Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner
41 - 60 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
When countries have to compete against each other to attract multinationals they will bargain down to the bottom line. The alternative isn't necessarily to create more public sector jobs, but to invest in home-grown industries whose workers have a stake in their success (as you described earlier). Give the tax breaks to them, not to the fly-by-night multinationals.
I agree with you 100%.
Problem is however.....which companies are willing to risk investing in this climate and with the threat, in Spain, of a bunch of inexperienced radicals hanging over them?
Which takes us back to Chopera's point: yes, 'flexible' labour markets if left unregulated can be poison for working people. But no-one starts a business for purely altruistic reasons and although tax breaks help, a more realistic approach to labour laws is needed.
In theory, once a private business is up and running, making a profit and putting a reasonable amount into the business for expansion, the knock-on effect on the local economy should generate more jobs.
But you've got to get your 'wealth-creators' both large and small willing to invest in the first place and to do that you need to have government at all levels that is business-friendly.
If I were a businessperson looking to invest, I certainly wouldn't choose Greece, for obvious reasons. But I would think twice about investing in Spain too in the current climate where inexperienced radicals are making uncosted promises and as far as I am aware have shown no signs of the need to attract wealth creators in order that they may be able to fulfil their promises to help the poor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
Not really. We rid ourselves of credit cards and loans other than a very small mortgage in 2009, including overdrafts on the business and personally. So No not all of us in the UK live off credit very far from it as I know many others who do the same. Having spent a long time as an unpaid volunteer on debt advice sites and forums helping others to get into the same position since 2006, yes I do know a lot who eschew credit.

It is a fact that credit card business fell by 75% at one stage and has never recovered to the halycon (?? for the card companies) days of 2006/2007. Part of which is the fact that many are now educating themselves with no help from either the authorities or the politicians asa to their legal rights and are prepared to fight back with the legislation put there to protect their interests and the politicians wished we didn't know about it would seem.

Fortunately the judges have woken up to it as well and realise they cannot stem the rising tide.

regards
Ian
Yes really....:)


Levels of personal debt in Northern Ireland are 20% higher than the rest of the UK, according to a charity report.

StepChange, a nationwide debt advice service, said its clients owed around £18,400 on credit cards and unsecured loans. The UK average is £15,300.


Credit card debt is on the increase year by year. When you take into consideration that the figure of £15, 300 is the average UK personal debt excluding mortgage debt that is a truly startling figure.
Add to that Government debt and we are a nation not of home owners but massive owers.

Anecdotal evidence fades against hard fact. I pay off my UK and Spanish credit card each month, have done so for thirty years. But most people don't clear their card debts each month because they can't afford to.

I don't understand your last paragraph, Ian. Where did you get the figure that credit card companies experienced a fall in business of 75%'?
As for judges: firstly, credit card debt, like any other, is dealt with by County Courts who will issue CCJs against proven debt. It's then up to the creditor to apply for a distress warrant if the debtor refuses to acknowledge the debt. I gather that County Courts and Debt Collection Agencies have never been busier.

Credit card companies are legitimate businesses and those who use them know well the consequences should they fail to exercise restraint. Pay-day loans are however a different matter, preying as they do on the desperate. I understand they are being regulated.

An Austrian friend is here at the moment. He is astounded by the liberal way in which British people use credit cards. He is a wealthy man, owns properties in Spain and Austria but has only a debit card.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
a beaut. If that's what the EU is all about then it's time we left. Things have to change if we are ever to get back on our feet.
I take it you're not joining UKIP since as we're British I'm taking the 'we' to refer to the UK.:) We do not work in Spain and apart from our spending our involvement in the Spanish economy is peripheral but of course of interest, principally in the effects on the exchange rate.

As to whether Spanish people would be better off if Spain left the EU....possibly, at the cost of a temporary but fairly long-lasting drop in the standard of living.
The difficulties of a large European economy like Spain's adopting a new currency are significantly greater than other states that have done that. There's the main question as to who would be willing to take a punt on peseta-denominated Treasury bonds unless the rate of interest were phenomenally high. Tax rates to pay the interest to creditors, amongst other things, would be cripplingly high. And of course Spain would forfeit any help from EU structural funds or the ECB. Loans would have to be repaid in euros.
Yes, exports would be cheaper...but imports would be more expensive. Yes, Spain could print money...and make the currency even more worthless to investors.
The only attraction to anyone thinking of setting up a business in post EU Spain would be.....low wages.
Back to square one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
I agree with you 100%.
Problem is however.....which companies are willing to risk investing in this climate and with the threat, in Spain, of a bunch of inexperienced radicals hanging over them?
Which takes us back to Chopera's point: yes, 'flexible' labour markets if left unregulated can be poison for working people. But no-one starts a business for purely altruistic reasons and although tax breaks help, a more realistic approach to labour laws is needed.
In theory, once a private business is up and running, making a profit and putting a reasonable amount into the business for expansion, the knock-on effect on the local economy should generate more jobs.
But you've got to get your 'wealth-creators' both large and small willing to invest in the first place and to do that you need to have government at all levels that is business-friendly.
If I were a businessperson looking to invest, I certainly wouldn't choose Greece, for obvious reasons. But I would think twice about investing in Spain too in the current climate where inexperienced radicals are making uncosted promises and as far as I am aware have shown no signs of the need to attract wealth creators in order that they may be able to fulfil their promises to help the poor.
Can agree with most of that but it has to be remembered I decided my business wouldn't go to Spain before any "inexperienced radicals are making uncosted promises" turned up.

Maybe the radicals will create mayhem for a while but if that leads longer term to a better Spain maybe it is a pain worth suffering. Not sure "uncosted promises" are better than "costed incompetence" ;)

but agree Spain has to compete or drown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
Can agree with most of that but it has to be remembered I decided my business wouldn't go to Spain before any "inexperienced radicals are making uncosted promises" turned up.

Maybe the radicals will create mayhem for a while but if that leads longer term to a better Spain maybe it is a pain worth suffering. Not sure "uncosted promises" are better than "costed incompetence" ;)

but agree Spain has to compete or drown.
Oh of course, I'm not referring to established businesses...although I wouldn't be looking to invest more in any company I owned until after the November elections.

'Radicals' (an odd term for adherents of a nineteenth century dogma) aren't doing too well in Greece, are they...
They have achieved practically none of the demands they wildly made pre-election, apart from a slight relaxing of the budget surplus and a renaming of things they found unpleasant....so Troika is now known as the institutions and the bailout is a 'bridging loan'.
Incompetence and arrogance has been the hallmark of Greek 'radicals'. When you are a beggar you don't insult and make threats. The only card Greek has, a Grexit, they can't play as Syziza is pledged to stay within the Eurozone. Most of the EZ wouldn't be too bothered if they left anyway.
So...we have a government that went from 3% to 33% on the back of uncosted promises from a broke government owing billions and which, having failed to deliver on these promises, is having trouble selling its 'sell-out' to hard-liners at home. It has needlessly antagonised those it must have on its side, the Germans, with cheap talk of Nazism.
The next year will be a cliffhanger for Greece and the Syriza Government may not survive.
That is not the kind of 'competence' I would wish on Spain. Looking at the mess Venezuela, advised by Podemos, now finds itself in, we can only wait and see.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,917 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
That is not the kind of 'competence' I would wish on Spain. Looking at the mess Venezuela, advised by Podemos, now finds itself in, we can only wait and see.:)
Oh for goodness sake, Venezuela wasn't "advised by Podemos". Podemos didn't come into existence until 2014. One of its founders was a consultant to the Venezuelan govt from 2005 to 2010.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,917 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
I agree with you 100%.
Problem is however.....which companies are willing to risk investing in this climate and with the threat, in Spain, of a bunch of inexperienced radicals hanging over them?
Which takes us back to Chopera's point: yes, 'flexible' labour markets if left unregulated can be poison for working people. But no-one starts a business for purely altruistic reasons and although tax breaks help, a more realistic approach to labour laws is needed.
In theory, once a private business is up and running, making a profit and putting a reasonable amount into the business for expansion, the knock-on effect on the local economy should generate more jobs.
But you've got to get your 'wealth-creators' both large and small willing to invest in the first place and to do that you need to have government at all levels that is business-friendly.
If I were a businessperson looking to invest, I certainly wouldn't choose Greece, for obvious reasons. But I would think twice about investing in Spain too in the current climate where inexperienced radicals are making uncosted promises and as far as I am aware have shown no signs of the need to attract wealth creators in order that they may be able to fulfil their promises to help the poor.
Why rely on foreign investors? There's plenty of home-grown business opportunities - see the ones on here fore example. Spain has spent a fortune educating and training its young people, now let's give them a chance to prosper here rather than forcing them to take their ideas abroad.

"Radical" used to mean progressive and innovative. When did it become a term of abuse? Please, give us some radical leaders and kick out the old guard with their institutionalised corruption and deceit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,917 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
I take it you're not joining UKIP since as we're British I'm taking the 'we' to refer to the UK.:) We do not work in Spain and apart from our spending our involvement in the Spanish economy is peripheral but of course of interest, principally in the effects on the exchange rate.
When I say "we" I mean Spain. It's where I live, the place I call home, as do the people I care most about. It's also the topic of this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
Why rely on foreign investors? There's plenty of home-grown business opportunities - see the ones on here fore example. Spain has spent a fortune educating and training its young people, now let's give them a chance to prosper here rather than forcing them to take their ideas abroad.

"Radical" used to mean progressive and innovative. When did it become a term of abuse? Please, give us some radical leaders and kick out the old guard with their institutionalised corruption and deceit.
Spanish investors would be no more willing to risk money in an economic downturn than foreign ones.

As for the word 'radical'...it is no way synonymous with 'progressive' and merely means 'root reform'.
Radicals can be right or left-wing. Hitler was seen as a radical, which he was. Pol Pot was a radical. Mrs. Thatcher was a radical.
So yes, it can often be a well-deserved term of abuse.
The word 'progressive' can have negative connotations too. The government of the Third Reich was extremely progressive. Al Qaeda can be said to be progressive in its skilled use of modern technology.
These words may have been appropriated by the Left but they are not their property. They have real meanings.

As for Podemos and Venezuela...what consultory services did they render for the very large sums of money that we are told has been given to the Party, I wonder? We know though that several leading members of Podemos have ties with that benighted country.

The sad fact is that you and I both have negative views, in our own ways, about the future of Spain. I have no idea how Spain or any other country can get out of the grip of the global markets. You pin your faith on a 'movement' with no programme and no as yet defined political creed. Is it a reformist or revolutionary Party? We don't know as yet. Yet we should believe....politics as religion no longer appeals to me. I've been through that....
It is a searing indictment of neo-liberalism that not only has it screwed the economies of all the nations that it has infected but that it has left so many of us floundering, looking for ways out, for attainable ways to break the debt spiral and restore national control over economies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
"I don't understand your last paragraph, Ian. Where did you get the figure that credit card companies experienced a fall in business of 75%'?
As for judges: firstly, credit card debt, like any other, is dealt with by County Courts who will issue CCJs against proven debt. It's then up to the creditor to apply for a distress warrant if the debtor refuses to acknowledge the debt. I gather that County Courts and Debt Collection Agencies have never been busier."


Firstly the figures were obtained via an FOI request by a member at the time to one of the largest card companies.

Secondly if you analyse carefully the the "busy" state of the courts and DCAs you will find that much of the activity surrounds attacking people whose debts legitimate or otherwise are statute barred under the Limitations Act. This is an absolute defence. Many cases are brought unlawfully by unscrupulous lawyers and companies attempting to trade off the backs of ordinary people's ignorance of the Law. This is because there are loopholes for these parasites to creep through in that an SB debt has to be defended otherwise there will be a CCJ by default. They then don't notify the defendant and get judgement by default 'cause they could not defend 'cause they didn't know. Often because the claimant deliberately uses and out of date or false address for the defendant. Then the victim has to find more more money to obtain a set aside and get their SB/unenforceable status in place. Once in place the defence is absolute.

Suggest that you look at Bailli.org for the landmark cases.

Secondly many of the legal fights over debt stem from the institutions and creditors NOT getting their ducks in a row. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and its associated regulations of 1983 state clearly the responsibilities of the creditor and the debtor. Section 127 was effectively repealed in 2006 making any debt taken out after April 2007 much more difficult to defend against the unscrupulous. However the penalties for failing to have their ducks in a row are clearly stated in the legislation and many fine upstanding pillars of society have not done so and are therefore in infringement of the Law and the penalties are clear. Regardless of how the debtor has behaved. I didn't write the the damn Law, Francis Bennion did. But I sure as hell will use it.

These fine upstanding pillars of society then sell on these difficult debts to even more unscrupulous debt purchasers and debt collection agencies who further infringe the law even being labelled torturers in the County Courts. If you disagree then look up Harrison v Link/MBNA. Another very good case is Santander v Mayhew. There are other cases classed as landmark if you bother to seek them out. The best ones obviously are written up in bailli.org . Go read the words of Lloyd LJ in the CoA and then look up Bracken V Billinghurst to see about principle in Full and Finals. Just a few samples for bedtime reading.

I have written evidence of many cases (including SAR evidence folishly handed out by mistake by idiots in banks) where these unscrupulous so called pillars of society use unlawful methods to intimidate people, and trade off their ignorance. The trade in "debt" is appalling and abhorrent, with debts being sold for less than 10% of their value and the buyer adding costs unlawfully to the original debt.

So before you go around accusing me of "anecdotal evidence and "facts" you give but I cannot substantiate anywhere. Go check the actual cases I've told you where, go check the transcripts from the Court of Appeal, go check the Coroner's curt recordings of debt related suicides.

When you have that knowledge and direct experience come back to me and we will talk more sensibly.

regards
Ian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
"I don't understand your last paragraph, Ian. Where did you get the figure that credit card companies experienced a fall in business of 75%'?
As for judges: firstly, credit card debt, like any other, is dealt with by County Courts who will issue CCJs against proven debt. It's then up to the creditor to apply for a distress warrant if the debtor refuses to acknowledge the debt. I gather that County Courts and Debt Collection Agencies have never been busier."


Firstly the figures were obtained via an FOI request by a member at the time to one of the largest card companies.

Secondly if you analyse carefully the the "busy" state of the courts and DCAs you will find that much of the activity surrounds attacking people whose debts legitimate or otherwise are statute barred under the Limitations Act. This is an absolute defence. Many cases are brought unlawfully by unscrupulous lawyers and companies attempting to trade off the backs of ordinary people's ignorance of the Law. This is because there are loopholes for these parasites to creep through in that an SB debt has to be defended otherwise there will be a CCJ by default. They then don't notify the defendant and get judgement by default 'cause they could not defend 'cause they didn't know. Often because the claimant deliberately uses and out of date or false address for the defendant. Then the victim has to find more more money to obtain a set aside and get their SB/unenforceable status in place. Once in place the defence is absolute.

Suggest that you look at Bailli.org for the landmark cases.

Secondly many of the legal fights over debt stem from the institutions and creditors NOT getting their ducks in a row. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and its associated regulations of 1983 state clearly the responsibilities of the creditor and the debtor. Section 127 was effectively repealed in 2006 making any debt taken out after April 2007 much more difficult to defend against the unscrupulous. However the penalties for failing to have their ducks in a row are clearly stated in the legislation and many fine upstanding pillars of society have not done so and are therefore in infringement of the Law and the penalties are clear. Regardless of how the debtor has behaved. I didn't write the the damn Law, Francis Bennion did. But I sure as hell will use it.

These fine upstanding pillars of society then sell on these difficult debts to even more unscrupulous debt purchasers and debt collection agencies who further infringe the law even being labelled torturers in the County Courts. If you disagree then look up Harrison v Link/MBNA. Another very good case is Santander v Mayhew. There are other cases classed as landmark if you bother to seek them out. The best ones obviously are written up in bailli.org . Go read the words of Lloyd LJ in the CoA and then look up Bracken V Billinghurst to see about principle in Full and Finals. Just a few samples for bedtime reading.

I have written evidence of many cases (including SAR evidence folishly handed out by mistake by idiots in banks) where these unscrupulous so called pillars of society use unlawful methods to intimidate people, and trade off their ignorance. The trade in "debt" is appalling and abhorrent, with debts being sold for less than 10% of their value and the buyer adding costs unlawfully to the original debt.

So before you go around accusing me of "anecdotal evidence and "facts" you give but I cannot substantiate anywhere. Go check the actual cases I've told you where, go check the transcripts from the Court of Appeal, go check the Coroner's curt recordings of debt related suicides.


regards
Ian
No-one is 'accusing' you of anything but we usually refer to a reliable source when making statements so I'm afraid I'll disregard that of the 75% loss of business as I can find no evidence to substantiate it. I was unaware that FOI laws apply to commercial enterprises.
I too know about County Courts and debt recovery procedures. I also know all about Debt Recovery Agencies.
I don't understand most of what you say here...A debt is statute barred when and only when there has been no communication of any kind from the debtor to creditor for a period of six years, unless a CCJ has been obtained by the creditor, in which case there is no legal limit on the period in which recovery can be enforced.
Debts with CCJs can only be set aside in certain circumstances. I think that in most cases people should pay their debts, don't you?


When you have that knowledge and direct experience come back to me and we will talk more sensibly....I quote.

Firstly, I appreciate politeness when I am posted so please modify your tone, Ian.
Secondly, I have had as much if not more experience than you of legal procedures of all kinds, as a legally-accredited trades union case worker dealing with all kinds of problems, a Councillor with access to colleagues in Citizens Advice Bureaux and, sadly, direct experience of County Courts through our business.

I don't really know what all this has to do with what we were originally discussing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
When I say "we" I mean Spain. It's where I live, the place I call home, as do the people I care most about. It's also the topic of this thread.
I too live in Spain, my partner is here, my family have had property here for over a decade and it's my home.
But when I use the term 'we' I find it hard to use it in the sense that it identifies me with native Spanish people. I can understand people like PW, Alborino and anyone with Spanish family so identifying but not we immigrants.
Because that's what 'we' are, immigrants, expats, whichever term we prefer - as you know, I prefer 'immigrant'. We can of course take a close interest in the Spanish economy as it directly affects how we live here but we are and always will be essentially outsiders, integrated outsiders many of us, but however close we may like to think we can get to it, we'll never be the Real McCoy.:)

Although no doubt Norman Tebbit would approve of the attempt...;) Remember the cricket team test?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
OK so I'm guilty of what I've accused others of, irrelevance...but I found a fascinating piece of information, well, I found it interesting.
In the period 2006 -2010 the number of credit cards in circulation declined by 25% (not 75%) but the volume of credit card sales increased throughout the crisis.
The reason for this drop in the number of cards in circulation, cards that were issued but not used, is ascribed to the fact that during this period It was the custom to offer customers interest-free balance transfer deals if they accepted a 'new' credit card. Clever customers took advantage of this until their balance was paid off when they switched back to their 'old' card.
Market analysts found that people regarded the 'free' cards as being of little worth....because they were free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Wrong statements yet again. The SB clock starts at the first day of a cause of action. Technically that is the day after the last payment has been made. The courts usually take the view that is after the first payment that has been missed. There has to have been no specific written acknowledgement of the debt BY THE DEBTOR and no payment made in the intervening years i.e. 6 in England, 5 in Scotland and in many EU countries now 3. The creditor has to have started court action within that 6 years to stop the clock. We even have cases where the creditor has used the payment of the £1 Statutory fee for a CCA request and the £10 Stat Fee for a SAR under DPA1998 (EU Convention on Data Protection) as attempts to get a court action started. CPR31.14 usually puts a stop as these are specifically excluded in the legislation as is any correspondence from a legally qualified professional acting on instruction from a client.

Its all there for the reading. And by the way the current thinking is NOT to use Stepchange or the CAB as they have stitched a number of people up with incorrect advice and caused volunteers like myself and professionals problems in trying to sort matters out when in fact they are relatively simple if you are not working on behalf of the creditor and using the Law as it is written.

regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,399 Posts
Wrong statements yet again. The SB clock starts at the first day of a cause of action. Technically that is the day after the last payment has been made. The courts usually take the view that is after the first payment that has been missed. There has to have been no specific written acknowledgement of the debt BY THE DEBTOR and no payment made in the intervening years i.e. 6 in England, 5 in Scotland and in many EU countries now 3. The creditor has to have started court action within that 6 years to stop the clock. We even have cases where the creditor has used the payment of the £1 Statutory fee for a CCA request and the £10 Stat Fee for a SAR under DPA1998 (EU Convention on Data Protection) as attempts to get a court action started. CPR31.14 usually puts a stop as these are specifically excluded in the legislation as is any correspondence from a legally qualified professional acting on instruction from a client.

Its all there for the reading. And by the way the current thinking is NOT to use Stepchange or the CAB as they have stitched a number of people up with incorrect advice and caused volunteers like myself and professionals problems in trying to sort matters out when in fact they are relatively simple if you are not working on behalf of the creditor and using the Law as it is written.

regards
I don't recollect suggesting people used Stepchange or the CAB.

Here is the information on the meaning of 'Statute Barred')

What is statute barred debt?
Statute barred debt is debt which in certain circumstances becomes unenforceable in court. The piece of legislation which sets out these circumstances is the Limitations Act 1980. So when a creditor comes chasing you for an old debt you can use the following information to access whether or not your debt is time barred.


How long can a creditor chase a debt?
This is dependent on the type of debt you have. The most common form of debt is unsecured debts eg credit cards, personal loans, store cards, catalogues, bank loans, finance company loans etc. The Limitations Act 1980 states that when the following conditions are met then the debt cannot be pursued through the courts. The conditions are:-
•That the creditor has not taken court action against you, eg CCJ,
AND
•You have not made any payments on the debt over the last 6 years,
AND
•During the years, you haven't written to the creditor acknowledging that owe them money.




So, as I said, if a CCJ has been obtained, a debt is not statute barred and DCAs will try to get you to pay up.


As I doubt anyone else is interested in this topic -unless they owe someone money:D - that we now drop it as I have provided the correct information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Well and truly dropped. There are non so blind as those that will not see.

I have given you where to find the case law to which the legal professionals refer (or more correctly those that genuinely work on behalf of the underdog) and I have given you the standard advice given by those really working on behalf of troubled souls, not paying lip service. Plus much is derived in modern terms from EU legislation being built into UK Law despite the provisions of the Appendices to the Protocols Articles of the Lisbon Treaty signed by some one you will obviously know very well personally, one Gordon Brown.

Horses to water springs to mind.

regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Oh and thank for clearing my mind over where to place my uneducated cross on my next ballot paper. A lifetime of false beliefs now proven as disappointing as that is and it certainly won't be a Labour vote now.

regards
 
41 - 60 of 63 Posts
Top