I read an article in the Herald Sun today that exacerbated the animosity that I've been building towards this paper for quite some time.
Apparently, there's this woman who's likely to be bankrupted by a debt collecting agency, who is responsible for recovering $2000 of debt that she owes to a credit card company.
Just a bit of background on bankruptcy, for those of you that are less commercely-minded. It's pretty easy (or so I thought).
Step 1: After presumably reading terms and conditions, or having at least a working understanding of the term 'debt' and 'repaying', and signing a contract, said person takes out a loan for a given sum of money.
Step 2: After a predetermined period of time, as stipulated in the signed contract, the said person must either pay a set amount of interest or the capital in full. Failing that, they must at least pay a small, nominal amount. Which, in this case, would be about $100 a month.
Step 3: If even the $100 or so cannot be repaid each month, then, as per the contract, the company loaning out the money has a right, obligation and responsibility to recover the sum of money. This includes forcing someone into bankruptcy.
Step 4: Bankruptcy may include the selling of personal assets of said person to pay off the debt incurred, after which the rest of the money is the said person's to keep and do pretty much what they, except for starting a business and being a director, and other fancy, hardcore things which, given their money-management skills (or lack thereof), they probably shouldn't do anyway.
Anyway, this woman is being forced into bankruptcy over "only $2000". If it's "only $2000", why doesn't she just "pay it back"? If it's such a small amount of money, why make such a big fuss about it?
Companies have responsibilities. To their shareholders, to other customers who do not expect preferential treatment, to employees who rely on the income of the company to feed their families. Where do they stop if they allow this woman to not pay back her $2000? What about the guy with $3000 in debt? $5000? $10000? Soon people will be taking out loans, without the expectation of ever having to pay it back. Conversely, who would be willing to lend out money? Conceivably, even if they did, it would be at a much higher interest rates to people who actually repay the money, as these bad debts would have to be covered.
If companies have a responsibility for their side of the contract, why shouldn't this woman? This woman would have, or at least could have, read the contract before she signed the contract to use the credit card. Even if she can't pay the money back, she should at least show some sense of responsibility, and not make it out like it's the credit card company's fault that she's in danger of being bankrupted. Nobody likes being in that situation. It's not a happy place to be. But it's not all bad. After she pays off the $2000 with the money she gets from selling her car or house, this woman has no debts to speak of, and can do what she likes with the money. I would pity her situation, and I think it's alright to ask for pity or charity in that situation. All I ask is for her to be man enough (or whatever the expression would be here) to just say "Okay. I stuffed up. Can you go easy on me?" and not "This is all the credit card company's fault." Not everybody's made of money, but everybody should be able to live within their means, and be responsible for the consequences when they don't.
The reporting of this article shouldn't have happened in the first place. The journalists who did this piece are misinformed and have no respect for the law and common sense. The language used was completely biased towards sympathising with this woman. That's probably why they're working for the Herald Sun.
The only reason I read the Herald Sun is because my family gets it. Oh, and the fact that it actually fits on a table. If The Age could be read on the dinner table without causing five car-crashes and two tornadoes, I'd be right there.
Word of the day: Debt
No comments:
Post a Comment