• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Is there a moral obligation to repay money you borrow?


  • Total voters
    98
Because the bank isn't buying your house. You are buying the house. The house is YOUR investment.

And the house is THE BANK'S collateral that is stupidly decided was adequate security to advance loans of $hundreds of thousands.
 
The topic of this thread is this:

Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take

You don't understand the difference between a loan and a service contract?

would you please share the difference between the two from a morality standpoint
 
Two very unrelated questions. If the bank wrote you the check and lived up to the terms of your agreement, the bank didn't swindle you. If the bank swindled you, then you might have an argument that you don't have a moral obligation to do what you agreed to do, but you can't prove that the bank swindled you just because you say that "banks swindle people". You actually have to prove they did something dirty, dishonest and designed to cheat you out of your money.

You don't think that, by selling people houses they knew people couldn't afford, in some cases adding in balloon payments they knew the customer didn't understand, and selling those mortgages to get the bad debt off of the books, they acted immorally and unethically? You don't think they swindled both the customer, who will now have terrible credit and no home, and the client, who is now long on a bad security?
 
would you please share the difference between the two from a morality standpoint

I'll repeat what I keep saying.


There is no morality in borrowing and lending.


So I can't "share the difference" from a morality standpoint.

I will, however, share the difference from a grown up person standpoint. A cell phone agreement isn't a loan. It's a service agreement. Nobody borrowed money from the service provider.
 
Because the bank isn't buying your house. You are buying the house. The house is YOUR investment.

You're wasting your time here. But you are 100% correct. The bank did not buy the house. You bought the house. You own the house. The bank has a lien on your house until you have satisfied your obligation to the bank. A lien is not ownership. The deed is in your name and not the bank's name.

I'm shaking my head at all the posts in this thread from people who apparently never took and loan nor bought a house, but pretend they know about them.
 
I'll repeat what I keep saying.


There is no morality in borrowing and lending.


So I can't "share the difference" from a morality standpoint.

I will, however, share the difference from a grown up person standpoint. A cell phone agreement isn't a loan. It's a service agreement. Nobody borrowed money from the service provider.
They are both legal contracts....which was the point......which apparently is beyond your ability to comprehend.
 
You're wasting your time here. But you are 100% correct. The bank did not buy the house. You bought the house. You own the house. The bank has a lien on your house until you have satisfied your obligation to the bank. A lien is not ownership. The deed is in your name and not the bank's name.

I'm shaking my head at all the posts in this thread from people who apparently never took and loan nor bought a house, but pretend they know about them.

This is semantic nonsense, you do not hold title until you pay off the mortgage and any other encumbrances. "Ownership" is incomplete until you hold the title in real property.
 
Beneficial State Bank in Oakland.

https://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/StruReportNew.asp?inCert1=58490

Metropolitan Bank in Oakland.

https://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/StruReportNew.asp?inCert1=25869

Here are 2 to get you started.

I stand corrected: thanks for linking to a site with working searches. (I was using the FFIEC database, whose search feature seems to be totally dysfunctional.)

More to the point of this thread, though: is it a requirement for deposits to exceed total loans and leases? And was it a requirement before Dodd-Frank?
 
I'll repeat what I keep saying.


There is no morality in borrowing and lending.
as have i, excepting circumstances such as fraud

So I can't "share the difference" from a morality standpoint.
because there are none
thank you for making my point

I will, however, share the difference from a grown up person standpoint. A cell phone agreement isn't a loan. It's a service agreement. Nobody borrowed money from the service provider.
and that semantic difference has no bearing in this discussion about the morality of paying one's financial obligations
 
as have i, excepting circumstances such as fraud


because there are none
thank you for making my point


and that semantic difference has no bearing in this discussion about the morality of paying one's financial obligations

The subject of this thread is paying a loan. A service agreement isn't a loan. Nobody has borrowed any money. If you don't understand that, I can't help you. It's simple plain English and something that smart adults understand.

No, I didn't "make your point" if you don't understand the difference between a service agreement and a loan. You're in the wrong thread. The thread isn't about service agreements.
 
I stand corrected: thanks for linking to a site with working searches. (I was using the FFIEC database, whose search feature seems to be totally dysfunctional.)

More to the point of this thread, though: is it a requirement for deposits to exceed total loans and leases? And was it a requirement before Dodd-Frank?

Ah, the FFIEC site is usually a disaster. It's only useful if you're interested in how they perform on exams, or HMDA data, that sort of thing. The FDIC site is the only way to get the accurate financials, and if you're looking up a credit union, they have a similar site via the NCUA.

Yes there are loan to deposit ratios that were made mandatory via Dodd-Frank, and the CFPB also has requirements. I don't know what they are off the top of my head, but the bank reserves and capital ratios are pretty tight these days. That's the only way to stop the bleeding of banks closing.
 
The subject of this thread is paying a loan. A service agreement isn't a loan. Nobody has borrowed any money. If you don't understand that, I can't help you. It's simple plain English and something that smart adults understand.

No, I didn't "make your point" if you don't understand the difference between a service agreement and a loan. You're in the wrong thread. The thread isn't about service agreements.

ok, i'll wait for you to share with us how one's morality towards paying a mortgage is unique and different from that of paying one's contracted services agreement
 
ok, i'll wait for you to share with us how one's morality towards paying a mortgage is unique and different from that of paying one's contracted services agreement

There has to be a reason for this insane post. I can't explain morality in paying a mortgage when I said that morality had nothing to do with borrowing or lending. Are you intentionally posting trolling posts?

The "us"...is that you & Jasper who both don't understand the difference between a loan and a service agreement? Sorry, not bothering with you any more than I did with him. Once you two learn the difference, you'll understand why service contracts have nothing to do with this thread even if morality does have a place in borrowing or lending.

K?
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

If it's unrealistic (the Greek debt) then it shouldnt have been loaned. I think that was more a political move personally.

However regarding grace or forgiveness, those are personal virtues and not to be expected from business or corporate entities. I have never heard of any contract that says, "and if the contractee cannot fulfill the terms of this contract in full faith because of hardship, then the contract is null and void."**

Yes, a business *can forgive a debt* they may have a policy for that, but that debt will be passed on to others who do business/have loans with that company.

**There is bankruptcy but that is thru the legal system, not the business. The business may still get some or all that's owed it after that process.

You have never heard of a grace period? And bankruptcy is debt forgiveness.

And corporations, and individuals, often use bankruptcy to avoid paying debts. They hide assets or move them, and then declare bankruptcy, stiffing their creditors. If business can do it then why not Greece?

Anyway, when Greece gets Germany to pay for their WW2 war crimes this should help the Greeks a lot. The Germans owe the Greeks bigtime. Merkel must pay.
 
This is semantic nonsense, you do not hold title until you pay off the mortgage and any other encumbrances. "Ownership" is incomplete until you hold the title in real property.
Yep.

I don't own my car, currently.
Bank does, until I pay the loan off.

Is why they require full coverage insurance.
 
Yep.

I don't own my car, currently.
Bank does, until I pay the loan off.

Is why they require full coverage insurance.

Incorrect. The title to the car is in your name, not the bank's name. The title is what signifies ownership. The bank doesn't own it, which is why you don't have to ask their permission to paint it or put a new stereo in it or drive it to New Jersey. They hold a lien on your car. The only thing they do require is that you pay off the balance you owe them when you transfer ownership to someone else. They require you to maintain sufficient insurance on it to protect their interest in it. You agreed to do that when you signed a note asking to borrow their money to purchase your car. Your car is security on a financial obligation to them. It is not their possession.

After reading this thread I'm no longer surprised at how many stupid people in this country got themselves in trouble with taking mortgage loans they shouldn't have taken. People don't even know what they own.
 
You guys are saying the same thing. You're just wording it different ways.

1) Yes, the title is under your name.
2) No, you don't fully own the property because you have unfulfilled obligations.

Who cares what you call it, you're agreeing. Move on.
 
Incorrect. The title to the car is in your name, not the bank's name. The title is what signifies ownership. The bank doesn't own it, which is why you don't have to ask their permission to paint it or put a new stereo in it or drive it to New Jersey. They hold a lien on your car. The only thing they do require is that you pay off the balance you owe them when you transfer ownership to someone else. They require you to maintain sufficient insurance on it to protect their interest in it. You agreed to do that when you signed a note asking to borrow their money to purchase your car. Your car is security on a financial obligation to them. It is not their possession.

After reading this thread I'm no longer surprised at how many stupid people in this country got themselves in trouble with taking mortgage loans they shouldn't have taken. People don't even know what they own.
Actually I've noticed that myself.

It won't help me, but I strongly feel that some kind of basic economics/personal finances class should be REQUIRED for a person to graduate HS. And probably preparatory classes in prior grades.

I have to learn stuff by making mistakes like this or researching it myself.


However I will say that the bank CAN repossess my car if I stop paying - but I suppose they must get a court ruling for that.
 
Actually I've noticed that myself.

It won't help me, but I strongly feel that some kind of basic economics/personal finances class should be REQUIRED for a person to graduate HS. And probably preparatory classes in prior grades.

I have to learn stuff by making mistakes like this or researching it myself.


However I will say that the bank CAN repossess my car if I stop paying - but I suppose they must get a court ruling for that.

Read what you just wrote. The bank can repossess your car if you stop paying. Repossession means they take ownership of your vehicle. They don't have it now. They only take ownership because you defaulted on your obligation to them.

No, they don't need a court order to repossess a car. You signed an agreement that easily allows them to do it if you default. Not that they want to. Lenders do not want their collateral. It's a losing proposition for them. They would rather you pay as agreed.

Just like foreclosure. The bank doesn't own your home until they foreclose on it, and in fact, when your home in foreclosure goes to auction, the bank actually has to buy it back if it doesn't sell at auction. Until that day, just like with a car, they do NOT own it. Each state has its own foreclosure rules and processes and that is far more complicated than seizing an auto.

But people need to stop foolishly thinking that a lien on something that is titled or deeded in your name means that the lienholder is the owner. They are not. The only thing the bank "owns" is the debt on your collateral. You own the collateral, which is why you have the right to pledge it. I can't pledge your home as collateral because I don't own it.
 
Incorrect. The title to the car is in your name, not the bank's name. The title is what signifies ownership. The bank doesn't own it, which is why you don't have to ask their permission to paint it or put a new stereo in it or drive it to New Jersey. They hold a lien on your car. The only thing they do require is that you pay off the balance you owe them when you transfer ownership to someone else. They require you to maintain sufficient insurance on it to protect their interest in it. You agreed to do that when you signed a note asking to borrow their money to purchase your car. Your car is security on a financial obligation to them. It is not their possession.

After reading this thread I'm no longer surprised at how many stupid people in this country got themselves in trouble with taking mortgage loans they shouldn't have taken. People don't even know what they own.

I would suggest that driving to New Jersey specifically should require some advance notice to the finance agent. The driver should also consider leaving loved ones and pets behind for any trip north of Cape May. It would be prudent. OTOH, if you live in your car, you'll be right at home.
 
Read what you just wrote. The bank can repossess your car if you stop paying. Repossession means they take ownership of your vehicle. They don't have it now. They only take ownership because you defaulted on your obligation to them.

No, they don't need a court order to repossess a car. You signed an agreement that easily allows them to do it if you default. Not that they want to. Lenders do not want their collateral. It's a losing proposition for them. They would rather you pay as agreed.

Just like foreclosure. The bank doesn't own your home until they foreclose on it, and in fact, when your home in foreclosure goes to auction, the bank actually has to buy it back if it doesn't sell at auction. Until that day, just like with a car, they do NOT own it. Each state has its own foreclosure rules and processes and that is far more complicated than seizing an auto.

But people need to stop foolishly thinking that a lien on something that is titled or deeded in your name means that the lienholder is the owner. They are not. The only thing the bank "owns" is the debt on your collateral. You own it.
Me be learnin' **** here.

Thanks.


Edit: From my perspective, however, it's basically the same thing - The bank gives me money to buy the car, I pay the bank back, and they take the car if they can't get money out of me for a long period of time. They also require that I have insurance on it.

Effectively, I don't "own" the car free of obligation until I pay off the loan - whether I technically do own it, or not, doesn't change things much from my viewpoint on the whole convoluted thing...

OR something?
 
Last edited:
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

You have never heard of a grace period? And bankruptcy is debt forgiveness.

.

And grace periods are part of the business model. What happens if they dont pay after that?

And I've already posted this: in bankruptcy, the institution will recoup losses by spreading them out among other individuals that do business at that institution.

IMO, that is immoral for an individual to do if they can avoid it. Some cannot, there are legitimate things that happen to people, loss of jobs, huge medical bills, short or long term disability.....
 
There has to be a reason for this insane post. I can't explain morality in paying a mortgage when I said that morality had nothing to do with borrowing or lending. Are you intentionally posting trolling posts?

The "us"...is that you & Jasper who both don't understand the difference between a loan and a service agreement? Sorry, not bothering with you any more than I did with him. Once you two learn the difference, you'll understand why service contracts have nothing to do with this thread even if morality does have a place in borrowing or lending.

For the record, it's not hard to understand the difference between a loan, and a lease, and a cell phone contract - they're all obligations to pay some amount, secured by a contract, which provides for specific remedies in the event of default. [For the record, the purpose of the two year cell phone commitment is (in most/all cases) to pay off part of the cost of a heavily discounted phone, so it is in fact a loan amortized over the two year period.]

You're asserting some principled difference (but not a moral one!, the subject of this thread!) between a loan and all the rest and we're asking what principle separates them. It's a simple question, really.

Others have asserted a moral obligation to repay a loan (the subject of this thread), but not a cell phone contract or a lease, and we've asked those making moral distinctions to describe on what principle they make those distinctions.

Simple questions that no one will answer. There is something sacred about "loans" apparently that doesn't apply to other financial obligations with fixed terms.
 
So then according to me, IMO...as per the OP's question...that is not moral behavior.

People can have bad credit scores for alot of reasons, including medical debt.

So. Another rationalization.

I mean, pretty much nobody defaults on a loan they can easily pay back. So I'm not really sure how that changes anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom