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

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, always.

    5 10.87%
  • No, never.

    18 39.13%
  • It depends on if you can afford to pay it or not.

    16 34.78%
  • Other

    7 15.22%
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 85

Thread: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

  1. #61
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I agree with Tucker Case. The 'agreement' people make includes not just the contract you sign, but also the 'surrounding' law that applies to the agreement. Everyone (should) know what all this law is before signing on, and the creditors certainly do. The entirety of the agreement provides for certain consequences if the borrower opts not to pay. As long as the borrower is willing to bear those consequences, there is nothing 'wrong' about it.

    Businesses who borrow money from other businesses frequently opt not to pay their debts because it is in the best interest of those businesses not to do so. Nobody asks if the business is 'immoral' for not paying its debts. If, as a borrower, it is no longer in your best interests to pay, then stop paying.

    Borrowing money is a business arrangement, not a moral one.

    The cessation of payments and the attendant consequences are PART of the entire agreement, and it is within the borrowers rights to exercise that part of the agreement.

    That said: It is almost always best to keep paying, unless you owe a high amount of money compared to your income to lenders who charge ridiculous interest.
    The will to bear the consequences of making certain choices is the key to the whole thing.

    And I believe that business decisions involving corporations always need to be made with the head, not the heart. Morality has no place in these decisions.

    Now business decisions involving individuals are a different story, IMO. In those cases, morality comes into the equation because morality is reserved for interpersonal interactions.

    If I sign a contract to perform a service for an individual, I would do everything within my power to fulfill my obligations.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #62
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's the lie they tell you, but it is a lie.

    The credit companies are investing when they give credit, nothing more, nothing less. The higher the risk, the more they expect in return, thus they charge higher interest rates.

    They are the only one's responsible for what they do with their money, nobody else.
    So - someone who fills out an application for a Credit Card that's offered at %10.00 interest and then maxes out that card you're suggesting that the person applying and spending isn't responsible for his decision to spend that money?

    It's a two way street.

    What they are doing is allowing you to spend their money, in the hopes that they can turn a very tidy profit when you pay the price for spending their money.

    If they let an irresponsible person spend their money, then they are idiots and they deserve to lose on their investment. It's their duty to make sure they pick responsible people to spend their money. they dont do that. They target irresponsible people because they tell people the lie that it's a shared responsibility.
    Well - if someone racks up $20,000 in CC debt then, I think, they DESERVE to be in debted until they pay it off. Maybe if people couldn't bail easily from their decision to be careless with their hard earned money then less people would be in debt.

    Just because the money is THERE for someone to spend doesn't mean it's wise for them to spend it.

    Example: I invest in a company that looks fro all intents and purposes that it is going to fail. Then, lo and behold, the company fails as one would expect. The company is not responsible for my stupid investment. I am. I deserve to lose my money for making a stupid investment.
    Yes, the company is not responsible for YOUR decision. They are responsible for THEIR decisions. The failed company, however, IS responsible for their end of the deal. They are responsible for their own failure - they had the business and failed to run it properly, etc. . . . same thing - it's a two way street of responsibility. Both sides are responsible for their SELVES.

    The same is true of credit companies. If they make stupid investments, they deserve to lose money. Abso-friggin-lutely.

    And when lenders make stupid decisions, we all lose because the economy gets ****ed. They want to take risks, fine. But they deserve to lose money when they take stupid risks. That's how it works.
    And so letting people who CHOSE to borrow money slide from their agreed debt is ok? Why is that ok? I just don't meet you on that.

    If someone doesn't want to be IN massive debt then they should GO into massive debt. It's a no brainer.

    What do you think people rack up massive debt for, anyway? I knew someone who was in debt for $35,000 - and she posted online to ask for help because she was behind on her payments and her next payment was $800.00 . . . after indulging that she had just purchased a bedroom furniture set on her card.
    Almost all of her $35,000 debt was JUNK - crap she didn't need. Not medical bills (she's military - all of that is covered) Not education (again, covered) nothing unexpect - just her stupid decision to spend spend spend, buy buy buy.

    Believe it or not individual people should KNOW whether or not they can afford ___ or pay back ___. Adults should be capable and responsible for ensuring that they don't take on too much debt and their debt doesn't get out of control with frivolous spending.

    I was a frivolous spender - I maxed out all of my credit cards - and guess what. I, being a decent person, accepted my RESPONSIBILITY and made adjustments in my budget - controlled my excessive spending - and PAID my DEBT OFF completely. I could have just freaked and said "it's tooooo much!" and even sought to end my debt but I didn't - I paid it off in just TWO years and now the only debt I have is vehicle and mortgage.

    Sure, life happens - and when it does there should be flex - but no one should ever be relieved of their debt when the main issue is that they borrowed too much money from too many people and went out to eat every Friday at La Vahn.

    The will to bear the consequences of making certain choices is the key to the whole thing.
    EXACTLY. I agree with this statement on it's own. So - how you have this line of thought but say it's ok for people to just write off their debt doesn't connect to me, it makes no sense and seems like a pure contradiction.

    How is a company suppose to know if you're a possible disaster in the making? Your credit score only tells how much you have done SO FAR in your life. It doesn't indulge two things: #1 - what you would be like if you were given credit to spend. #2 - What you were like in the past.

    My credit score use to be 4hundredsomething. Now? It's well over 700.
    Just by eyeballing that - I look like a stellar person who can handle anything.

    But should I ever be given a limitless card? NO - I know my spending habits. I'll get depressed over something (I'll do really good for a while, though) and try to buy my way into happiness. . . but you can't tell THAT by looking at my credit score. Credit scores, the ONLY means of a company to judge it's possible clients, is inaccurate to say the least and a horrible judge of character. Not to mention that the new method of scoring gives LESS accuracy by allowing small debt amounts to slide off the calculable scale.
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 04-30-10 at 09:47 AM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #63
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    So - someone who fills out an application for a Credit Card that's offered at %10.00 interest and then maxes out that card you're suggesting that the person applying and spending isn't responsible for his decision to spend that money?

    It's a two way street.
    The only thing the debtor is obligated to do is pay off the agreement as per the contract or accept the consequences of not paying off the agreement as per the contract.

    They are faced with a choice, both of which will have ramifications.


    Well - if someone racks up $20,000 in CC debt then, I think, they DESERVE to be in debted until they pay it off. Maybe if people couldn't bail easily from their decision to be careless with their hard earned money then less people would be in debt.
    Actually, more people would be in debt with your system because it would reward the credit companies for their bad decisions by making sure they would always have long-term profitability, even in cases where they made horribly stupid business decisions.

    By rewarding their bad decisions, they will only make more of them. Thus, more people who are irresponsible will be given credit that they don't deserve.

    Sub-prime mortgages are a prime example of stupid decisions being given positive reinforcement.


    Just because the money is THERE for someone to spend doesn't mean it's wise for them to spend it.
    Absolutely. But making your money available for unwise spending from someone else is even stupider.



    Yes, the company is not responsible for YOUR decision. They are responsible for THEIR decisions. The failed company, however, IS responsible for their end of the deal. They are responsible for their own failure - they had the business and failed to run it properly, etc. . . . same thing - it's a two way street of responsibility. Both sides are responsible for their SELVES.
    They are absolutely responsible for their debtors decisions because they made the CHOICE to let the irresponsible people have control of their money. Their choice is the first one in the chain. All subsequent choices made by any party are directly related to that primary choice.


    If I give a stranger my debit card and let them make purchases with it unsupervised, under the hope that they will be responsible in their purchasing and pay me back with interest, that person is not responsible for my empty bank account at the end of the day, I am. I made a very stupid decision and I should suffer the consequences of my stupid decision in full.



    And so letting people who CHOSE to borrow money slide from their agreed debt is ok? Why is that ok? I just don't meet you on that.
    They receive other consequences that are pre-set into the system. i.e. credit score damage, inability to get future loans, etc.

    Why is it OK to absolve the lenders of their CHOICE to make a stupid investment?

    If someone doesn't want to be IN massive debt then they should GO into massive debt. It's a no brainer.
    Obviously. And if someone doesn't want to lose on a bad investment, then they should not make bad investments.

    Your way of viewing things ignores the fact that the credit companies are making investments with every credit card and loan they give out. Its a choice.

    What do you think people rack up massive debt for, anyway?
    Because lenders make stupid investments on irresponsible people. That's the first stupid decision in the chain of stupid decisions.

    I knew someone who was in debt for $35,000 - and she posted online to ask for help because she was behind on her payments and her next payment was $800.00 . . . after indulging that she had just purchased a bedroom furniture set on her card.

    Almost all of her $35,000 debt was JUNK - crap she didn't need. Not medical bills (she's military - all of that is covered) Not education (again, covered) nothing unexpect - just her stupid decision to spend spend spend, buy buy buy.
    What an astoundingly stupid investment made by these lenders. They let this irresponsible person have control over $35,000 of their money?!?!?!?

    What idiots.

    Believe it or not individual people should KNOW whether or not they can afford ___ or pay back ___. Adults should be capable and responsible for ensuring that they don't take on too much debt and their debt doesn't get out of control with frivolous spending.
    Should statements are by nature irrational. What you think should happen isn't the reality. The reality is that many adults are not capable and responsible. The simple act of being lucky enough to live for a certain number of years does not imbue wisdom upon a stupid person.

    Instead, working with reality instead of idealism, a person or entity has the duty of making making wise investments with their money. They are the ones fully responsible for what they do with their money.

    If they make stupid decisions with their money, such as letting someone who is not responsible and capable have control over it, they deserve to lose that money. Simple as that.

    If they decide not to take less profits or mitigate their losses, that's an even stupider decision on the lender's part.

    I was a frivolous spender - I maxed out all of my credit cards - and guess what. I, being a decent person, accepted my RESPONSIBILITY and made adjustments in my budget - controlled my excessive spending - and PAID my DEBT OFF completely. I could have just freaked and said "it's tooooo much!" and even sought to end my debt but I didn't - I paid it off in just TWO years and now the only debt I have is vehicle and mortgage.
    The bank was wise to invest their money with you, then. There's nothing wrong with being a wise investment.

    Sure, life happens - and when it does there should be flex - but no one should ever be relieved of their debt when the main issue is that they borrowed too much money from too many people and went out to eat every Friday at La Vahn.
    The problem is that you ignore the main issue which is that the banks are making stupid investments and stupid decisions.


    Let's look at my own situation for a moment. I bought a condo in 2005. I wasn't aware of what the banks were doing with subprime lending when I made this purchase (which is my fault. It is my duty to be informed of these things, and I have since rectified my ignorance).

    Anyway, I bought the cheapest condo I could find at the time, and made sure that I could afford the payments easily with my income. The building I purchased in had 72 units. It was a rehab, and all 72 units were for sale. I purchased the 3rd one, which actually made mine tied for the cheapest of the 72. They raised prices 3 times before they had all of the units sold, and I thought I had 15K of equity built into my unit and was very happy in my ignorance.

    Unbeknownst to me, the banks (including the one I borrowed with), were giving out loans to people with bad credit scores. Really bad credit scores. People known for defaulting on debt. They happen to have given many of these types of loans to people who purchased in this building. These bad investments accounted for 23 foreclosures in my building over the last 5 years.

    I went from having a condo worth more than what I paid by 15K, to one worth less than what I paid by 70K. Not once have I been late on a payment. If I decide to continue to pay my mortgage, and the value of the property rises an absurdly optimistic amount of 5% each year, the point where my decreasing principle will meet the rising value of the property is 6 years form now. It's a one bedroom I purchased as an investment.

    Did I make a stupid decision buying a condo while being ignorant of what the banks were doing with their money? Sure. I absolutely accept my responsibility for that stupid decision. What I've lost is the full amount I have paid in my mortgage and interest over the last 5 years as well as my down payment. I will never see that money again.

    The bank, on the other hand, hasn't lost a dime on their investment in me. They've profited thus far. If I continue to pay, they will continue to profit.

    But the bank made a stupider decision by allowing people who were not good investments make decisions with their money. I know for a fact that multiple foreclosures in my building were from loans that came through the same lander as mine, as well as a lender that has since been purchased by my bank.

    My losses over the last five years are entirely due to my own stupid decision to buy at the peak of a market that had a foundation of sand. I accept those losses. I put my money (as well as the banks) into a stupid investment.

    But the bank has also made a stupid investment in this situation (multiple times over since at least 6 of the foreclosures in my building were from loans granted by my lender). It invested in my condo even more than I did by allowing me to make my stupid investment with their money.

    They actually had more information than I did when this investment was made, because they knew that they were making really stupid investments elsewhere.

    Yet, thus far, they haven't lost anything on their stupid investment because one aspect of that investment (me) was a good one, and I would have been relatively assured to remain a good investment if not for their stupid decisions. Some of these stupid decisions on their part include their persistent rejection of a restructuring of my loan to a lower rate to decrease my payments (If they allowed this, I would rent out my condo at a much lower loss than what I would now).

    They would still profit on my loan at a lower rate, but they don't believe I will allow it to go into foreclosure in part because I have never missed a payment. People who miss payments are being allowed to restructure while those who haven't missed any payments aren't being granted this option for some reason.

    The bank is using the properties absurdly decreased value and the fact that I'm way underwater on the property as their basis for rejecting my restructuring offer. They feel safe in doing this because they are just stupid enough to think I still give a **** about my credit score so they assume I won't make the decision to let them become the proud new owners of a worthless condo.

    Here's the ****ed up thing, though. When you add together what I've paid in front-loaded interest thus far, they would not actually lose all that much money If I let it go into foreclose if they manage to sell it off quickly at the current rate (which has been happening with the more recent foreclosures in the building). The only losses they will have will be on the cost of it being in foreclosure. And even still, they could still end up breaking even when it's all said and done.

    While I'll have lost every cent I've paid over the last five years in down payment, taxes, principle and interest, association dues, and maintenance. This number far exceeds any amount they can possibly lose at this point on the joint investment.

    So the question is, why should I continue to lose money while they continue to profit off of what is essentially an equally stupid investment on their part?

    They were given the opportunity to continue profiting (just less profits) and they made the very, very stupid decision to reject that offer.

    This assures that they will cease to profit, and instead will lose on their stupid investment and subsequent decision to not make a smart alternative investment.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #64
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The only thing the debtor is obligated to do is pay off the agreement as per the contract or accept the consequences of not paying off the agreement as per the contract.

    They are faced with a choice, both of which will have ramifications.
    Yep - get in debt, be in debt . . . lesson learned for you or others = debt is bad.
    We just slightly agree on who should be held accountable for the overall debt having been incurred - I say both, you say one.

    Actually, more people would be in debt with your system because it would reward the credit companies for their bad decisions by making sure they would always have long-term profitability, even in cases where they made horribly stupid business decisions.
    So - people being able to just write off debt that they incurred won't encourage them to turn around and just rack up more debt?
    Afterall - the first time they just wrote it off and didn't have to pay it back. What's to teach them a lesson of control and money management in this? Nothing.

    By rewarding their bad decisions, they will only make more of them. Thus, more people who are irresponsible will be given credit that they don't deserve.
    Exactly - thus - make the people pay back their debt. Thus, they might learn to avoid incurring more debt.

    Sub-prime mortgages are a prime example of stupid decisions being given positive reinforcement.

    Absolutely. But making your money available for unwise spending from someone else is even stupider.
    It's all equally stupid, imho.

    At least we agree that foolishness is ignorance is at the heart of the problem.


    They are absolutely responsible for their debtors decisions because they made the CHOICE to let the irresponsible people have control of their money. Their choice is the first one in the chain. All subsequent choices made by any party are directly related to that primary choice.
    You cannot be responsible for someone else's decisions - only your own.

    If I give a stranger my debit card and let them make purchases with it unsupervised, under the hope that they will be responsible in their purchasing and pay me back with interest, that person is not responsible for my empty bank account at the end of the day, I am. I made a very stupid decision and I should suffer the consequences of my stupid decision in full.
    Yes - you're responsible for your choice, they are responsible for their choice. You suffer with an empty bank account until they pay you back - because that was the original agreement.

    They receive other consequences that are pre-set into the system. i.e. credit score damage, inability to get future loans, etc.

    Why is it OK to absolve the lenders of their CHOICE to make a stupid investment?
    I never said it was ok to absolve them of their bad business decision - I'm saying that the amount that they FIRST agreed to charge per interest should be capped at that original rate if they try to spike the rate.
    OR - the person in a financial hardship should be able to get leniency - no late fees, an indefinite extension with no punishment. But they should still be expected to pay.

    Believe it or not - putting off payment is quite hurtful to credit companies.

    Obviously. And if someone doesn't want to lose on a bad investment, then they should not make bad investments.
    Very true. I agree.

    Your way of viewing things ignores the fact that the credit companies are making investments with every credit card and loan they give out. Its a choice.
    I'm quite aware that they're investing with the intent of making a profit. .. and that they choose to do so.
    As is the person who borrows the money. they, too, are making an investment decision - it's their choice, as well, and their agreement.

    Because lenders make stupid investments on irresponsible people. That's the first stupid decision in the chain of stupid decisions.



    What an astoundingly stupid investment made by these lenders. They let this irresponsible person have control over $35,000 of their money?!?!?!?

    What idiots.
    Well - she signed the line, promised to pay it back before she even spent a dime. the fault is equally shared. They shouldn't have lent - she shouldn't have spent.

    Should statements are by nature irrational. What you think should happen isn't the reality. The reality is that many adults are not capable and responsible. The simple act of being lucky enough to live for a certain number of years does not imbue wisdom upon a stupid person.
    Well then, I guess that means they must suffer with their stupidity. I don't like laws and the notion of favoring someone because they, though an adult, aren't functioning like one. . . and then getting away with it.

    Instead, working with reality instead of idealism, a person or entity has the duty of making making wise investments with their money. They are the ones fully responsible for what they do with their money.
    EXACTLY - this applies to the creditor and the applicant equally. Using the 'but the applicant is just stuuuupid' isn't working. they were smart enough to get to the store and go shopping on borrowed money.

    If they make stupid decisions with their money, such as letting someone who is not responsible and capable have control over it, they deserve to lose that money. Simple as that.
    They deserve to be tormented a while, but by letting someone skip away without paying back what they did borrow is liken to just letting the valet someone steal your car when all you did was ask him to park it.

    If they decide not to take less profits or mitigate their losses, that's an even stupider decision on the lender's part.
    The bank was wise to invest their money with you, then. There's nothing wrong with being a wise investment.
    Thank you.

    The problem is that you ignore the main issue which is that the banks are making stupid investments and stupid decisions.
    No, I'm not ignoring it. . . I'm quite aware of this - that's why the problem is a two way street.
    The lender is at fault for their decisions and the borrower is at fault for theirs. One side's oversight, though, shouldn't become the other side's permission to thieve.


    Let's look at my own situation for a moment. I bought a condo in 2005. I wasn't aware of what the banks were doing with subprime lending when I made this purchase (which is my fault. It is my duty to be informed of these things, and I have since rectified my ignorance).

    Anyway, I bought the cheapest condo I could find at the time, and made sure that I could afford the payments easily with my income. The building I purchased in had 72 units. It was a rehab, and all 72 units were for sale. I purchased the 3rd one, which actually made mine tied for the cheapest of the 72. They raised prices 3 times before they had all of the units sold, and I thought I had 15K of equity built into my unit and was very happy in my ignorance.

    Unbeknownst to me, the banks (including the one I borrowed with), were giving out loans to people with bad credit scores. Really bad credit scores. People known for defaulting on debt. They happen to have given many of these types of loans to people who purchased in this building. These bad investments accounted for 23 foreclosures in my building over the last 5 years.

    I went from having a condo worth more than what I paid by 15K, to one worth less than what I paid by 70K. Not once have I been late on a payment. If I decide to continue to pay my mortgage, and the value of the property rises an absurdly optimistic amount of 5% each year, the point where my decreasing principle will meet the rising value of the property is 6 years form now. It's a one bedroom I purchased as an investment.

    *snip - post has too many characters, must shorten*

    So the question is, why should I continue to lose money while they continue to profit off of what is essentially an equally stupid investment on their part?
    Still, a two way street.
    The bank, yes, I agree, should be more careful with who they lend to - more scrupulous. But the bank is not getting away with it. These other condos were foreclosed on. Meaning, they've lost on their investment as well. It might not seem that way to you, but they're taking a hit with every foreclosed home they're forced to take back. Each month they don't receive payment is another month that they have to cover their losses by other means.

    Now - at this point - I don't feel it would be right for them to spike your premium or shaft you with fines and fees. They should take the hit that they have taken. . . nor should they be allowed to sell those other condos for more than what yours is currently valued at.

    In the end - they are owning those unpaid for condos, you're still paying on yours (tragically, it's not worth as much) - and the only people who are happy and getting away with lying and thievery are all the people who had to bail.

    They are NOT paying on their agreed to sum. it is, in essence, their fault just as much as it is the bank's fault.

    You've been shafted - but not just by the bank, by the other people who bailed on their end of the deal.

    They were given the opportunity to continue profiting (just less profits) and they made the very, very stupid decision to reject that offer.

    This assures that they will cease to profit, and instead will lose on their stupid investment and subsequent decision to not make a smart alternative investment.
    Unfortunely no one has a crystal ball and no one can foresee the future. No one, absolutely no one, expected the housing market to bottom out like it did - and for homes to actually lose value.

    I have even been shafted on that. . . everyone has.
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 04-30-10 at 03:09 PM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  5. #65
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Makes it no less a gross and unfair generalization. All you did was post businesses in other countries etc. that have a different system to our own. In fact some of those country's like China, are Communist. No capitalism at all. That pretty much makes your point irrelevant.
    China is communist the way food from Applebees is healthy. Communism in China as a practice stopped the minute Mao died. They are more capitalist than the U.S. by most standards. You can go to China tomorrow and set up a private company with little government oversight. If anything the most you have to worry about in China is a few peasants being pissed off that you're polluting their rivers. Not t worry though. The government will take care of those who stand in the way of Chinese Capitalist Growth.

    Maybe in your liberal little world.

    There are many businesses based right here in this country that do give a fair wage etc. So again your point is a gross over exaggeration that AGAIN accomplishes little.
    Which businesses are these? And what do wages have to do with anything? Wal-Mart gives students fair wages and yet exploits the majority of the world who makes clothes for them. Microsoft gives fair wages and yet has destroyed competitors with frivolous lawsuits and basically monopolizing the market. When you define morality by how well a company pays the employees you can see, you're missing the larger picture.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 04-30-10 at 03:23 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #66
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Still, a two way street.
    The bank, yes, I agree, should be more careful with who they lend to - more scrupulous. But the bank is not getting away with it. These other condos were foreclosed on. Meaning, they've lost on their investment as well. It might not seem that way to you, but they're taking a hit with every foreclosed home they're forced to take back. Each month they don't receive payment is another month that they have to cover their losses by other means.
    Which is how it should be.

    Now - at this point - I don't feel it would be right for them to spike your premium or shaft you with fines and fees. They should take the hit that they have taken. . . nor should they be allowed to sell those other condos for more than what yours is currently valued at.
    They kept selling them for less than what they were valued at to move them quicker to mitigate their losses.

    In the end - they are owning those unpaid for condos, you're still paying on yours (tragically, it's not worth as much) - and the only people who are happy and getting away with lying and thievery are all the people who had to bail.

    They are NOT paying on their agreed to sum. it is, in essence, their fault just as much as it is the bank's fault.
    Your mistake is that the arrangment was not just to pay back the agreed upon sum. It was to pay back that sum OR let the bank take possession of the property.

    So in reality, every person who went into foreclosure was very much living up to their end of the agreement.

    You've been shafted - but not just by the bank, by the other people who bailed on their end of the deal.
    The people actually lived up to their end by not attempting to retain possession of the property and instead allowing it to become possessed by the bank. That's a major part of the home loan process. Fro a time, though, the banks were doing subprime loans to forestall foreclosures.

    The bank is the only one that shafted anyone.

    Unfortunely no one has a crystal ball and no one can foresee the future. No one, absolutely no one, expected the housing market to bottom out like it did - and for homes to actually lose value.

    I have even been shafted on that. . . everyone has.
    Th banks had all of the info necessary to predict that this would happen considering that a large proportion of the subprime loans were handed out for the express purpose of forestalling foreclosures. They knew that these things were just ticking time bombs.

    They chose to ignore the info they had in an attempt to get high short term profits selling their **** securities on the secondary market.

    Then, after they had fornicated with the proverbial canine, they get big daddy government to bail them out.

    They are the most responsible for this mess. They knew they were giving out **** loans to **** borrowers. If they didn't know this, then I'd be inclined to say that it's a two way street, but they did.



    The decision to give the loan come first. It comes before overspending and before default. In most cases, that primary decision is a bad one, and it is known to be a bad one before it is even made.

    Thus, the sole responsibility is the people who knowingly made bad decisions that led to subsequent bad decisions by others. They were the one's who had 100% control over the situation, and they still chose to go through with it.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 04-30-10 at 03:31 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The will to bear the consequences of making certain choices is the key to the whole thing.

    And I believe that business decisions involving corporations always need to be made with the head, not the heart. Morality has no place in these decisions.

    Now business decisions involving individuals are a different story, IMO. In those cases, morality comes into the equation because morality is reserved for interpersonal interactions.

    If I sign a contract to perform a service for an individual, I would do everything within my power to fulfill my obligations.
    Here, we depart from one another, to a large degree. I base my reasoning for my stance on the fact that both parties to a lending agreement understand the law that applies to such agreements (or should), and they agree to have said law apply and only that law. All the provisions for non-payment are laid out, and even if it is individuals on both sides of the agreement, they do agree to it.

    I dislike the corporate system as it seems you do too, but I actually don't agree that it is due to the failings of that system that these things apply here. Yet, I will readily admit that corporations are far more likely to have engaged in predatory lending. But, this has its own consequence for those firms: They will bear the brunt of the inability of people to pay because predatory loans are far more likely to be ones on which people should cease payment.

    Nevertheless, between individuals, a higher form of agreement can be entered into, on occasion, depending on the relationship between the individuals in question. In such circumstances, the relationship trumps the law (not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense). The parties to the agreement almost always understand the nature of their relationship and are aware of the fact that morality will have a bearing upon the arrangement. To state the obvious, it is on the conscience of the borrower to live up to their obligations, however, not a matter of law.

  8. #68
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-09-10 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    25

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    There have been a number of documentaries in the UK about people who run up massive amounts of debt on homes, holidays TVs and so on without having any intention of paying back what they've borrowed - those people drive me absolutely crazy and they should be forced to pay it back even if it takes them their whole lives to do it.

    However, I do have a lot of sympathy for people who get into trouble through absolutely no fault of their own. For example, if someone has been paying off their credit cards for years but say, their partner dies and they can no longer afford the monthly amount. Or if they get ill and can't work. I think the rules protecting those people should be strengthened.

    The other guys. The guys who either never had any intention of paying back the money or who just don't care - I just view them as legalised thieves

  9. #69
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Here, we depart from one another, to a large degree. I base my reasoning for my stance on the fact that both parties to a lending agreement understand the law that applies to such agreements (or should), and they agree to have said law apply and only that law. All the provisions for non-payment are laid out, and even if it is individuals on both sides of the agreement, they do agree to it.

    I dislike the corporate system as it seems you do too, but I actually don't agree that it is due to the failings of that system that these things apply here. Yet, I will readily admit that corporations are far more likely to have engaged in predatory lending. But, this has its own consequence for those firms: They will bear the brunt of the inability of people to pay because predatory loans are far more likely to be ones on which people should cease payment.

    Nevertheless, between individuals, a higher form of agreement can be entered into, on occasion, depending on the relationship between the individuals in question. In such circumstances, the relationship trumps the law (not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense). The parties to the agreement almost always understand the nature of their relationship and are aware of the fact that morality will have a bearing upon the arrangement. To state the obvious, it is on the conscience of the borrower to live up to their obligations, however, not a matter of law.
    We're not that far off, actually.

    The only real difference is that I'm including " In such circumstances, the relationship trumps the law (not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense)." into all business interactions with individuals because there is always a relationship involved. And the interpersonal relationship is what gets the moral distinction.

    Even when there is a legal contract involved, there is always some form of personal relationship present as well. If it is purely a business relationship, then the degree that morality enters into play is decreased.

    It is still present in these interactions, though, even if it is at the decreased rate. This is where business dealings with individuals diverge from business dealings with corporations. There is always some degree of moral input in interpersonal dealings that is never present in corporate dealings.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is settling your debt for a smaller amount immoral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    We're not that far off, actually.

    The only real difference is that I'm including " In such circumstances, the relationship trumps the law (not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense)." into all business interactions with individuals because there is always a relationship involved. And the interpersonal relationship is what gets the moral distinction.

    Even when there is a legal contract involved, there is always some form of personal relationship present as well. If it is purely a business relationship, then the degree that morality enters into play is decreased.

    It is still present in these interactions, though, even if it is at the decreased rate. This is where business dealings with individuals diverge from business dealings with corporations. There is always some degree of moral input in interpersonal dealings that is never present in corporate dealings.
    I think I would have to know the details of the particular circumstances in order to discern what moral obligation exists, if any. Actually, I think that is essentially what you're saying as well, but adding that it is usually the case that there is something between individuals.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •