The Law Intentional bankruptcy

Remove this Banner Ad

Smiling Buddha

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Oct 17, 2007
5,417
4,310
Cultural Marxist Utopia
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I have a friend who genuinely believes that (most) young people today with no assets ought to try to go bankrupt while young and live it up while doing so. I should note that he has been talking about it for a while now so I think he is being serious.

His logic is this: Mortgages, car loans, credit cards etc are all unnecessary and for most people are, at best, an expensive exercise in getting what they want earlier than they've earnt it, more often a ball and chain that curtail their freedoms for years or even decades of their lives, and at worst a ticket to financial misery and ruin down the track anyway. Not being allowed to take out such loans (due to bankruptcy) is thus a blessing, not a curse.

Other consequences of bankruptcy, such as having part of your income taken from you if you earn over a certain amount (60k/year I think), not being able to travel without trustee's permission, etc, are small prices to pay for the freedom of having no debt and no chance for debt, my friend reckons. Note that he is qualified in a field that can get him work whenever he wants it so the spectre of having 'bankrupt' against his name for the rest of his life doesn't worry him from a work perspective.

So he figures that your best bet, if you are young and have no assets to worry about, is to get as many credit cards as you can, travel the world for as long as the credit keeps coming, then come back to Aus when the party is over, file a debtor's petition, then work and save up money because you will never be able to borrow it from the banks again - which, I'll repeat, he sees as a good thing in and of itself anyhow.

I explained to him that my understanding is that if his parents (or anybody else) dies and leaves him something in their will while he is bankrupt, he won't get it. He shrugs his shoulders and says he will tell people not to put him in their will so the trustee doesn't get the loot. I explained to him that he won't be able to get a business loan and he said that this was also good: if he ever starts a business that needs capital, he 'wants it to be his capital so he is not at the behest of reserve bankers and their intentional boom-bust monetary sham'.

His logic is that if enough people started doing this, it would be a more effective way to create positive change than Occupy Wall St or protests on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I should note that he thinks the banking and fiat monetary systems of today are evil. In fact he sees going intentionally bankrupt as the most moral thing a person can do - hence his description of the exercise as going 'morally bankrupt' (a genius play on words imo). But he also says that he doesn't expect people will actually tag on to this movement because they have been 'brainwashed into taking for granted that bankruptcy is bad and so will never really question' why they shouldn't take and blow all of the free money being offered to them by the banks. He hopes to create change but will settle for simply living it up like a king and being punished with the very ability to borrow money which he doesn't want being taken from him when he is done. He will then work, save money, and maybe one day buy his own house with cash, because that will be his only choice if he wants real estate - no chance of being sucked into the system by a mortgage.

Surely this guy is missing something. I actually have money in the bank for the first time in years so I'm not about to start going intentionally bankrupt any time soon. But if it were all as easy and simple as he says, I can actually see merit in it for people with no money or assets. But if it were that easy, heaps of peeps would surely already be doing this. So what negative consequences of his plan is he overlooking?

And since you've now heard the plan, would you ever consider going 'morally bankrupt'? For those of you who have already slaved away in jobs you don't like for equity in your houses (and other investments), would you consider this if you were back to being a young bum without a cent to his name? With an increasing proportion of jobless and asset-free youth in this country and beyond, can anybody see the 'morally bankrupt' movement catching on?

Over to you, bigfooty.
 
Interesting theory, though I think going bankrupt is fairly painful. Then again it depends on how you intend to live.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Interesting theory, though I think going bankrupt is fairly painful. Then again it depends on how you intend to live.

Good point. The system is not geared to cope with those who embrace financial anarchy. For me, attractive as the proposition might be, it seems too much bother to have this constantly present. It has much to recommend it though. Given my life expectancy, there is no way I could possibly recoup what banks have stolen from me.
 
The way the system is set up life is much easier if one has a good credit rating. It's probably the only aspect of my reputation I care is in good order.
Your friend sounds a little immature IMO. Reminds me of a few friends I have who wanted to 'stick it to the man' when we were young. Now they are approaching 50 with 3 kids and still paying rent. They are the opposite of free.
 
It would seem to me that if you are prepared to push the system to it's limits it would be much smarter to play the game that is laid out in front of you. The pay off is potentially huge and the drawback is the same as if you failed the other way.
 
It would seem to me that if you are prepared to push the system to it's limits it would be much smarter to play the game that is laid out in front of you. The pay off is potentially huge and the drawback is the same as if you failed the other way.

but is the bankruptcy provision about 8 years? But when those 8 years are expended, your credit record will still need to be rehabbed so you will have trouble in future getting loans for you personal enterprise(s).

The is less so, if you just went bankrupt from business failure, or overcommitment on home-loan (tho dont now how the equity could all be expunged in our market as is, need to be 87 again). I think the credit records may look worse if it looks like you lived high on the hog on mastercard, visa, GE and myer store cards, and did not bother paying your AIG gas neither.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
The way the system is set up life is much easier if one has a good credit rating.
To get loans, you mean?

This guy is saying that he doesn't ever want to take out a loan. If he decides he needs a house of his own, he will save for it. Old-fashioned, I know. He does have the advantage that he has an in-demand trade having already completed an apprenticeship. If he wanted to he could go back to the mines and save enough coin for a house in seven years, or just work local and save up enough in fifteen years.

Either way, he would own a house much sooner than any young stooge taking out a mortgage. If he wanted to.
 
Instead of spending all this credit on living it up and then working hard, why doesn't he just spend the credit on goods, sell those goods on the black market for cash or gold/silver, stash that away, declare bankruptcy and work hard in the mean time? That way he'll have all the 'free money' liquid and out of sight instead of starting from zero.
 
It would seem to me that if you are prepared to push the system to it's limits it would be much smarter to play the game that is laid out in front of you. The pay off is potentially huge and the drawback is the same as if you failed the other way.

The intentional bankruptcy is more of an option in the states where people in business seem to do it and bounce back all the time. Here the trustee can be a pain in the arse and there is more of a social and financial stigma - thank God
 
The intentional bankruptcy is more of an option in the states where people in business seem to do it and bounce back all the time. Here the trustee can be a pain in the arse and there is more of a social and financial stigma - thank God

pheonix

Bond may have operated in US circles iteration mkII cos it was just this way. The saw it not as a black stain. They even respected the get-up n go for the next time.

This is what Nouri El Roubini, or Elroubini said about Wall Street and GFC. They took their bonuses on the previous half dozen years, but this was the Western Roman calender, of financial quarters, financial half years, and the financial calender july july. In the long run, over those previous 6 years, they were not profitable when you map out the losses. But profits were booked in interim years, and bonuses taken home.

When Enron and Kenny boy Lay want mark to market, SEC changes it. When the GFC hits, and all banks would be underwater and insolvent, SEC changes back, no more mark to market, they never had to recognise those losses on their books.

I dont know what the counter factual is to the reporting season of 12 months. But the bankers got their salaries and bonuses, but as Roubini and Black say, they were phantom profits, that over a business cycle, were BS
 
If you don't care about going bankrupt why not takes risks trying to make mad dosh?
Good question. I asked my mate that very thing, and suggested he might as well take out the money from the credit cards and put it all on black.

You know what he said? I'll paraphrase:

'That's exactly what the banks do every single day. Take risks they can't afford to lose in full knowledge they'll never have to pay it back if if it *s up because the taxpayer will bail them out'.

And he's right.

Yet peeps like Raskolnikov above say that it is my mate who 'has no shame'. Howabout those banks you give up 40 hrs per week, 52 weeks per year, 25 years of your life to? No shame there?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Is your friend getting credit without having a job? Doesnt seem possible, so assume hes working, does he actually need credit? Or is he just going to get a whole lot of credit while working then quit and blow 20-40k on holidays for the next couple of years?

I've gone on a lot of holidays (im 25). In the last 12 months I've been to Vegas 3 times for a total of 6 weeks, before that been there another 3 times, been to Thailand and Hawaii as well, along with countless interstate trips

Travelling is great and I tell everyone they should do it the most they can before burderning themselves with debt. I think too many people 'grow up' too early and borrow money while throwing away some great years of fun

But if I can do it, why cant you're mate? I work, I use up all my leave etc and I dont need to destroy myself financialy (and i dont holiday on a shoestring budget, I generally travel well)

It sounds like your mate is really digging himself into a corner. Buying a house without credit based purely on savings? Doesnt seem that possible.

Basically, the problems it creates down the track doesnt seem a better option than dealing with the problems he would face now if he did the work/travel mix without ******* up his credit
 
you call Vegas and Thailand travelling? sounds like a H in hedonism if you go back three times. Nothing wrong with that, but not exactly the boho lonely planet thing

no of course not, but the point is ive been able to travel 10 or so times internationally the last 6 years

his friend could easily travel to wherever he wanted on a budget much smaller than mine without financial ruin
 
Whilst i can see some of the logic in the theory behind living hard then going bankrupt it does have a few problems.
  1. Car loans are guaranteed over the car and still need to be repaid as you don't techincally own the car until it has been repaid, same as witha mortgage.
  2. Obtaining anything on credit, from a phone to a personal loan or a credit card, you won't be able to get a single line of credit from anyone who won't break your kneecaps if you don't pay.
  3. Renting, not a problem if you want to sponge of mum & dad, but today most real estate agents will do a credit check, so bad credit rating will make it hard to rent anything decent.
  4. Future, life changes and 8 years is a long time (3 as bankrupt 5 with discharged bankrupt on credit file), if you're say 25 and go bankrupt that means it will stay with you until 33. So what is the future partner going to think when you go to rent/buy a place together and you can't get it?
  5. Beyond the 8 years. It is becoming more common for some financial institutions to ask if you have even been declared bankrupt, so even outside the 8 years it still stays with you. If you think lying about it will just make it go away remember if they find out it gives cause for them to terminate the loan and repossess.
 
1) Car loans are guaranteed over the car and still need to be repaid as you don't techincally own the car until it has been repaid, same as witha mortgage.
What's the problem?
2) Obtaining anything on credit, from a phone to a personal loan or a credit card, you won't be able to get a single line of credit from anyone who won't break your kneecaps if you don't pay.
Why does anybody need any of these loans? I think you're missing half the point here. As for phones, there's always prepaid.
Renting, not a problem if you want to sponge of mum & dad, but today most real estate agents will do a credit check, so bad credit rating will make it hard to rent anything decent.
Sharehousing is and always will be an option. No mummy or daddy required.
4) Future, life changes and 8 years is a long time (3 as bankrupt 5 with discharged bankrupt on credit file), if you're say 25 and go bankrupt that means it will stay with you until 33. So what is the future partner going to think when you go to rent/buy a place together and you can't get it?
Good question. Please tell me what you think she would say. What would your partner have said?
5) Beyond the 8 years. It is becoming more common for some financial institutions to ask if you have even been declared bankrupt, so even outside the 8 years it still stays with you. If you think lying about it will just make it go away remember if they find out it gives cause for them to terminate the loan and repossess.
Refer to 2.
 
SB, why go intentionally bankrupt in the pursuit of consumer goods instead of assets? Either way, the banks will probably see your mate coming, package up his bad credit into a security of some sort, and sell it to some sucker down the line. Choosing to use the credit on goods just makes someone else in the system rich, using it on assets potentially makes him rich.
 
I don't recall ever saying that he planned to buy 'consumer goods'. That would be antithetical to the whole plan. I think the logic is that they cannot repossess memories/stories/insights from travel (and other experiences, like fine dining, wining, adventure etc) - ever - but if you syphon it off into undeclared assets then the feds could one day hunt you down.

Who is this 'sucker' who buys the debt? I'd like to hear more about this 'inocent' 'victim' if you wouldn't mind elaborating.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top