Well the fact they have a €100,000 euro ring.. thats why !!

what about a bankrupt ring maker :-/

This isn’t bankruptcy. Read the story,

I don’t believe that Kruger Rands are defined as Jewellery since they are merely gold coins!

Meerly Gold coins! Jesus I don’t know what world you live in but its not mine!

that’s the reality. jewlery evolved as portable wealth.

I think someone with a 5 grand ring claiming they have no money is pretty insane…

Yes James,but not as insane as a criminal banker or a NAMA developer or a corrupt senior civil servant/politician getting to keep all of their toys and getting paid a few hundred grand a year from the taxpayer.

So you needed to sell things to keep a roof over your kids heads? Whats you going to do when you need more money for rent and have nothing to sell?

People need to wake up and realise they are being shafted by this and the last government.

Your have simply been asset stripped.

Still an asset, same as if you inherit a house or land.

Wouldn’t be hard to hide a ring worth €100.000 could say you lost it

Great comment there by LittleSparrowC!

I heard that a few corrupt politicians and senior civil servants lost an entire country recently,
so I’d say a €100k ring should be no problem.

Stephen
What are merely gold coins?

Lovely story, and I’m sure those two rings would be exempt should you find yourself in such a situation.

This is aimed more at those who pay €20,000 for a jewel encrusted Rolex who then claim they have no way to pay their debts.

Well isn’t that precious! Thanks for sharing!

Pretending to be poor is not a new phenomenon but the welfare state and black economy has caused an increase

How about an option that says.

Yes But only jewelry belonging to criminals and corrupt and criminal bankers/politicians/developers/senior civil servants/bankers and their cronies????

Allow up to ?5k on the ring and 1k on the band. more than generous and allows dignity to be maintained.

No need to humiliate people

Just because an item is an heirloom shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference! If you took the risk in the first place you should have known the consequences, if you didn’t know the consequences then the Irish people shouldn’t have to pay for your ignorance.

What risk Darragh? The risk someone in a good job maybe 2 good jobs took when they bought a home and started a family? If they through no fault of their own have lost their income(s) and end up in debt do you really think they should have every thing stripped from them?

What’s the difference between inheriting jewellery and inheriting property? Both may have sentimental value but if you’re bankrupt sadly they need to be sold to pay off your debts.
I think that they should be allowed to keep one item, up to certain value. They can have a cheaper copy made if the original item was very valuable and exceeds the limit.

Kerry – how do you expect the banks to start lending again in a meaningful way if they know that their means of getting their money back will be limited by stuff like this?

You simply can’t claim to be bankrupt and simultaneously hold on to valuable assets.

Once something is worth over a certain amount it has to be on the table.

Bob the banks are not lending as it is so why worry about them. Also we are talking about what happened in the past. Because to be blunt this legislation is to cover the celtic tiger years and those who due to what ever reason now find themselves in trouble. It’s not about someone who goes bankrupt in 20 or 30 years time.

Again I ask do you think those who end up bankrupt through no fault of their own should be stripped of everything they have?

Kerry, firstly – we all want the banks to start lending again in a meaningful fashion. Giving them less security over the money they lend out is going to make that less likely.

Re your question of ‘begin stripped of everything they own’ – that’s the nature or bankruptcy. In saying that, I would support people being allowed to keep two things of sentimental value that were below a certain monetary value – say €2,000. This would cover the rings of the vast majority of women – would it not?

Also – whilst I accept that some people are in this situation because they have lost their income due to the crisis, we are making a set of rules for the long term. Hard cases make bad law and so on.

I’ve a lot of respect for you. Hang on in there.

It’s not going to go anywhere. They’re not going to take anyone’s jewellery from them.
They’re saying you won’t be entitled to debt relief under this new legislation if you have valuable assets that you could sell and put towards paying off your debt.

If an exec of a company is let go, and he has for example 45k in debts to pay with no income at the time he is entitled to debt relief. This new legislation ensures that, if he has jewellery valued at 40k lying around the taxpayer doesn’t pay a single cent towards his debt. Now this is just an example so if the figures are wrong don’t get too worked up about it.

However a ring worth 5 euro that you picked up from a pewter stall in Stephens Green shopping centre won’t count.

Sentimental value is also a pretty poor excuse. If you can’t pay your mortgage a bank has a right to take your home no matter how attached to it you are. A ring or a watch is just some shiny trinket made in a factory no matter how much emotional value you put to it. If it is worth a lot, I don’t want my taxes going towards your debt when you can sell what you own to pay for it.

Well what next dig up our dead to remove any gold fillings ! So this is what we are reduced to!! Doesn’t Mr. Shatter realise that families that are broke have already pawned anything
Of value !!! Just another example of how out of touch with reality our TD’s are. I despair of the next suggestion they will come up with!!

First Margaret, go easy on the exclamation marks. Nobody takes it seriously if you put in more than one.

Second, this isn’t aimed at families who are broke already. It is to examine whether you are entitled to government debt relief or not. It is to prevent someone who has no money in their bank account from getting debt relief if they have €100,000 worth of jewellery stashed away that could easily pay what they owe.

Third, I’m sure you are the kind of person who will complain if the government do nothing that affects those who are wealthy. Now Shatter is doing just that and you are complaining. So what is your suggestion that he should do instead?

That’s what is being proposed. Up to a certain limit (which hasn’t been agreed yet) the item would be exempt. What the minister rejected was an amendment that had no limit specified.

If you exempt multiple heirlooms or gifts of large value you will then watch how they run to sell them in a year or two, sentimental value forgotten when convenient. There is fortune in many of them, enough to start a new life for a developer and his wife off her jewellery box.

Melissa
Haughey died in ignominious shame. Not more than a handful of people lined the three miles from his home to the Church where his funeral was held. The latter two of Fitzpatrick and Quinn are before the Courts now while the legal Authorities haven’t yet decided what if any charges to put to Bertie for him to answer. Our world has changed but so has theirs!

Marriage is a wonderful and a sacred institution…..

..but I prefer not living in instsutions.

Liz, by the time these are handed over to your grandchildren they won’t be able to use that finger :)

You don’t know that.

Quantitative Jesus..ing…..

Well, they already did that. Your children will be paying off the debts being created today.

They’re not being penalised for owning decent jewellery, they’re being penalised for going bankrupt. Everything should be included. If you want to keep your wedding ring for sentimental value then get a cheaper ring when you get married. After all, it doesn’t matter what the ring costs does it, you can put a price on your relationship! plenty of nice looking wedding rings out there for a couple of hundred Euro.

Penalised for going bankrupt? What if they end up bankrupt through no fault of their own Paul. Should they still be penalised?

Who ends up bankrupt through no fault of their own???

If your talking about homeowners who cant pay back a mortgage (poor f**ckers), well then your on a different page! Thats a repossession and the person would not be declared bankrupt!!

If you hav assets that can be liquidated to pay off debts – fair game!

Yeah Kerry, I know what you’re saying, was nearly there myself. To be honest, if there were proper bankruptcy laws in place then I’d happily hand everything over and start again. But since the government is determined to bail the banks out at the expense of Ireland’s citizens that’s not really an option.
My point is still valid, I understand agree fully with the issue of bankruptcy in Ireland given the recent past, I think that’s a different argument, as in why the hell aren’t their riots on the streets?.

This raises an interesting point. What is the difference between two identical gold wedding rings, one on someone’s hand at the marriage and an exact replacement purchased after say losing the first one? Needless to say “blessing” a ring has no effect on the gold :)

So because a minister is enacting a law which you, the minority judging by the poll, don’t agree with he is suddenly of lesser intelligence than you?

Instead of insulting a minister who is actually trying to break the status quo of protecting the wealthy you could come up with your own suggestions as to how to tackle this issue?

Brought to you by someone who is not a young FGer or anything else resembling a fan of the current government.