Actor Michael Sheen has bought £1 million (C$1.86 million) of his neighbours’ debts and written them off using £100,000 (C$186,000) of his own money.
Sheen, best known for his roles in “The Queen,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Masters of Sex” and “Good Omens,” first embarked on his “debt heist” two years ago, with the twin aims of helping 900 people in his native South Wales and spotlighting the perils of a debt industry that demands sky-high interest rates on short-term loans.
“People’s debts get put into bundles and then debt-buying companies can buy those bundles and then they can sell it on to another debt-buying company at a lower price so … the people who own the debt can sell it for less and less money,” he explained in an interview on BBC TV’s “The One Show” last week.
“I was able to set up a company and for £100,000 of my own money, buy £1 million of debt because it had come down in value like that.”
How I look paying off my neighbors debts
He was the werewolf of Underworld.
Yep, powerful role.
This is wonderful… and made me wonder: how difficult would it be to set up a debt co-op? Buy debt at a loss and write it off of the income of people in the co-op, while erasing people’s debt at pennies on the dollar. Win-win situation!
Sadly, the more this happens, the more valuable the debt becomes, so you would increasingly be unable to buy it at such a large discount.
“People’s debts get put into bundles and then debt-buying companies can buy those bundles and then they can sell it on to another debt-buying company at a lower price so … the people who own the debt can sell it for less and less money,” he explained in an interview on BBC TV’s “The One Show” last week.
“I was able to set up a company and for £100,000 of my own money, buy £1 million of debt because it had come down in value like that.”
Yeah because few companies actually want to buy debt so the demand isn’t super high. If debt co-ops start up and begin to buy debt, those selling it will begin to sell it for higher prices. Not saying it won’t be cheaper than the original debt, but as soon as it starts getting purchased more frequently the market will adapt
John Oliver did that https://youtu.be/hxUAntt1z2c
It’s not hard apparently. John Oliver did it as a stunt during one of his episodes of Last Week Tonight.
I’d think a non-profit could do that pretty well. Set it up to take donations directly and have all donations be tax deductible.
Setup a co-op for fair loans outside of the criminal banking norms
I was thinking “how can I buy off my own debt and write it off?”. Your idea is better.
You can do that, if you have enough time to search for your debt.
I think one big issue is much of the cheap debt is loans people have defaulted on. So you have to stop paying the debt, hope for minimal ramifications before it hits the open market, then buy it back up at a discount, assuming you have the funds laying around to afford the discounted rate.
Loans backed by property (e.g., home, car) which can be repossessed tend to not be as heavily discounted. So its really just if you have massive credit card, student loan, or medical debt, and are willing to put up with harassment from debt collectors on the hope that it’ll be bundled into something worth less than your individual debt
Churches commonly do this in the US with medical debt. I think there’s also a website where you can donate towards that.
Interesting. Are the original debtors notified when that happens or does the ruse continue unimpeded?
Typically when you buy debt, you get a spreadsheet with contact details, so they’ll just send a letter. Even if they don’t receive the letter (because they moved or whatever), they’ll eventually find out because they don’t get calls from debt collectors and it gets removed from the credit report.
That makes sense.
So is Good Omens just a documentary?
Removed by mod
This is people living in a week-to-week manner, who’ve had to borrow £300 off a pay-day lender to cover a shortfall (sometimes an emergency or unexpected outgoing, sometimes there were just fewer hours of work available) because they literally have no other money.
They’ve then found out the predatory, scummy lender’s practices and interest rates mean that a few months later, despite paying back every spare penny they can afford, they now owe £2000 to that lender, pushing them deeper and deeper into a poverty they cannot ever escape from.
They didn’t ask for the debt to be paid off, but it’s definitely a need, not a want. There’s no need to be spreading that sort of victim-blaming nonsense.
Anyway, they now owe those scum £0.
Ideally, most of this situation wouldn’t even exist in the first place, and it’s a shame this is the only process currently available to help these people, but this is literally saving people’s lives and though perhaps not by itself lifting anyone out of poverty, it’s certainly keeping people out of more severe poverty.
Funny how much energy you people put into defending passing a bunch of money around at the top.
Can’t say I expect more at this point. That’s why the world is the way it is.
But hey, you should be glad rich people get to stay rich while the poor people whose lives could’ve been saved with this money perish.
Oh, and always remember to get mad at the people calling it out. That way you can do your part to slow down change as much as possible.
Never admit you’re wrong!
I’m not quite sure what you’re on about there, sorry.
I literally only spoke of the people who are caught in a debt-poverty trap, who you accused of being rich people that just wanted free money, rather than people who genuinely needed support.
I didn’t even comment on anything else you have referred to.
I said they were wealthy, and globally speaking they are.
I said the money was going to end up in the hands of rich people, which it did.
You don’t like these harsh realities because they go against what you and your peers been indoctrinated to believe. This is causing your cognitive dissonance to flare up.
It’s easier to fool ya’ll than to convince you that you’ve been fooled.
You are completely missing the fact that poverty is a relative concept. Using global parameters to decide that poor people in rich countries are rich is so out of touch that I cannot even describe it.
There are whole studies made on the effect of relative poverty, in case you want to expand your horizons.
You are completely missing the fact that poverty is a relative concept.
poor people whose lives could’ve been saved with this money perish.
Saving lives isn’t a “relative concept.” I said nobody will be brought out of poverty from this, which is true. I also said no lives would be saved from this, which is also true.
You only focused on the poverty aspect of my argument because it was easier to argue against, and you still failed to debunk it because nobody was brought out of poverty from this.
What are you going to say next to defend passing a bunch of money around at the top? Anything to avoid admitting you’re supporting the problem.
Can you explain to me - an uninvolved fellow fedditor - how helping working class people out of their debt traps is bad? I understand that this is just circling money around people who don’t need it as badly as the poorest of the poor globally speaking and that this is just combating the symptoms instead of the sickness but for the individuals supported that way, is there any specific catch associated that does make this support ring hollow?
Funny how much energy you people put into defending passing a bunch of money around at the top.
rich people get to stay rich while the poor people whose lives could’ve been saved with this money perish.
Gonna block ya now. Arguing with you people is exhausting because you will never give up despite how much you’re proven wrong. If you don’t want to accept something is true, you never will.
That’s how cognitive dissonance works. You’re pretty much arguing with yourself.
What a good guy. And a very talented actor too.
Removed by mod
What a sad person you are.
He’s just generally being an asshole up and down this whole thread. Block him and move on.
If it’s a person at all, and not one of those shit-disturber bots that get unleashed on non-MAGA spaces to start arguments over innocuous things and just generally sour the vibe. BlueSky was infested with them last month. They tend to swarm around celebrities, and posts about celebrities. Either way, a quick glance at their post history shows they’re only here to start shit with people.
Removed by mod
Nah. You’re just blocked now.
Removed by mod
I think you need to take some time away from the internet
You’re just upset because I criticized our oppressors.
I see it all the time and don’t expect more at this point. That’s how Stockholm Syndrome works.
I’m telling you, from the bottom of my heart and soul, eat a dick.
Removed by mod
No, it’s what happens when you’re a needlessly combative asshole.
If you think I’m being an asshole then it’s simply because you don’t want to recognize how you’re contributing to the problem. Look at all the other baseless insults people are throwing at me to avoid acknowledging it.
I guess they get a free pass because they’re supporting a culture you’re proud to be a part of?
I know what I’ll put my money on.
Gonna block ya now.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here. Why do you think his neighbors don’t need the money? How do you know he isn’t also donating to people in real need? And why exactly shouldn’t he have money? Did you personally determine the correct amount he’s allowed to have? Sounds like a lot of certainty for someone who probably doesn’t have all the facts.
Why do you think his neighbors don’t need the money?
They will survive without it. There are plenty of other people who have to survive with less, and plenty more who have even less and don’t survive.
How do you know he isn’t also donating to people in real need?
That’s not what he’s getting praised for.
And why exactly shouldn’t he have money?
Watch your wording. I never said he shouldn’t have money. He shouldn’t have the excess that he has, though. Good job trying to change my argument with something that’s easier to argue against. It’s a tried-and-true tactic among the willful ignorance crowd.
He shouldn’t have that much money because the only reason why he, or anyone else, has those excesses is because others do not have enough. It really is that simple. But here you are praising him for “giving back” a minuscule amount of what he shouldn’t have in the first place.
This money is also going to end up in the hands of people who shouldn’t have it in the first place and the only reason others don’t have enough is because they have too much.
Did you personally determine the correct amount he’s allowed to have?
Yep.
Sounds like a lot of certainty for someone who probably doesn’t have all the facts.
Sounds more like you don’t want to understand how you’re supporting the problem and want to fit in with your peers. I know what I’ll put my money on.
Ah yes, the rare and elusive Schrödinger’s Wealth Argument. The rich guy both shouldn’t have the money and yet you never said he shouldn’t have money. Truly a masterclass in mental gymnastics.
Let me make it clear for everyone in the room: “Rich guy gives money he shouldn’t have” followed by “I never said he shouldn’t have money.”.
If your argument is so airtight, why does it fall apart the second someone repeats your own words back to you? You’re so desperate to sound intellectually untouchable that you didn’t even bother making your position internally consistent.
But hey, if you’re the self-appointed gatekeeper of who “should” have money, maybe enlighten us: What’s the magic number? How many dollars past your personal threshold turns someone from acceptable to villainous? Or do you just decide that based on who pisses you off the most in the moment?
Your argument isn’t about justice or fairness, it’s just self-righteous noise wrapped in a superiority complex. You don’t actually want solutions; you just want to act like the smartest guy in the room. Spoiler: You’re not. But by all means, keep preaching from your imaginary throne, Just don’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.
Oh boy. Sorry I’m not going to read all that because I’ve been there before.
You people will legit stop at nothing to avoid admitting how you’re part of the problem. Once the snowball effect has taken hold and you’re just trying to fit in with your peers, it’s an unstoppable force.
My time on the internet has really taught me a lot about human psychology. I’m glad I can see you people and your tactics for what they are and give you the respect you deserve.
Goodbye. You may have the last word (because you will not stop until you get it.)
The ultimate debate strategy: Declare yourself the winner, refuse to read the response, then graciously “allow” me the last word you’re not even going to see. Truly a masterclass in performative activism.
You claim to understand “human psychology” and “tactics,” yet you embody the very behaviors you criticize – making sweeping judgments without engaging with counterarguments, creating strawmen, and retreating when challenged. The irony is almost poetic.
Your approach is perfectly calibrated to feel righteous while accomplishing nothing. You drop vague proclamations about wealth distribution with zero nuance or practical solutions, then flee at the first sign of scrutiny. You’re not fighting any system; you’re just performing for an audience of one – yourself.
What’s truly revealing is how you’ve constructed this narrative where you’re the lone truth-teller surrounded by “you people” who “will not stop.” This convenient framing lets you dismiss any criticism as groupthink rather than examining the glaring contradictions in your own positions.
Your self-congratulatory exit is the perfect capstone – simultaneously claiming moral high ground while ensuring you never have to defend it. This isn’t principled advocacy; it’s intellectual cowardice dressed as enlightenment.
But hey, enjoy your righteous solitude. The rest of us will be over here, celebrating actual kindness and generosity rather than shouting self-righteous nonsense into the void.
Thank you for the last word! I had fun with it ;)
I want people with your eloquence in my life to keep me in check with my shit. <3
Right?? That was a masterclass of calling someone out!
Honestly, I leverage LLMs a lot to keep my conversations balanced and intentional. I usually copy-paste my discussions into a ‘Speaker 1:’ and ‘Speaker 2:’ format and ask for a critique on my tone and consistency. I also spend a lot of time thinking through my responses, often drafting a few versions before settling on one. After doing this for a few years, I’ve streamlined my process and can spot weak points pretty quickly.
I even built a GPT-powered game that generates logical fallacy scenarios for me to analyze. Someone once told me, “When I was in my 20s, I studied logical fallacies so I could tell others they were wrong. In my 40s, I study them to know when I’m wrong.” That perspective completely changed how I approach discussions—I start by making sure my own shit is in check first. It’s helped me navigate arguments with people who rely on fallacies while also keeping myself accountable to the same standards.
The fact that you already recognize your own “shit” puts you in a great category for growth. Keep chasing that awareness and practicing, and you’re gonna be unstoppable!
Thus was beautiful. Well done!
