Hi Guys
Melanie - In repsonse to your query, We do not incorporate the "10% of take-home pay clause" into our proposal, as currently, not many of our proposals are being modified in this way. As a result, our proposals still use the easier to understand "50% of additional monies" clause.
I don't see why either of the options are easier to understand, but respect your firm's position that they allow no initial benchmark on additional earnings.
I took a decision to adapt my proposals when this modification first arose, as it is quite rare to see someone regularly earning more than 10% and in saves my staff time in collecting small, immaterial sums from clients who are probably already struggling due to the constraints levied on expenditure by some voting representatives.
Indeed creditors are unlikely to modify in the 10% as your method gives them more money but takes more from your clients, and of course provides more potential for fee income if you work to the 15% of realisations.
