed to keep in jewellery if bankrupt? 1k? 2k?

Biggins

Sleepy wrote: »

...So, whilst Johnny may have paid 10k for the ring on an engagement trip to Antwerp/New York, odds on the ring is worth 2/3k at most. The question then becomes, how much should one be allowed to keep in jewellery if bankrupt? 1k? 2k?

Indeed, and what if a ring, not too expensive in money terms also, has been handed down through generations in a family also?
It happens.

Stuff that - the tax man must get his pint of blood eh?

Again, I can see the point where some have paid themselves for huge new expensive rings in their own life time - but there is exceptions to the new rule.
I hope they have allowed for them.
My confidence in this (another) back-stabbing, lying, two faced government, is telling me "No!".

Colmustard

Bambi wrote: »

Shylock shatter, has a ring to it ha ha

Could you please explain to me why the man's religion has ANYTHING to do with this debate or his performance as a minister.

I await your explanation and don't suggest your disgusting snide comment was meant to be a joke.

Sleepy

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed, and what if a ring, not too expensive in money terms also, has been handed down through generations in a family also?
It happens.

Stuff that - the tax man must get his pint of blood eh?

Again, I can see the point where some have paid themselves for huge new expensive rings in their own life time - but there is exceptions to the new rule.
I hope they have allowed for them.
My confidence in this (another) back-stabbing, lying, two faced government, is telling me "No!".

Yes tbh.

I'd actually argue that inherited wealth should be less immune from the tax man than wealth one has earned themselves and already paid income tax on.

Scortho

I doubt banks will be going after rings worth 400-500. All theyll get is scrap gold prices.

It'll more likely be the ones that are worth a lot or have a good brand name after them.

Should someone who owes you money be allowed keep their Boodles engagement ring
http://www.boodles.com/boodles-emerald-cut-three-stone-ring-87.html

Doom

davet82 wrote: »

Should you be allowed to hold on to your wedding or engagement ring if you are bankrupt? Maybe its a ring that has been past down through generations of your family? Or should it all be up for grabs if you find yourself insolvent?

I'll solve this easy..... I'll give anyone cash up front for these bazooka's.......let's say 5c to the euro.....
"Sorry Mr Shatter we already sold the rings":P