Get rid of your pets to go Insolvent??

Hellrazer

Have to have a bit of a rant here.

Just heard on the radio that one of the rules in the new insolvency bill is to get rid of your pets in order to get the settlement set up.

Are these people living in the real world??Whats next get rid of the kids??
Stop eating?Dont wear clothes??


Im pissed off with this government and their stupid rules.

My dog costs me around 25 euros a month on food.17 per month for pet insurance and once a year a couple of hundred for boarding.


This is just nuts stuff!!!!


So would you get rid of your pet to get insolvency?

Thoughts on campaigning our beloved leaders to put a stop to this stupidity?Im actually fuming at this one and feel that we need to start doing something to stop this.

Heres a list of all your Tds e,ail addresses.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=12684

gimmick

Like everything else on that, I think it will be assessed. Now, if you were spending €100+ a month on your dog it would be recommended you got it rehomed. If you can prove that the expenses are not huge, and you can take a cut from, say, your socialising allowance, then there is no issue.

Or at least that is my understanding.

But I agree, it is indeed a sad state of affairs when they try and take something as precious as a pet away from you.

I truly despise everything about this country right now.

westies4ever

they are welcome to anything else i possess but they will prise my dogs from my cold dead arms.

yes they class pets as a luxury like sky sports etc ...

looking_around

As a sufferer from depression, if they try this with me, I will have my doctors, quacks, nurses and counsellors to drive them up the walls with calls and letters.

Wouldn't be the first time I had to fight something like this. (Was renting actually, and told, I should be renting something smaller or a room and that I should get rid of my animals to do so, before they'd pay rent allowance. --- that didn't work out very well for them.)

It's no wonder so many people still treat animals as some kind of disposable ornament or something. Even our "leaders" do.

Cuddlesworth

Hellrazer wrote: »

My dog costs me around 25 euros a month on food.17 per month for pet insurance and once a year a couple of hundred for boarding.

So 500 a year for food and insurance, plus couple of hundred for boarding? Does that include excess on the insurance?

The insolvency legislation is a means to let people get out of debt. Its not on your terms but those of the government. Your complaining that you should be entitled to keep your pet while ignoring the 2.5k you would be spending on that pet during the lifetime of the insolvency. Doesn't work that way, will never work that way. You won't get to pick and choose what parts of it suit you.

If you don't like it, don't go insolvent. Or don't borrow more then you can afford.

Corkbah

do you not think people who cannot afford their homes/bills should be making every effort to pay their bills - this includes expenses such as TV Subscriptions, pets, holidays, cars - if possible.

its really only affects those who are in debt and trying to avoid paying their creditors - without making a full effort.

westies4ever

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So 500 a year for food and insurance, plus couple of hundred for boarding? Does that include excess on the insurance?

The insolvency legislation is a means to let people get out of debt. Its not on your terms but those of the government. Your complaining that you should be entitled to keep your pet while ignoring the 2.5k you would be spending on that pet during the lifetime of the insolvency. Doesn't work that way, will never work that way. You won't get to pick and choose what parts of it suit you.

If you don't like it, don't go insolvent. Or don't borrow more then you can afford.

so the poor animal should be punished for this? and 'get rid' of it how? Put it to sleep? put it in a rescue? jesus.

im not insolvent and i dont plan on going insolvent but asking people to give up a loved family member is a step too far. sure why not ask people with kids to get rid of them or are they a luxury now too?

gimmick

Corkbah wrote: »

do you not think people who cannot afford their homes/bills should be making every effort to pay their bills - this includes expenses such as TV Subscriptions, pets, holidays, cars - if possible.

its really only affects those who are in debt and trying to avoid paying their creditors - without making a full effort.

Some/Many people are making every effort. Sometimes that effort is just not enough. You cannot deprive people of having a life and being able to enjoy themselves within reason. Having a dog, in my view, is cheap entertainment. He walks you (you know what I mean), he amuses you and he becomes a part of your every day life.

So simply getting rid is not an option.

Corkbah

gimmick wrote: »

Some/Many people are making every effort. Sometimes that effort is just not enough. You cannot deprive people of having a life and being able to enjoy themselves within reason. Having a dog, in my view, is cheap entertainment. He walks you (you know what I mean), he amuses you and he becomes a part of your every day life.

So simply getting rid is not an option.

I agree with you that the many people making an effort simply isn't enough for the banks - but it would show the courts that every effort is being made.

you could also argue that a dog is a family member - and as the annual campaign goes "a dog is for life not just for christmas".

Slutmonkey57b

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So 500 a year for food and insurance, plus couple of hundred for boarding? Does that include excess on the insurance?

The insolvency legislation is a means to let people get out of debt. Its not on your terms but those of the government. Your complaining that you should be entitled to keep your pet while ignoring the 2.5k you would be spending on that pet during the lifetime of the insolvency. Doesn't work that way, will never work that way. You won't get to pick and choose what parts of it suit you.

If you don't like it, don't go insolvent. Or don't borrow more then you can afford.

Borrowing is a two way street. If you don't want to have a debt written off, don't push loans into marginal cases based on flawed assumptions or analysis.

As far as I'm concerned the dogs are family members and not something to "get rid of" any more than kids
It's not really a question of "entitlement"

westies4ever

gimmick wrote: »

Some/Many people are making every effort. Sometimes that effort is just not enough. You cannot deprive people of having a life and being able to enjoy themselves within reason. Having a dog, in my view, is cheap entertainment. He walks you (you know what I mean), he amuses you and he becomes a part of your every day life.

So simply getting rid is not an option.

I couldnt agree more. its getting completely ridiculous. most people are in over their heads due to a change in personal circumstances and not recklessness. everyone is entitled to a certain standard living - its easy to forget that life is very short and that in 100 years no-one going to care about any of this.

meoklmrk91

Just wondering what they recommend happens to the pets that people we supposed to "get rid" of. Rehome? I know nobody looking for a dog, I know lots trying to rehome. Place in a rescue? Waiting lists for surrenders are months long in most rescues, they are bursting at the seams. So that leaves the pound which will cost the state money or having them PTS. To get "rid of" a dog these days is not nearly as simple as the term makes it sound. I understand that some people may think of having a dog as a luxury, and that is far enough but I really think they should have put some more thought into this.

What about cats, rabbits, hamsters, fish etc. ? Do they have to go too?

Lord TSC

I'd say it's more an example of how someone who doesn't have a pet doesn't realise the bonds someone can have with their pet.

They are drawing up a list of expenses that people can live without. So they say Sky or the likes, and they throw pets in that list as well. And I can see their point. But I guess you've got to realise that people without pets don't understand how some people will see their dog or cat of whatever as a family member. In their eyes, from a financial standpoint, it's a luxury expense.

It's not being a monster, it's being ignorant.

Cuddlesworth

westies4ever wrote: »

so the poor animal should be punished for this? and 'get rid' of it how? Put it to sleep? put it in a rescue? jesus.

im not insolvent and i dont plan on going insolvent but asking people to give up a loved family member is a step too far. sure why not ask people with kids to get rid of them or are they a luxury now too?

100 Euros(Est) to put the dog to sleep, versus 2500 to keep over three years. Heartless I know but from a financial standpoint the answer is obvious.

And children are not dogs, dogs are not children, in the eyes of the law and the courts.

Corkbah wrote: »

do you not think people who cannot afford their homes/bills should be making every effort to pay their bills - this includes expenses such as TV Subscriptions, pets, holidays, cars - if possible.

People who cannot afford their homes should not be living in those homes. Nor should they have frivolous bills, including Tv subscriptions or be having holidays. They are insolvent. And ongoing bills are second place to huge mountain of crippling debt they have.

Corkbah wrote: »

its really only affects those who are in debt and trying to avoid paying their creditors - without making a full effort.

It effects people who are unable to pay their debts, including mortgages. And there are plenty out there. Plenty more to come if interest rates rise drastically.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Borrowing is a two way street. If you don't want to have a debt written off, don't push loans into marginal cases based on flawed assumptions or analysis.

Agreed. At the end of the insolvency the bank will lose a huge sum of money. And you will be left with nothing. Clean start for both. Two way street.

bluewolf wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the dogs are family members and not something to "get rid of" any more than kids
It's not really a question of "entitlement"

Not in the eyes of the law.


I wouldn't be surprised if cats were not part of this as well.

borderlinemeath

A pet is a family member, a living thing that should not ever be considered disposable by the government, nor any banking body that is considering an application for a loan write down.

As for the posters that think 'every effort' should be made to pay back the bank, put yourself in the position and give up your family member that you committed to looking after for the duration of it's life. Bloody keyboard warriors. :mad:

Cuddlesworth

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I'd say it's more an example of how someone who doesn't have a pet doesn't realise the bonds someone can have with their pet.

They are drawing up a list of expenses that people can live without. So they say Sky or the likes, and they throw pets in that list as well. And I can see their point. But I guess you've got to realise that people without pets don't understand how some people will see their dog or cat of whatever as a family member. In their eyes, from a financial standpoint, it's a luxury expense.

It's not being a monster, it's being ignorant.

Pretty much. You have to see it from their standpoint though.

If dogs are allowed, why not horses. Plenty of people have a huge emotional attachment to horses. Any idea of how much it is to keep a horse stabled and fed?

What about somebody with 4 dogs? Is it fair they keep the four dogs at a cost of roughly 10k over three years? Do you make them pick one, put the other 3 down?

Cats, mice, guinea pigs? Do you allow one per family member? How do you justify the cost?

What if the pet is rare and worth a lot of money? How can you say to a creditor, "its fine that they get to keep a 2 grand cat, because its a pet and they have a emotional bond".

Mo60

If a person is feeling depressed due to the situation they are in, surely getting rid of their pet would only make them feel worse. This would possibly result in having to go to their doctor and start treatment or medication. How would this result in any money saving?

Cuddlesworth

Mo60 wrote: »

If a person is feeling depressed due to the situation they are in, surely getting rid of their pet would only make them feel worse. This would possibly result in having to go to their doctor and start treatment or medication. How would this result in any money saving?

It won't. Its not about money saving. Its about squeezing every last drop of available income and giving it to the people that are owed, to make the process justified in wiping out the remain debt at the end.

If the bank has 5k people insolvent with dogs they choose to keep, then its missed out on payments of 12.5 million Euros(Est) over three years.

wolfpawnat

My cat costs €3.50 a week in food and about €3 in cat litter at most. €20 a year in vaccines and if he ever needs a vet, my partner is training to be one so we only pay drug costs. If we need to go away for a weekend to family, we ask the neighbours to feed him. My gerbil is €3.50 a month in food, dinner scraps and about €5 in bedding, so the grand total of 358 for the cat and 100 for the gerbil. The a-holes in suits telling me to get rid of them were I in that position would be fiddling around on phones costing more than that. They can go to hell.

Mo60

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If the bank has 5k people insolvent with dogs they choose to keep, then its missed out on payments of 12.5 million Euros(Est) over three years.

Ultimately, who owns the bank?

I would never give up my pets. However if it came to a choice of feeding the pets or feeding the kids, I know what I would have to do.
I personally know a family who would let their kids go hungry but not their dog.

Lord TSC

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My cat costs €3.50 a week in food and about €3 in cat litter at most. €20 a year in vaccines and if he ever needs a vet, my partner is training to be one so we only pay drug costs. If we need to go away for a weekend to family, we ask the neighbours to feed him. My gerbil is €3.50 a month in food, dinner scraps and about €5 in bedding, so the grand total of 358 for the cat and 100 for the gerbil. The a-holes in suits telling me to get rid of them were I in that position would be fiddling around on phones costing more than that. They can go to hell.

It strikes me though you're obviously someone who keeps a good record of money though, so it's unlikely you're going to be asked to get rid of them though. The type of person in that level of debt likely wouldn't be as good with money as you....

Inexile

Hellrazer wrote: »

Have to have a bit of a rant here.

Just heard on the radio that one of the rules in the new insolvency bill is to get rid of your pets in order to get the settlement set up.

To be honest I dont think its quite like that though I appreciate that it has and will continue to be presented as such. I have had a look at the guidelines and they dont mention sky sports, pets or any hobby activity. The guidelines allow for a certain for "social inclusion" I think about €125 per month and its up to the individual how they spend this sum. From what I heard people can keep their sky sports etc but it will mean that they will just have less funds for other social activities. Similarly there is a figure in for grooming so if people want to let their hair down, literally, they can use this funding for other purposes.

My understanding of the guidelines is that are just that, guidelines. People will be assessed according to their situation and given a set montly allowance and after that its up to them how they spend it. If anyone has any link to anything that says you must give this or that up please post.

Overall its a sad situation that such guidelines are needed and some people may decide to give up their pet rather than cut in other areas. where these pets end up I dont want to think .

I hope people can reduce their funding on dogs through other means (eg. shop around on food and type of food, home grooming etc) and not feel forced into handing them up.

Hellrazer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So 500 a year for food and insurance, plus couple of hundred for boarding? Does that include excess on the insurance?

Id say that's about right.The excess doesn't come into it unless my dog has a serious illness that's probably going to require najor treatment or even being put down.

The insolvency legislation is a means to let people get out of debt. Its not on your terms but those of the government. Your complaining that you should be entitled to keep your pet while ignoring the 2.5k you would be spending on that pet during the lifetime of the insolvency. Doesn't work that way, will never work that way. You won't get to pick and choose what parts of it suit you.

In all fariness the insolvency legislation is a load of bollox to be honest.We are talking about peoples ability to have an actual life here.Im not talking about extravagance--Im talking about a family pet that's part of the family.
In general Im talking about a bank dictating what you can and cannot do with your own money if you decide to enter into the insolvency process.This legislation will cause more children to go hungry in the mornings..will cause more children to miss out on food,clothing etc.

I take it that you don't have any pets cuddlesworth otherwise you would see this the way us animal lovers do???

If you don't like it, don't go insolvent. Or don't borrow more then you can afford.

Now now.It wasn't the peoples fault for this crisis.It was the banks lending money hand over fist without checking if someone could repay those loans.

Heres an example.I cleared a car loan 2 years early back in 2005 or so.Within a week I got a letter in the door saying I was "pre approved" for another 10k.I didn't take them up on the offer but Id say thousands did.

When are the banks going to take some responsibility for this complete **** up they made of this country??

They seem to be getting the nice treatment these days when they caused it.Surely the easy way out is to let the banks take a loss on these loans when they didn't completely check out the persons ability to pay??

Obro

One of my neighbours who lives close by has 3 dogs. He is a Bank manager. Sure all us Joe Bloggs are paying for his dogs already due to all the banks terrible handling of affairs over the years.

I don't think he will be without his dogs !

Nino Brown

Hellrazer wrote: »

Im not talking about extravagance--Im talking about a family pet that's part of the family.
In general Im talking about a bank dictating what you can and cannot do with your own money if you decide to enter into the insolvency process.

I had to leave my dog in my parents house, because I can't afford a place with enough room for a dog, I live in an apartment. I work full time, and make good money, but having my dog here with me doesn't make financial sense.
Meanwhile some of my taxes are keeping people in bigger places, because they have a dog?.....madness!

Are the bank really dictating what you do with your money? That's money people have promised to pay the bank, technically it could be seen as the banks money, as they're owed it.

It's this sense of entitlement that got a lot of people in these positions in the first place, sooner or later they need to come back down to earth.

A right to a pet, a right to a social life, a right to house, a right to have kids. That's a lot of rights in a country with no money. I should quit my job and get me some rights.

Hellrazer

Nino Brown wrote: »

A right to a pet, a right to a social life, a right to house, a right to have kids.

They are rights that in my opinion a bank should not be able to dictate to a person.

That's a lot of rights in a country with no money. I should quit my job and get me some rights.

I disagree. Theres plenty of money in this country but people are unwilling to spend it because they don't know what this shower are going to tax next!

Pumpkinseeds

Essentially the gist is that the pet suffers. Whether the owner was irresponsible or not in their borrowing is negligable with regard to the best interests of the animal. It is disgraceful to suggest people be forced to abandon their animals in order to satisfy the greed of the banks.

I wonder if this clause is intended to deter people from availing of the insolvency bill.

wolfpawnat

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It strikes me though you're obviously someone who keeps a good record of money though, so it's unlikely you're going to be asked to get rid of them though. The type of person in that level of debt likely wouldn't be as good with money as you....

We both lost our jobs, every penny saved/inherited has gone into putting him through college again so we can get out of our mess. Thankfully we didn't get a house/car or credit cards so we have little debt, only the regular bills every few weeks. But everything is counted from the bus tickets to the shopping. The cat and gerbil are expenses too, though they would definitely be above most other ones. They are living things after all!

There is a part of the Medicine course that discusses peoples health as a whole. One thing that is mentioned is the ability to live as opposed to merely exist. Nothing much, just a social pint or two every second week (not a binge session) with friends, or go to the cinema, or even just a pet to stimulate the mind. Some people seem to think that you should be stuck in a bare shack with the barest of electricity and substandard food with no TV or even a book to entertain you if you are on the SW or if you have lost income.

It is proven having pets extends the life of the elderly and improves their lives. I am sure it is the same for everyone else. Even walking a dog decreases the chances of depression (decreases, not prevents).

Also, it would be a lot harder for people in the position of having to get rid of their pets to argue the point were those who owe billions forced to give up their far more extravagant extras first. I mean Johnny owing the bank €300,000 being told to give up everything from his car to the dog when Michael Fingleton lives close to me and no one has forced his house off him, let alone his dog yet. I see him walking his golden retriever at least every other day!

kunst nugget

Obro wrote: »

One of my neighbours who lives close by has 3 dogs. He is a Bank manager. Sure all us Joe Bloggs are paying for his dogs already due to all the banks terrible handling of affairs over the years.

I don't think he will be without his dogs !

If he lives within his means, why should he have to do without them? If he's a local bank manager he would have had no say in the corporate policy in regards to lending so I hardly think you can blame him for the current economic crisis.

Hellrazer wrote: »

They are rights that in my opinion a bank should not be able to dictate to a person. I disagree. Theres plenty of money in this country but people are unwilling to spend it because they don't know what this shower are going to tax next!

I have a pet dog and 2 kids but I'll be honest and say I have zero social life because I can't afford it at the moment. People complaining that they should be entitled to a social life or holidays when they have no money are talking through their holes imo. Pay your way first and if you have any left over go and enjoy yourself. If you've been made insolvent and you want to use whatever money they've budgeted for you to fund your social life on your dog instead then fair enough but let's face it being made insolvent is about you facing up to the enormous pile of poo you're living in and making pretty harsh adjustments to your lifestyle based on your new reality.

Mo60

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is proven having pets extends the life of the elderly and improves their lives. I am sure it is the same for everyone else. Even walking a dog decreases the chances of depression (decreases, not prevents).

I completely agree with you on this. Luckily I do not suffer from depression, but like a lot of other people there have been times in my life when I have felt very low due to certain circumstances. Having pets helped me through these times, and am sure others have found their pets can improve their lives.

Nino Brown

Mo60 wrote: »

I completely agree with you on this. Luckily I do not suffer from depression, but like a lot of other people there have been times in my life when I have felt very low due to certain circumstances. Having pets helped me through these times, and am sure others have found their pets can improve their lives.

Nobody is arguing that the dog won't help people, But I bet trips to Hawaii relieve stress and reduce the risk of heart attack. Just because something has a medical benefit doesn't give you a right to it if you can't afford it.
A pet is a luxury, simple as.

wolfpawnat

Mo60 wrote: »

I completely agree with you on this. Luckily I do not suffer from depression, but like a lot of other people there have been times in my life when I have felt very low due to certain circumstances. Having pets helped me through these times, and am sure others have found their pets can improve their lives.

My uncle is now pension age and is lost without a job, hand on my heart, without his two dogs and cats, he would actually be suicidal. As far as he is concerned they depend on him. The dogs have to be walked. He never thinks of how it positively affects him, but it does, he gets out, he talks to other owners, they keep him fit.

Mo60

Nino Brown wrote: »

A pet is a luxury, simple as.

Sorry, I do not count my pets as a luxury. They are an important part of my life.

Nino Brown

Mo60 wrote: »

Sorry, I do not count my pets as a luxury. They are an important part of my life.

Fair enough, then it's your responsibility to keep them. So if you were allocated a certain some of money for miscellaneous items, you should spend some of that on your pet since they are an important part of your life.
But the point is they are not a right. They are not something that you should be given a budget for on top of your allowance should you become insolvent. I agree that pets are a huge part of people's lives, including mine, but it's up to me to take responsibility for them, not the bank, or the public.

borderlinemeath

Nino Brown wrote: »

I had to leave my dog in my parents house, because I can't afford a place with enough room for a dog, I live in an apartment. I work full time, and make good money, but having my dog here with me doesn't make financial sense.
Meanwhile some of my taxes are keeping people in bigger places, because they have a dog?.....madness!

Are the bank really dictating what you do with your money? That's money people have promised to pay the bank, technically it could be seen as the banks money, as they're owed it.

It's this sense of entitlement that got a lot of people in these positions in the first place, sooner or later they need to come back down to earth.

A right to a pet, a right to a social life, a right to house, a right to have kids. That's a lot of rights in a country with no money. I should quit my job and get me some rights.

My taxes...My taxes...My taxes....It's like a boards mantra. Your taxes are going to a lot more wastage than people keeping dogs. When you hear about civil servant aides getting €30K overtime on top of a €40k plus salary, and he doesn't even have a desk in an office and he's the son/relative of a TD or whatever, yeah, get angry that your taxes are paying for that sort of wastage but don't deprive a family the right to keep their pets.

You've compromised with your pet, like others who have moved/emigrated but that was your choice as the best decision for you at the time. It still doesn't give the government the right to make the decision of what you can and can't spend your miniscule disposable income on.l

johnnyskeleton

bluewolf wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the dogs are family members and not something to "get rid of" any more than kids
It's not really a question of "entitlement"

What about a stable of horses or a koi pond? What if I borrowed 10k to buy purebred greyhounds and have defaulted on that 10k?

I don't think there is any real intention to take away family puppies, but the authority felt that domestic animals should not be above scrutiny. Then scandal seeking journalists instantly assume the worst.

Nino Brown

borderlinemeath wrote: »

My taxes...My taxes...My taxes....It's like a boards mantra. Your taxes are going to a lot more wastage than people keeping dogs. When you hear about civil servant aides getting €30K overtime on top of a €40k plus salary, and he doesn't even have a desk in an office and he's the son/relative of a TD or whatever, yeah, get angry that your taxes are paying for that sort of wastage but don't deprive a family the right to keep their pets.

You've compromised with your pet, like others who have moved/emigrated but that was your choice as the best decision for you at the time. It still doesn't give the government the right to make the decision of what you can and can't spend your miniscule disposable income on.l

I would like my dog here with me, if it's my right then who's going to pay for it? It's laughable what people think is a right in this country, no wonder it's in the state it's in, and it's the same people who want all these "rights" that are first in line to complain about taxes. If having a pet is a right, then everybody should get one right?
The government is not saying people can't have pets, but they are saying that choosing to spend disposable income on them is a choice, if you want to spend a bit less on something else then go right ahead. But it is a choice, and not something that warrants an extra budget.

Inexile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nino Brown
A pet is a luxury, simple as.

Quote from Nino Brown " A pet is a luxury simple as.
And a quote from "A right to a pet, a right to a social life, a right to house, a right to have kids. That's a lot of rights in a country with no money. I should quit my job and get me some rights. I do wonder about these two statements"
I dont agree with it but I understand it. Certainly if I was in financial difficulty and couldnt afford a dog I would not get one but I would keep the ones I had before. though I do understand that other non pet owners may think its a luxury - I dont agree with it but I understand it.
However, if I wasn in financial difficulty would I have a child if I wanted one. Possibly not though its not always possible to delay having children until its financially the right time. And while I dont equate pets with children I do wonder what would happen if a mass of people turned up at their local health board offices wanting to hand over their children . Somehow I think the level of allowance for children in the guidelines would go up.

Nino Brown

Inexile wrote: »

Certainly if I was in financial difficulty and couldnt afford a dog I would not get one but I would keep the ones I had before..

Absolutely, so would I. But I would have to sacrifice something else to do that, If I was given an amount of disposable income, I would spend some of that on my dog for sure, rather than give him up.
But I wouldn't say I need more money, because I have a dog, its not something I can't live without, it's something I would rather not live without, (ie. a luxury)

Bullseye1

You would be absolutely crazy to go bankrupt or insolvent in this country. They are living in the Stone Age when compared to how they handle insolvency in the UK and US. 1 year of hell in the UK or 3-7 years here. It's a no brainer.

The politicians of this country have failed its people completely and have allowed the banks to dictate the insolvency bill. There is not one politician within the main political parties who care about the general public. They are only concerned about their salary, pensions and making sure their son or daughter get elected in their seat when they are ready to retire.

borderlinemeath

Nino Brown wrote: »

I would like my dog here with me, if it's my right then who's going to pay for it? It's laughable what people think is a right in this country, no wonder it's in the state it's in, and it's the same people who want all these "rights" that are first in line to complain about taxes. If having a pet is a right, then everybody should get one right?
The government is not saying people can't have pets, but they are saying that choosing to spend disposable income on them is a choice, if you want to spend a bit less on something else then go right ahead. But it is a choice, and not something that warrants an extra budget.

I never said it was a right to own a pet, it is a personal choice, just like having children is a personal choice. But it should not be up to the government or the banks to insist that if you were to qualify for insolvency that you must get rid of your pet. TV/Sports subscriptions, gym memberships, holidays absolutely but to say that you should 'get rid' of a living being that has become part of your family to enable you to start your life over is bordering on blackmail.

Feathers

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But it should not be up to the government or the banks to insist that if you were to qualify for insolvency that you must get rid of your pet. TV/Sports subscriptions, gym memberships, holidays absolutely but to say that you should 'get rid' of a living being that has become part of your family to enable you to start your life over is bordering on blackmail.

Does anyone actually have a link to the legislation, or even a decent article about it? Would be good to see what they're actually asking people to do

Maudi

Costs a few quid too for the vet to "get rid"of ones pet...are they next suggesting we "do"it ourselves to save money?

Anynama141

I love this notion that the taxpayer/society owes everyone whatever they personally think they deserve. I'm sure people love their pets, but I'm sure other people love their vintage cars or their yachts. Should they be allowed keep them when going insolvent or bankrupt?

How would you feel if you were told that you, as a supplier, were not going to be paid back a couple of grand because a guy needed it to maintain his pride and joy, his yacht/car/afghan hound?

How would you feel if you needed that money to keep a roof over your head?

I'm fine with people being allowed a small amount of money to allow for a dog or cat, but if it gets beyond - say - a tenner a week, then the money probably needs to be found somewhere else.

Feathers

From the Journal (http://www.thejournal.ie/pic-how-much-youre-allowed-to-spend-under-new-insolvency-rules-875254-Apr2013/ )

The ISI has stressed that once a debtor comes within the ‘headline’ figure – of around €11,100 a year in this case – it will not be prescriptive in terms of what a borrower can spend their money on.

That's on the basis of a single person of working age. Surely that's a decent enough living for someone seeking debt write-off? You should be able to afford pets within that amount without struggling too much.

& from the ISI website:

These guidelines are not designedto force people out of their jobs nor are they designed for the micro management of a debtor’s day to day expenditure or lifestyle by the ISI, creditors, or any other party involved in an insolvency arrangement.

Source: http://www.isi.gov.ie/en/ISI/Pages/Chartered_Accountants_Leinster_Society_Luncheon

The idea of forcing people to give up pets sounds like scare-mongering tbh, unless you currently have something widely exotic (I.e. expensive).

Irishchick

I love this notion that the taxpayer/society owes everyone whatever they personally think they deserve. I'm sure people love their pets, but I'm sure other people love their vintage cars or their yachts. Should they be allowed keep them when going insolvent or bankrupt?

Are you seriously comparing a family pet to a car? An animal is a living creature. A pet becomes a member of the family and it keeping it has nothing to do with "pride". It's love.

I know people, including myself who would give up their left arm before getting rid of a dog,cat,whatever.

desertcircus

Mo60 wrote: »

Sorry, I do not count my pets as a luxury. They are an important part of my life.

My road bike is an important part of my life; training on it keeps me fit, gets me outdoors and improves my mood. That doesn't change the fact that it's a luxury. If it's not essential, it's a luxury.

Bullseye1

You think you will be asked to sell your bike?