Ok, dear friends of cultivated and lived intolerance [emoji6] I also see it as true that borrowing is the worst of all options and try to manage everything without credit at first, but even the worst option is still an option. As someone not affected, it’s easy to say that you never need or require a loan except for a house (at least that’s how I read it from some posts), but is it really that simple? Example: You rely on your car, too old for full coverage (the car!), but definitely still a good means of transportation you depend on. You drive over a bridge that is slightly icy, without a gust of wind from the side everything would be fine, but a gust pushes you slightly into oncoming traffic, you steer against it and crash into the guardrail. Car total loss! And now? What good is the wise advice, which might generally be true, that you want to afford things you cannot currently afford and that you postpone the problem into the future? True, correct. And? What good is it if the car is wrecked, you still need a car, but don’t have enough liquidity? A solution beyond a wise platitude can certainly be a car financing. And that is then reprehensible??? Another example: Bought an apartment as a couple, you separate, one of you wants a fight, the place has to be sold at a loss, one borrows half the loss from their parents, the other can’t because no parents or the parents aren’t financially able. So credit... what else? Again: reprehensible? I do go along with the idea that TV, mobile phone, wedding, i.e. pure consumer goods, do not have to (may not) be bought on credit, but beyond that, there are reasons that do not fit with dogmas and black-and-white thinking. Don’t you think so too? The OP seems quite realistic to me, he apparently made a mistake in the past whose bill he is now paying. I don’t hear him whining or complaining. So why attack him with the club of a self-imagined moral superiority? That’s how it seems to me right now... and I wonder what the goal of such posts is supposed to be? And briefly on the topic of self-employment and changing jobs. Here too it’s not a no-brainer with a guaranteed good outcome, as one might get the impression. On the one hand, the right opportunity, industry and training belong to it – and personality too. There are simply things of a personal nature that don’t necessarily have to be about comfort zones. If you ignore those individual factors, you can postulate excellently “be brave, change your job; become a team leader; move somewhere else.” All things that can apply but certainly are no sure bets or universal solutions. What good does it do to go against my nature, to behave differently from who I am? One thing is preprogrammed: failure and that on all levels. Challenging your comfort zone, definitely yes. Advising a person with a need for security to take risks, I find just as pointless as advising a sprinter to run a marathon... you simply have a learned (in the running example genetic) disposition that I find negligent to ignore. Some suggestions here unfortunately seem like: if you are no longer successful in sprinting, try marathon... Does that make sense? For me, no... maybe I just misunderstood the many posts and they were supposed to be food for thought. Then okay, I could go along with that. [emoji6]