9 mths vs 21 mths
November 17th, 2011 by Questions
Have I misunderstood something? If my surplus income is $200 or less, I do not have to pay anything to the estate and my bankruptcy is over in 9 months. But if my surplus income is more than $200 then I must pay 50% of the surplus income per month to the estate for 21 months. With that logic, why wouldn’t I want to get a low paying job that puts me under the $200 surplus income threshold and be done with the whole bankruptcy in 9 months. Yes, it would be tight for 9 months, but then after that I could get a better paying job. Is this logic valid?
Posted from: Alberta
One Response to “9 mths vs 21 mths”
Please post a follow up comment below:
(Note: comments are reviewed by moderators and then posted after approval. In addition, due to high volume some of the comments might not be posted.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm, Barton Goth - Goth & Company Inc. -Trustee in Bankruptcy said:
The one thing you are missing is that if your surplus income is $200 or less then all you have to pay is the minimum cost of bankruptcy which is set by the individual trustee office. But otherwise you are correct, the general principle is the more you make the more a bankruptcy will cost.
In terms of sitting tight for the next 9 months, that is a decision you have to make, but it is definitely a possibility. I would caution people in your position to be careful to not let potential opportunities pass by in an effort to minimize the impact of the bankruptcy. What I mean by this is if you have a good job opportunity I wouldn’t recommend you ignore it hoping that something similar will be available in the future. As that opportunity may not be available down the road, but obviously that is your decision.