• 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!

Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

Do you think it's immoral to settle your debt for a smaller amount?

  • Yes, always.

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • No, never.

    Votes: 16 41.0%
  • It depends on if you can afford to pay it or not.

    Votes: 14 35.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 17.9%

  • Total voters
    39
Unless they forced people to get credit cards I don't buy this at all. Someone being an ignorant and weak person is not Citibank's fault. Unless there is fraud involved what you do with your money is all you.



Your "addictions" (and yes I use that term VERY loosely here) are also not Citibank's fault.

But Citibank's choice to accept the risk is their own fault, and they deserve anything they get from it.

Thus, they are entirely responsible for all of the credit defaults they deal with, since they were the one's throwing their money around.

The debtor only lets Citibank throw it in their direction.
 
I guess I am just old fashioned in that respect.




If they are willing to jack up rates, play games like hold deposits until after all drafts are proccessed (like in jallman's case), if they are willing to negotiate, there is nothing wrong with it.


Heck, We renegotiated terms several times on business properties I own... it's no difference in my book.


If they would not renegotiate, sure, I'm obligated to pay it off, however, if they open that door, there is nothing immoral in trying to negotiate.
 
Banks change terms on people all the time. It's a renegotiaion. ;)

It's not even negotiation when a credit card company jacks interest rates up with no warning, fails to process payments and jacks your rate up punatively for their mistakes, or just decides to cut credit lines.

If a person can renegotiate with a credit card company, by all means let them do it. It's not like the cc companies have exactly been fair and ethical in their treatment of customers, either.
 
I've done that once in my life and it was to WellsFargo. I had a checking account with them and I deposited my paycheck every Tuesday. One week, they decided for some reason to hold my paycheck for 7 days. They didn't tell me when I deposited it, they had never done it before and I never did get an answer as to why they did it. On Saturday of that week, I had a debit decline. When I went into the bank on monday to find out why the ATM said I was 536.00 in the hole, I found out about the check being held and the 13 overdraft charges at 32.00 apiece. They paid all the charges and called it overdraft protections. I discussed calmly with the banker at first, wanting to know why a 7 day hold was put on my payroll check for the first time in 2 years and without them telling me. I figured since all the charges had been paid, they would just see the mistake and reverse their bank charges, refunding me my money.

Things got a little more heated when the banker told me that the best he could do for me was to show me how to balance my check register. That was the end of my banking with WellsFargo. When the collector called about it, I told him that I was glad he called because I wanted to know where to present my 438.19 bill for repayment of the money WellsFargo took illegally. They have never called back and it has never shown up on my credit report.

Well, that's different. If someone ****s you over, I mean.... can't really blame someone for ****ing them over right back. LOL

I did have to declare bankruptcy once. Thanks to a ****head ex-boyfriend. But I *wanted* to make good on the debt I owed, I just couldn't do it under the current terms I had with all of them. Every debtor that offered me a reduced debt interest free, instead of a full write off, I took it. And I paid them back the negotiated amount. I also did not include any medical bills or my auto loan in the bankruptcy.
 
It's not even negotiation when a credit card company jacks interest rates up with no warning, fails to process payments and jacks your rate up punatively for their mistakes, or just decides to cut credit lines.

If a person can renegotiate with a credit card company, by all means let them do it. It's not like the cc companies have exactly been fair and ethical in their treatment of customers, either.

Bank of America tried to jack the rate on a card that I had for years and was never late on a payment, never over my limit and there was no change to my score.

And I mean really jack the rate so that the payments more than doubled.

I called them and told them that they had two options: 1. return the rate to where it was or 2. be the proud owners of my defaulted credit because they weren't getting a single payment from me and that they'd lose a helluva lot more money if I stopped paying than the money they'll make if they returned the interest rate to what it was and received timely payments as usual.

They made the smart choice.
 
I heard a commercial on the radio the other day about a debt settlement company. One of the scenarios was a guy who owed $30,000 in credit card debt and settled with $12,000. Do you think it's immoral to do this and not pay the entire amount?

I think in most cases they would still be making a profit.

In answer to your question, no. There has been a feedback error in creditor-debtor relations in the United States for a long time. That feedback error is great for creditors when it works, but they are willing to settle for less when it gets out of control.
 
Last edited:
One may consider it immoral based on their own moral beliefs, but it's not a question of morality since it's a business deal.
 
One may consider it immoral based on their own moral beliefs, but it's not a question of morality since it's a business deal.

Are businesses deals not subject to moral considerations?
 
I don't think it's immoral. What's immoral is having a 20%+ interest rate on debts. There is nothing wrong with settling your debt to a lower amount.
 
Bank of America tried to jack the rate on a card that I had for years and was never late on a payment, never over my limit and there was no change to my score.

And I mean really jack the rate so that the payments more than doubled.

I called them and told them that they had two options: 1. return the rate to where it was or 2. be the proud owners of my defaulted credit because they weren't getting a single payment from me and that they'd lose a helluva lot more money if I stopped paying than the money they'll make if they returned the interest rate to what it was and received timely payments as usual.

They made the smart choice.

Wow, I may have to try that. The same thing happened to me, and it really pissed me off, but I thought I had no recourse.
 
It's not even negotiation when a credit card company jacks interest rates up with no warning, fails to process payments and jacks your rate up punatively for their mistakes, or just decides to cut credit lines.

If a person can renegotiate with a credit card company, by all means let them do it. It's not like the cc companies have exactly been fair and ethical in their treatment of customers, either.


That is certainly the truth.
 
Are businesses deals not subject to moral considerations?

No. Business deals are contractural agreements. Granted, lenders do rely on the moral and ethical standards of customers to help ensure the contract is fully lived up to, but the contractural agreement is contained on the piece of paper it's printed on.
 
.... since when did capitalists care about morality?

Are you implying that you're NOT a capitalist? In other words, you reject private property rights and wage labor?
 
Wow, I may have to try that. The same thing happened to me, and it really pissed me off, but I thought I had no recourse.

You always have recourse with a creditor.

Just stop paying them. In fact, the debtor is in control of the situation. They can dictate whether or not the creditor made a good investment or a bad one.

Let them know that you can turn their investment into a loss if they decide to be assholes and that you don't really care if your credit score takes a hit.

Don't be angry at all about it, just be matter-of-fact.

They are used to getting angry calls, they aren't used to people being very reasonable while telling them what is going to happen if they don't comply.

They don't want to lose money and you are offering them a chance to not lose money.

If they refuse, then make sure they lose money. Call back a few times to see if they are happy with their decision to lose money.

When the bill collectors call, talk to them. Let them know how happy you are with the new arrangement the bank has chosen (which is you not paying the new higher interest rate) and that it has been a boon to your savings. Thank them for their considerate offer. Then try to engage the bill collector in idle chit chat.

They'll think you are nuts. Which at least offers you the chance to have fun while screwing them.
 
I heard a commercial on the radio the other day about a debt settlement company. One of the scenarios was a guy who owed $30,000 in credit card debt and settled with $12,000. Do you think it's immoral to do this and not pay the entire amount?

I'm in late.

I don't think it's wrong for a company to give breaks, put off payment and so on. The company/store/bank to which you're in debt to shouldn't continually raise your interest rate, however. But, except for a death of a spouse (thus, a reduced income) or serious illness or injury that prevents you from being able to cover the cost of your intended-to-pay-back-amount people shouldn't be allowed to back away from their financial obligation just because they want to.

It's personal responsibility and keeping your commitments. If you max out your credit card at $2,000 - and you had a 5% interest added on at that time, during that whole time, then that's what you should be expected to pay back - $2,000 + the interest that you agreed to pay in exchange for being allowed to borrow the money before you even borrowed a penny.

Credit Cards should also function more like a bank and the use and statement of the credit card should function like a loan and be privy to the same loan laws. Example: when you pull out a mortage on a home you are given a spreadsheet with a payment run, noting when and where your money is expected to be paid/applied.

But I don't think anyone who commits to borrowing money and agrees to pay back the interest should be able to back away purely because they used poor judgment and overspent.
 
When the bill collectors call, talk to them. Let them know how happy you are with the new arrangement the bank has chosen (which is you not paying the new higher interest rate) and that it has been a boon to your savings. Thank them for their considerate offer. Then try to engage the bill collector in idle chit chat.

They'll think you are nuts. Which at least offers you the chance to have fun while screwing them.

:mrgreen: I love it!
 
But I don't think anyone who commits to borrowing money and agrees to pay back the interest should be able to back away purely because they used poor judgment and overspent.

See, I look at it differently, I see no problem with the credit card companies being punished (by the defaults they accrue) for their poor judgment in the way that they toss their money around, i.e. allowing irresponsible people to overspend it in the hopes of turning a profit off of the irresponsible people.
 
If they are willing to jack up rates, play games like hold deposits until after all drafts are proccessed (like in jallman's case), if they are willing to negotiate, there is nothing wrong with it.

There's a big difference between banks playing games like the above and people just deciding that, even though they willingly ran up their credit card balances, they just don't feel like paying it back.
 
There's a big difference between banks playing games like the above and people just deciding that, even though they willingly ran up their credit card balances, they just don't feel like paying it back.

The banks willingly take the risk.
 
Bogus generalizing will get us no place.

What bogus generalizing? Capitalism has no place for it. Never has had it actually. The coffee beans you use to make coffee? Picked by somebody for 3 cents a bag who is starving. The clothes you buy at Wal-Mart? Made by some kid in China who can't afford to go to school. The plates you have? Made by a woman in Bangladesh whose family lives in squalor. Capitalism and capitalists do not care about morality. It is a simple fact. It is a matter of supply an demand. The immoral exploitation of others is quite irrelevant to a capitalist.
 
Last edited:
What bogus generalizing? Capitalism has no place for it. Never has had it actually. The coffee beans you use to make coffee? Picked by somebody for 3 cents a bag who is starving. The clothes you buy at Wal-Mart? Made by some kid in China who can't afford to go to school. The plates you have? Made by a woman in Bangladesh whose family lives in squalor. Capitalism and capitalists do not care about morality. It is a simple fact. It is a matter of supply an demand. The immoral exploitation of others is quite irrelevant to a capitalist.

Our system is not pure capitalism, and never has been. Most people do not support pure capitalism except for some libertarians I know.

So yes, it is an unfair generalization that adds nothing to the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Our system is not pure capitalism, and never has been.Most people do not support pure capitalism except for some libertarians I know.

This is irrelevant. Even an 'impure' capitalism like ours has no place for morality. All those things I mentioned still exist in a system of 'impure capitalism'. So my comment stands.

So yes, it is an unfair generalization that adds nothing to the conversation.

Oh but it does. Morality and capitalism are incompatible. It is as simple as that.
 
Back
Top Bottom