• 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
Josie

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,606
Reaction score
32,117
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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?
 
The IMF lets the developing world do it a lot lol. :2wave:
 
It depends. If the person is paying the actual debt and not ridicules interest rates, I don't see it as being out of line.
 
.... since when did capitalists care about morality?
 
There are many ways to look at it. I mean, the ideal is that everyone pays back what they owe. But if you're really swamped and can't make it out of the debt, the lenders tend to be willing to work with you to either come up with a payment plan or do knock some money off of what you owe. For them, something will be better than nothing. But if you are well able to pay it, then you should pay it back. If you try to haggle around because you don't want to pay back your loans (but have the means to do so), I would say that's probably immoral, equivalent almost to theft at that point.
 
"Settling" your debts is fine because both parties agreed to change the terms of the agreement. Just not paying is not fine.
 
It depends on many things. Credit companies bear a responsibility for their relentless marketing too.

I do find those type of ads offensive to my moral sensibilities, but the credit companies are predatory in my opinion, and lure people into irresponsible spending, so are partially to blame.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
It depends on many things. Credit companies bear a responsibility for their relentless marketing too.

I do find those type of ads offensive to my moral sensibilities, but the credit companies are predatory in my opinion, and lure people into irresponsible spending, so are partially to blame.
Click to expand...

This is joke post, right? The only thing responsible for your money is you.
 
Was the debtor pissing off money on luxury items like expensive dinners or were they trying to just put food on the table?
 
stekim said:
This is joke post, right? The only thing responsible for your money is you.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm not joking, it was hardly a funny post. I feel that companies bear responsibility for aggressive marketing. Credit cards have been irresponsibly marketed, and should be held accountable for that.

Spending addiction does similar things to the brain as drugs, on a biological level. People get a 'high' from it, and feel compelled to repeat that experience when the high wears off. Credit card companies are like pushers, in my opinion.
 
Nope. The debt a person has is an investment made by a company.

Investment carries risk. They knew that when they got into it, which is why they charge interest.

If they make a bad investment, they deserve to lose on that investment just like I would if I made a bad investment.
 
Tucker Case said:
Nope. The debt a person has is an investment made by a company.

Investment carries risk. They knew that when they got into it, which is why they charge interest.

If they make a bad investment, they deserve to lose on that investment just like I would if I made a bad investment.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point, Tucker.
 
Is it immoral? I think so, yes. It isn't illegal though, so if people don't care if they maintain their moral stance, they're perfectly able, within the constraints of the law, to try to get away with paying less than the full amount owed.

Morality and legality rarely have anything to do with each other.
 
I don't know if it's immoral or not. It has a lot to do with the situation. If a person is paying for ridiculous interest, then no, it's not immoral to negotiate a different interest rate or reduction.
 
I see nothing immoral at all about bartering (which is essentially what that is). If I barter with someone and they accept my offer, how in the world is that immoral?

What's immoral is gathering a debt from someone and then just giving them a big '**** you' when it comes due.
 
stekim said:
"Settling" your debts is fine because both parties agreed to change the terms of the agreement. Just not paying is not fine.
Click to expand...

jallman said:
I don't know if it's immoral or not. It has a lot to do with the situation. If a person is paying for ridiculous interest, then no, it's not immoral to negotiate a different interest rate or reduction.
Click to expand...
Credit card companies know a certain percentage of people risk default in advance, they use risk models similar to other financial institutions so naturally they are willing to lose the interest to regain the principle. There's nothing immoral about the situation, and has been said, both parties enter into a reduced payment agreement so I don't see what the problem is either.
 
rivrrat said:
What's immoral is gathering a debt from someone and then just giving them a big '**** you' when it comes due.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Not at all. If you can negotiate and they accept, its a voluntary contract.


Now personally I would not do it, but if you can, more power to ya.
 
Mellie said:
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?
Click to expand...

A lot of times these consolidation companies tell you to stop paying your bill in hopes of the creditor wanting to negotiate a settlement.
They get paid to do this.

It's sort of a scam on the credit card companies because people who do it can still afford to pay, they just might not want to.
 
I feel that it is immoral to not settle simply because I would be breaking my promise and I consider it to be a matter of integrity to fulfill my promises.

However, if I am unable to pay it, than I will try to do the best that I can.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Of course I'm not joking, it was hardly a funny post. I feel that companies bear responsibility for aggressive marketing. Credit cards have been irresponsibly marketed, and should be held accountable for that.
Click to expand...

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.

Spending addiction does similar things to the brain as drugs, on a biological level. People get a 'high' from it, and feel compelled to repeat that experience when the high wears off.
Click to expand...

Your "addictions" (and yes I use that term VERY loosely here) are also not Citibank's fault.
 
megaprogman said:
I feel that it is immoral to not settle simply because I would be breaking my promise and I consider it to be a matter of integrity to fulfill my promises.

However, if I am unable to pay it, than I will try to do the best that I can.
Click to expand...




Banks change terms on people all the time. It's a renegotiaion. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom