Saturday, November 24, 2012

What am I supposed to take from this?

A happy ending ... except for those who collectively lost $40,000 through written off debt.

I mean, what is the point of this story? What is it meant to achieve? To send a helpful message about not getting into debt? To make people who haven't lost their jobs feel guilty? To put a human face on the recession? Is it a modern day Aesop's fable?

It doesn't link to any policy-barrow being pushed. Except maybe the socialist clamour over inequality. Good- guys- are- poor- too sort of thing.

They sound and look like a very nice family but they've also had (albeit inadvertently) stuff they never paid for and never will. I suppose that's uncharitable of me. But this "no asset" procedure just sounds like another  safety net that will encourage irresponsibility. Another scheme to transfer financial onus from the have-nots to the haves. Trouble is, sometimes the haves aren't.

5 comments:

Berend de Boer said...

I don't think you are uncharitable.

What is uncharitable is leaving companies that gave you the goodies nothing. They have to explain that to their kids: sorry guys, no food on the table today, we didn't get paid.

The charitable thing for them to do is to pay off all their debts, even if it takes some years.

Viking said...

It was a blather peice from the Sally's.
Note there were 3 surnames included from this blended family and the 17 yr old can earn her own dosh.
Not easy I recognise. (mainly because the stuopid socilaists prevent employers from paying a reasonable rate legitmatley. Note the Asians etc working for way less when contracted.See bottom of this page.http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?32114-They-Have-Blown-Any-Chance-of-Evading-Tax/page2


No consideration given to the donors of the $40k. No opinions from them. Just encourages stupid people.

Anti Ansell said...

Hi Viking.

I suppose you've worked out who Anti-Ansell is by now.

Brendan said...

No happy ending for the retailers in this story. What makes it ok to defraud them I wonder?

Anonymous said...

The guy was a purchasing officer and borrowed $16000 to pay for a wedding? Idiot. As a taxpayer, stories like this anger me greatly. NZ is sliding downhill as a result of Govt. sanctioned responsibility aversion.