When I was doing my military training, we had a group of around 20 recruits all sleeping in the same dormitory. We each had a bed and a locker to keep our clothes and personal effects in. The rule about the lockers was simple - if you are away from your locker, you must lock it. People did lock up their lockers - not because they didn't trust their friends, but because that was what the rules said.
If anything ever did go missing from a locker, then the dormitory would be locked down and everybody's beds and lockers would be searched until the missing item was found. The person who had taken the item was then given a disciplinary punishment. Here's the catch though - the person from whom the item had been taken was also given a disciplinary punishment.
Why? It's easy to understand that if someone stole your stuff, they should be punished. But why should you be punished as well?
The reasoning is very simple. Yes, the one who took your stuff did something wrong - he shouldn't have taken your stuff - and now he gets punished for it. But you did wrong as well - you left your locker open and left the temptation for him to take your stuff - you made it easy for him to take your stuff. So because you broke the rules and made it easy for him to be tempted, now you get punished as well.
Needless to say, not many people left their lockers open, and when they did, stuff didn't go missing very often, and when it did go missing, it was not normally reported.
What does this have to do with saving money? Well I hear a similar argument more and more often just recently. There are a lot of people who have got into a lot of debt with their credit cards. And for year after year, the banks have been raising credit limits by a few hundred pounds a year. And people have been tempted by the easy money that the banks made available to them.
Now, people are suddenly finding themselves in a serious situation. And the argument I'm hearing is "It is my fault, because it was me that borrowed and spent the money. But I think that the bank is partially responsible for my situation because they made it so easy for me to get the money." When pushed to apportion the blame, some people will attribute 50% of the blame to the bank, some less, and a few will say more than that.
So if you owe, say £10,000 on credit cards, and you reckon that the bank is 50% to blame, do you think that it would be reasonable for the bank to write off half of what you owe? Do you think it would be reasonable of the bank to say you owe us £5000 instead of £10,000?
A lot of people do think it would be reasonable, but they don't think that the bank would do it. But that's where they are wrong. Under certain circumstances, the banks are prepared to accept 50% or even less of what you owe them. To find out more about how you can get your bank to agree to slash what you owe them, go here. Maria managed to get over $50,000 of a $75,000 debt written off, and the same principles apply wherever you live - so you can do it too.
Put this strategy into action and you can save yourself thousands.
Monday, 17 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment