The Stupid Vs. The Nanny State

[IBM]

I've just been reading an interesting article on debt over at the bbc

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6467207.stm

The thing is that everyone gets really paranoid about a nanny state, impinging upon civil liberties, telling us what we can and can't do, but with the amount of stupidity you see day in and day out, I'm starting to think it might be a good idea.

For one, it's alright if these people in debt are struggling to make ends meet, can't afford clothes from ASDA, can't pay their utility bills, and are really hard done by. But when you think that the a large percentage of people are going to have thousands owed on store cards, more on credit cards for luxury purchases, and are probably sitting in branded clothes, on a nice 3 piece suite bought on credit, after making a cuppa in their new kitched (bought on credit), watching full package sky on their 42" plasma.....and they're having a hard time sleeping 'cause they don't know when the baliffs are going to turn up.

I'm just thinking that if people are too dense/lazy to figure out that they can't afford to pay back loads of money taken out at insane interest levels, then they shouldn't be allowed to. Screw civil liberties....these people need someone to tell them what to do....

[/rant]

Anyone agree that a nanny state is a good idea? I'm probably quite horribly wrong, but I'm just soooooo tired of stupid people (a label I quite happily apply to myself in regards to certain areas outside my experience).

[mycarsavw]

For one, it's alright if these people in debt are struggling to make ends meet, can't afford clothes from ASDA, can't pay their utility bills, and are really hard done by. But when you think that the a large percentage of people are going to have thousands owed on store cards, more on credit cards for luxury purchases, and are probably sitting in branded clothes, on a nice 3 piece suite bought on credit, after making a cuppa in their new kitched (bought on credit), watching full package sky on their 42" plasma.....and they're having a hard time sleeping 'cause they don't know when the baliffs are going to turn up.

I'm just thinking that if people are too dense/lazy to figure out that they can't afford to pay back loads of money taken out at insane interest levels, then they shouldn't be allowed to. Screw civil liberties....these people need someone to tell them what to do....

[/rant]

Completely agree 100%.

I earn my money and buy things with it, if I can't afford it, I don't have it - it isn't difficult.

Well said that man.

[Zak33]

Anyone agree that a nanny state is a good idea? I'm probably quite horribly wrong, but I'm just soooooo tired of stupid people (a label I quite happily apply to myself in regards to certain areas outside my experience).

no. The nanny state prevented me from paying extra money into my personal pension, for years, because I was entitled to join a company pension, which I didn't want to do cos I didn't trust the MD of the company for chooisng the pension comany that he had.

That lasted years. I was clever enough to save it and not spend the difference.

Had I been allowed to put that money into MY pension, I'd be better off right now, cos the pension company I refused to join ...well...I was right not to join it, though I shant name them.

[Kezzer]

There's upsides and downsides to nanny state, left-wing right-wing etc .etc.

I think it's good in many aspects, but can be bad in others. But they do what they need to do to support themselves as well as the people.

[IBM]

There's upsides and downsides to nanny state, left-wing right-wing etc .etc.

I think it's good in many aspects, but can be bad in others. But they do what they need to do to support themselves as well as the people.

Why, do socialists belivee that in general people are stupid and don't know what's good for them? I thought Socialism was more a general desire to see everyone as equal and provided for.

I don't care about provision, I care about people being absolutely idiotic...and then moaning about it. And thinking it's not their fault. And wanting someone else to deal with it.

Grrrrrrr

[Rave]

The thing is that everyone gets really paranoid about a nanny state, impinging upon civil liberties, telling us what we can and can't do, but with the amount of stupidity you see day in and day out, I'm starting to think it might be a good idea.

For one, it's alright if these people in debt are struggling to make ends meet, can't afford clothes from ASDA, can't pay their utility bills, and are really hard done by. But when you think that the a large percentage of people are going to have thousands owed on store cards, more on credit cards for luxury purchases, and are probably sitting in branded clothes, on a nice 3 piece suite bought on credit, after making a cuppa in their new kitched (bought on credit), watching full package sky on their 42" plasma.....and they're having a hard time sleeping 'cause they don't know when the baliffs are going to turn up.

I'm just thinking that if people are too dense/lazy to figure out that they can't afford to pay back loads of money taken out at insane interest levels, then they shouldn't be allowed to. Screw civil liberties....these people need someone to tell them what to do....

[/rant]

Anyone agree that a nanny state is a good idea? I'm probably quite horribly wrong, but I'm just soooooo tired of stupid people (a label I quite happily apply to myself in regards to certain areas outside my experience).

So basically, your proposal is that the government, rather than the lending institutions, should be responsible for deciding whether people should be allowed to borrow money?

If not, what exactly is your idea? Sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't get it.

There's upsides and downsides to nanny state, left-wing right-wing etc .etc.

I think it's good in many aspects, but can be bad in others. But they do what they need to do to support themselves as well as the people.

I nominate this as the most equivocal post ever.

[badass]

I say that bankruptcy should remain at 5 years and sod these IVA's
Trading standards should have the power to fine the lenders up to 3 times the debt accrued is they can show that the lending was irresponsible.
That way, neither idiot gets away with being a total idiot.

[IBM]

So basically, your proposal is that the government, rather than the lending institutions, should be responsible for deciding whether people should be allowed to borrow money?

If not, what exactly is your idea? Sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't get it.

No, you got it. The government should have legislation in place the ensure that people aren't lent money they can't afford to pay back. There used to be a time where the banks felt it was their responsibility not to let money to people who couldn't afford to borrow it, and if you needed a loan, the bank would sit you down and work through your repayment options, and turn you down if you couldn't enforce it.

Now in between that, and the sudden rush to join the 'if I don't lend it, someone else will' bandwagon, that's all gone to hell in a handbasket, and the goverment (not their fault really) missed the opportunity to pass legislation preventing people from borrowing money they can't pay back.

I know you're going to tell me I'm wrong, and come up with some truly wonderful links to prove your point, but it doesn't seem like an idiotic principle to not lend money to people who aren't going to be able to repay it....

[iranu]

You have got to be bloody kidding me! Please tell me this is a wind up OP.

If the banks think that they won't get their money back then that is the bank's poor judgement. It is not in the bank's interest (no pun intended) to lend to poor creditors.

How in the hell are you going to legislate for not allowing banks to lend money to people who can't pay it back? What will be the criteria in the legislation? Surely that is the lenders criteria? This would kill start ups etc. Look at the USA where alot of people go bankrupt before succeeding and making millions. The last thing we need is more poorly thought out and implemented policy which erodes the FREE market.

Your "policy" would push people into the hands of the loan sharks and other unscrupulous lenders that would not be covered by such legislation. A classic case of policy achieving the exact opposite of what was originally intended. (bit of a New Labour trend there)

Yet another bleeding heart lefty who's first thought is to legislate and regulate because he thinks personal responsibility should be thrown out of the window yet does not think things through*. Where does the buck stop?

"Well it's not my fault that I kidnapped that 3 year old, raped and abused them and finally killed them whilst recording it on my phone, the gubmint should have stopped me before I did it. Not my fault gov."

Your last sentence in your last post sums it up, so why did you start such a ridiculous thread?

*sorry to go on the personal offensive but this crap really winds me up.

[IBM]

No, it's a fair point, and you're entitled to it.

However, the viewpoint that people are adults, and capable of making decisions for themselves is highly overrated. People are essentially stupid (as I pointed out before), do stupid things, and then moan about it as though it's someone elses fault.

Personal responsibility is all very well and good, but who draws the line, and where is it drawn? The majority of people agree that the rules we have in place to protect people from their own stupidity (banning narcotics, having speed limits, laws against physical assault, murder, theft etc.) are a good idea.

So why do people assume that legislation is a bad idea? Bad legislation is a bad idea. Good legislation is good for society.

But anyway, startups are covered by corporate finance, not personal finance. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the individual with two maxed out credit cards, two loans, a mortage, and several credit agreements talking to banks about another credit card. Surely that's not too hard to legislate.

And you're right, it would push some people into the hands of loan sharks. A much smaller percentage of people who are slowly drifting their way towards bankruptcy or IVAs. Loan sharks aren't nearly as accessible as your high street bank, and enough people know enough bad things about loan sharks to make them think twice about whether they need that latest pair of trainers/sound system/holiday away.

And with regards to crime, responsibility resides with the individual. You did something bad, you get punished for it. But it's not really relevant, so maybe you should start another thread about it, since you feel so strongly about it.

[mcmiller]

unfortunately iranu banks and other lenders do target poor creditors strange as it may seem, i'm not saying that we need a nanny state btw

[Kezzer]

I nominate this as the most equivocal post ever.

You could be right, but on the other hand, you could be wrong.