View Poll Results: Is there a moral obligation to repay money you borrow?

Voters
319. You may not vote on this poll
  • If you borrow money, you are morally obligated to repay it.

    110 34.48%
  • I feel no moral obligation to repay loans I've taken out

    209 65.52%
Page 79 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 790 of 906

Thread: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

  1. #781
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's not integrity, it's business. The teams EXPECT coaches to leave if a better opportunity comes along and build the costs of the coach leaving into the contract. And those terms are negotiated - it's a straightforward, arms length deal. The team "isn't expected to pay and they do" - they do no more or less than is REQUIRED by the contract, same as the coach or player.



    That's a perfect summary of the obligations we have to contracts - the terms of the negotiated deal.
    The negotiated terms of a mortgage are to pay back the debt. There is no "I changed my mind and don't want to pay so take my house instead" option in the contract. There is no "repayment optional" clause. But we've been over this at length and this fact doesn't seem to phase you.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #782
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,811

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You seem to believe that a corporation must do whatever is most profitable for shareholders no matter how immoral or unethical it is and you are incorrect about that. Most businesses are quite ethical and follow through on their agreements and pay their debts.
    OK, first of all, incorporating or forming an LLC etc. is INTENDED to shield owners of a business from the debts and losses of the corporation. And we all accept that as perfectly "moral." How do you shift the moral obligations by erecting a paper wall between you and the debts? The answer is you don't, but no one would argue it's immoral or unethical for a business OWNER to take advantage of the legal liability provided by the corporate form (or LLC, etc.) - that's the POINT of a limited liability entity. Everyone dealing with the corp or LLC knows about the liability protection and plans accordingly. It's an amoral business decision on both sides.

    Arguing that it's OK for you to refuse to pay your debts because "other people do it, too" doesn't exonerate you for doing it.
    It's not really what I'm saying at all - I'm saying it's an amoral business decision to abide by the terms of a loan contract same as any other contract. Your obligations under the contract are carefully drafted by teams of lawyers paid big money to protect the interests of the lender and maximize the lender's profits. The lender will NOT add a moral obligation to its legal obligations, and the borrower is similarly (identically) under no moral obligation to act above and beyond the terms of the deal they agreed to.

    When you owe money and you respond to your creditor as follows: "My house isn't worth what I bought it for, so I'm not paying back my loan. You can just sue me", your behavior is immoral. And the fact that they can sue you doesn't make it any more moral.
    You're just repeating the same thing without providing any clue how you objectively evaluate all the many obligations we have as individuals and businesses. I gave an example of a car lease - you said that's different than a loan, but I can't see what is the principled difference. Amount? Length? I don't know. What's sacred about a loan contract that doesn't apply to any other contract?

  3. #783
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    The negotiated terms of a mortgage are to pay back the debt. There is no "I changed my mind and don't want to pay so take my house instead" option in the contract. There is no "repayment optional" clause. But we've been over this at length and this fact doesn't seem to phase you.
    Too many people are rationalizing penalties as legitimate options. No, options would come with no negative repercussions. With a penalty, such as foreclosure, at the very least your credit rating takes a serious and negative hit. If you legitimately honored your contract by surrendering the collateral there would be no negative hit on your credit rating.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  4. #784
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,149

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You're bullchittin' us, aincha? The question statement you were responding to was:



    And you're trying to tell us that you worked in the financial sector but can't for the life of you figure out why a cell phone contract and a mortgage aren't comparable? Tell ya what. Since you don't know, I'll help you out. A mortgage is a SECURED LOAN. It is a FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT. A cell phone agreement is... well... a cell phone agreement. It isn't a loan. There's no interest. There's only a service contract for x-amount of time. And you can cancel whenever you wish and pay the balance of the contract plus penalty. But you're GOING to pay. It's not a mortgage. It's not a loan. And your phone isn't collateral. Any bills you decide you're just going to refuse to pay go typically into collections but all bills are not loans. If you have a mental challenge comprehending the differences there, then that would explain your challenges in this discussion - or as Tres Borrachos said, you may simply not be serious in this discussion.
    for the purposes of this discussion, your discussion, whether paying a debt is a moral obligation, both are instances of debt
    but not surprised you are unable to recognize that very obvious fact
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  5. #785
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Too many people are rationalizing penalties as legitimate options. No, options would come with no negative repercussions. With a penalty, such as foreclosure, at the very least your credit rating takes a serious and negative hit. If you legitimately honored your contract by surrendering the collateral there would be no negative hit on your credit rating.
    It is easy to understand for anyone that isn't driven by psychological defense mechanisms to put up a solid front of willful ignorance to protect their delicate psyche.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  6. #786
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    for the purposes of this discussion, your discussion, whether paying a debt is a moral obligation, both are instances of debt
    but not surprised you are unable to recognize that very obvious fact
    A cell phone isn't a loan. The bill for your healthcare isn't a loan. Your internet service bill isn't a loan. Service contracts can be terminated early. They have provisions for that and early termination of your contract is an option stipulated in the contract and it is not a default.

    You can terminate your mortgage prematurely, too, merely by paying off the loan. That isn't a default, either. A default is when you don't abide by the terms of the contract.

    For someone that was claiming real savvy in the lending industry, you don't understand the very significant details you are trying to pretend don't even exist.

    Cell phones aren't mortgages. The only thing they have in common is the existence of a contract and a payment schedule but that is hardly enough to claim apples and apples without a whole lot of feigned ignorance.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #787
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,811

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Your first paragraph is wholly incorrect. Your second paragraph confirms that your first paragraph is incorrect.

    Player A and Team X sign a contract for 5 years at $1m/yr.

    Scenario 1: Player A takes off and becomes a superstar. Two years into it, if Player A were signing a contract now he'd get $5m/yr. He demands to renegotiate. Happens all the time.
    The player can demand to renegotiate all he wants - the team is under no obligation to do a thing. The team agrees to renegotiate only when it's in the team's best interest to do so. If they refuse, the player's option is to sit out and default on his obligation and get paid ZERO until the contract expires.

    Scenario 2: Player A tanks. Same two years, if Player A were signing a contract now he would not even be offered a contract, he's that bad. Does the team demand to renegotiate? No, they don't. They pay it because it's a contract. That's what contracts are.
    Right, they pay when the contract requires it, and pay zero when the contract doesn't. For most players, that means if they signed a "$1 million" contract for that year, and they blow out their knee game 1, career ending, they'll be summarily released Monday morning, nothing more due under the contract than the 1/16th they earned through Sunday's game. Stars demand and GET better deals. It's negotiated. It's business.

    These two scenarios play out in the sports world all the time, and each have become the norm. Why are we ok with one side being held to their contract... their word... and not the other side?
    We're not - both sides are being held to the terms of the contract, nothing more or less.

    Under your claims, in Scenario 2 the team would be justified in not paying the remaining three years because it's "just business". They're no longer getting what they paid for. They're "underwater", to use the mortgage analogy. Correct? Yes, if you're intellectually consistent, that will be your opinion.
    Of course that's my position because if they can avoid paying the last few years, they will. And if the contract is guaranteed, limited only by the financial ability of the team to make good on the amount, the player will sue and win the balance due, maybe plus attorney's fees, maybe plus punitive damages. If the team thinks it can win that lawsuit, say they suspect the player hid an injury and the contract allows for default in the case of player misrepresentations, it will default and go to court. Morals enter into the decisions NOWHERE in the process on either side.

    Or, in Scenario 1, you would favor the player sucking it up and honoring his contract as agreed to. Correct? Again yes, if you're intellectually honest, that will be your opinion.
    Of course he has to honor his contract - he has no other option. He can try to negotiate a pay raise, and if that fails he has a choice, like we all do in our jobs. We can work for the amount agreed to, or quit. In the NFL, that means he can't sign with another NFL team and sits at home playing video games collecting no pay, but he has that choice like you have that choice and any high profile CEO for a Fortune 500 has that choice.

    If you're not intellectually honest, you'll try to find some way for Player A to be able to weasel out of it and not be held to his end of the deal, while still expecting the team to be held to their end.
    Nope. See above.

  8. #788
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The player can demand to renegotiate all he wants - the team is under no obligation to do a thing. The team agrees to renegotiate only when it's in the team's best interest to do so. If they refuse, the player's option is to sit out and default on his obligation and get paid ZERO until the contract expires.



    Right, they pay when the contract requires it, and pay zero when the contract doesn't. For most players, that means if they signed a "$1 million" contract for that year, and they blow out their knee game 1, career ending, they'll be summarily released Monday morning, nothing more due under the contract than the 1/16th they earned through Sunday's game. Stars demand and GET better deals. It's negotiated. It's business.



    We're not - both sides are being held to the terms of the contract, nothing more or less.



    Of course that's my position because if they can avoid paying the last few years, they will. And if the contract is guaranteed, limited only by the financial ability of the team to make good on the amount, the player will sue and win the balance due, maybe plus attorney's fees, maybe plus punitive damages. If the team thinks it can win that lawsuit, say they suspect the player hid an injury and the contract allows for default in the case of player misrepresentations, it will default and go to court. Morals enter into the decisions NOWHERE in the process on either side.



    Of course he has to honor his contract - he has no other option. He can try to negotiate a pay raise, and if that fails he has a choice, like we all do in our jobs. We can work for the amount agreed to, or quit. In the NFL, that means he can't sign with another NFL team and sits at home playing video games collecting no pay, but he has that choice like you have that choice and any high profile CEO for a Fortune 500 has that choice.



    Nope. See above.
    I suspected you'd find a way to weasel it out, and you didn't disappoint. You go through a lot of mental gymnastics to still end up twisting in the wind. Regardless how you attempt to spin it, it is clear that you don't expect the same from both sides. Your lip service is not convincing.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  9. #789
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,811

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    The negotiated terms of a mortgage are to pay back the debt. There is no "I changed my mind and don't want to pay so take my house instead" option in the contract. There is no "repayment optional" clause. But we've been over this at length and this fact doesn't seem to phase you.
    Sure there is - the loan document says, "These are our rights and borrower's obligations in the event of default" and one of those is foreclose on the house, sell it and keep the proceeds, another is to sue for the balance, etc. The lender agreed to those terms.

  10. #790
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,811

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I suspected you'd find a way to weasel it out, and you didn't disappoint. You go through a lot of mental gymnastics to still end up twisting in the wind. Regardless how you attempt to spin it, it is clear that you don't expect the same from both sides. Your lip service is not convincing.
    Well, you didn't address even one point and tell me where I'm wrong.

    Bottom line is I don't "expect" anything. What I know for a fact is both sides ARE bound by the contract. And what I also KNOW for a fact is both sides WILL use the leverage they have to negotiate the best deal for their side. Morality has nothing to do with anything. Pretty simple and obvious stuff.

Page 79 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •