6 ms·

"those attorneys and debt collectors are getting judgements in federal court and asking judges to use the US Marshals Service to arrest those who have failed to

"those attorneys and debt collectors are getting judgements in federal court and asking judges to use the US Marshals Service to arrest those who have failed to pay their federal student loans" The US Marshals enforce (federal) court orders. He was subject to a court order mandating the payment of a debt. It's not like he fell into arrears and they "just showed up". If it was a mortgage debt, or an eviction proceeding, typically it'd be the local sheriff. No story.

cconroy 11y ago
But it is not illegal to not pay back private or federal debt, right? The federal gov has ways to get payment via tax refunds and social security benefits.
- mywittyname 11y ago
  That's what makes this so crazy. They spent thousands in salaries of these federal marshals, plus court costs and time, just to get this guy to sign another promise to pay a couple thousand bucks. They could have forgiven the debt and come out ahead. Or they could have garnished his wages, or seized his assets and got their money while spending very little.
  - idorosen 11y ago
    The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). This only makes sense if pursuing a debtor who is willfully ignoring the debt but otherwise able to pay it. I think use of the police force to enforce private loan contracts is short-sighted based on the ham-fisted overuse of incarceration as punishment in our legal system. Interest rates are already built into the loan instrument to compensate lenders for the risk of nonpayment, while this practice is just kicking someone when they're down...
    - Goronmon 11y ago
      The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). Isn't this pretty much the argument for law enforcement in general? I doubt it's ever "cost effective" to have police respond to say, noise complaints or minor acts of theft, but the goal is to show people that are consequences for breaking the laws or going against court orders.
      - idorosen 11y ago
        Yes, but with loans and debt there is already a more apt mechanism for handling exactly the nonpayment case: interest rates. Student loan interest rates would go up with more nonpayment, making them less affordable, making school tuitions grow more slowly, and other knock-on effects based on straightforward supply/demand. (Remember, price just means "willingness to pay", and schools are optimizing tuition pricing and other costs of attendance for which these student loans are taken out based on their own Laffer curve.) Whereas kicking someone when they are down (i.e. already can't pay) is cruel and unusual, I agree that making an example of willful nonpayment makes sense, but that shouldn't be done at the expense of taxpayers(/no need for police involvement). That's why wage garnishment and other tools already exist for lenders to use with a simple court order. If the government foots the bill of enforcement, rather than the lenders footing the bill of wage garnishment intervention and court costs, then it will get represented in taxes rather than loan interest rates, which privatizes the gains (loan payments) and publicizes the losses (enforcement costs). The other side effect is that it subverts supply/demand based pricing of education based on student loan interest rates, which props up higher education price inflation.
amalag 11y ago
Isn't the difference that bankruptcy will not erase student debt. Debt collectors otherwise have to take that into account when collecting, but not for student debt.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  Bankruptcy can reduce or restructure the actual debt, but that doesn't affect court orders of limited payment towards a debt - they're separate issues (bankruptcy I suppose voids previous orders of payment, but discharagability doesn't affect the court's order of payment). It's extremely common for someone to owe a very large, possibly non-dischargable debt (as a result of a criminal fine, lawsuit, alimony, child support, etc), and the court order is something to the effect of "pay $100 / mo", even if this would never actually pay off the debt.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It is also possible for the ordered payment to be too high to be able to be paid, such as in the case when someone lost a well paying job during a recession but the other party's lawyer argues that they are taking a reduced wage job so they don't have to pay in full. While such cases may be rare, they still signify a problem in our legal system.
    - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
      The most prominent case that I can think of is Dave Foley's run in with Canadian family court law[1]. [1] http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/comedian_dave_foley_fears_arrest_owes_500000_in_childsupport.html http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/c...
gist 11y ago
> No story. And in particular $1500 owed since 1987, almost 30 years ago. Now of course we don't know when the last payment was but it makes sense that they would pull an enforcement list based on age of debt and also perhaps smaller amounts where it was clear that the debtor was making no attempt to pay off the debt.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  You also have to keep in mind even student debt comes off your credit report after seven years. Why would you pay anything on it after that? You have no incentive to since its not hurting your credit. However, if some Feds showed up on my front porch after 30 years, I'd probably make sure I pay it off promptly. Going to jail or paying off my student loan? No contest there what I would do.
- sjg007 11y ago
  Why didn't they take it from his tax returns?
  - adventured 11y ago
    He might not have had much or anything in the way of tax returns. For example if he was working under the table a lot, in construction or dozens of other trades.
efes 11y ago
> The US Marshals enforce (federal) court orders. He was subject to a court order mandating the payment of a debt. That is itself absurd. As a private person you can really only ask courts to put liens on property (or garnishes on income) to get your money. You essentially must identify specific property you own due to their lack of payment as not paying you isn't a crime. > It's not like he fell into arrears and they "just showed up". If it was a mortgage debt, or an eviction proceeding, typically it'd be the local sheriff. No, they interfere to allow property to be taken by its rightful owner as decided by a court. If you don't struggle to stay in a house you are not arrested when evicted.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  If you fail to comply with a court order, can't you be held in contempt?

cconroy 11y ago

But it is not illegal to not pay back private or federal debt, right? The federal gov has ways to get payment via tax refunds and social security benefits.

mywittyname 11y ago
That's what makes this so crazy. They spent thousands in salaries of these federal marshals, plus court costs and time, just to get this guy to sign another promise to pay a couple thousand bucks. They could have forgiven the debt and come out ahead. Or they could have garnished his wages, or seized his assets and got their money while spending very little.
- idorosen 11y ago
  The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). This only makes sense if pursuing a debtor who is willfully ignoring the debt but otherwise able to pay it. I think use of the police force to enforce private loan contracts is short-sighted based on the ham-fisted overuse of incarceration as punishment in our legal system. Interest rates are already built into the loan instrument to compensate lenders for the risk of nonpayment, while this practice is just kicking someone when they're down...
  - Goronmon 11y ago
    The only rational argument for why it might be remotely worthwhile to spend more money than the debt on pursuing a debtor would be to make an example to prevent others who owe similar amounts from defaulting (or not paying back when defaulting is illegal). Isn't this pretty much the argument for law enforcement in general? I doubt it's ever "cost effective" to have police respond to say, noise complaints or minor acts of theft, but the goal is to show people that are consequences for breaking the laws or going against court orders.
    - idorosen 11y ago
      Yes, but with loans and debt there is already a more apt mechanism for handling exactly the nonpayment case: interest rates. Student loan interest rates would go up with more nonpayment, making them less affordable, making school tuitions grow more slowly, and other knock-on effects based on straightforward supply/demand. (Remember, price just means "willingness to pay", and schools are optimizing tuition pricing and other costs of attendance for which these student loans are taken out based on their own Laffer curve.) Whereas kicking someone when they are down (i.e. already can't pay) is cruel and unusual, I agree that making an example of willful nonpayment makes sense, but that shouldn't be done at the expense of taxpayers(/no need for police involvement). That's why wage garnishment and other tools already exist for lenders to use with a simple court order. If the government foots the bill of enforcement, rather than the lenders footing the bill of wage garnishment intervention and court costs, then it will get represented in taxes rather than loan interest rates, which privatizes the gains (loan payments) and publicizes the losses (enforcement costs). The other side effect is that it subverts supply/demand based pricing of education based on student loan interest rates, which props up higher education price inflation.

amalag 11y ago

Isn't the difference that bankruptcy will not erase student debt. Debt collectors otherwise have to take that into account when collecting, but not for student debt.

fiatmoney 11y ago
Bankruptcy can reduce or restructure the actual debt, but that doesn't affect court orders of limited payment towards a debt - they're separate issues (bankruptcy I suppose voids previous orders of payment, but discharagability doesn't affect the court's order of payment). It's extremely common for someone to owe a very large, possibly non-dischargable debt (as a result of a criminal fine, lawsuit, alimony, child support, etc), and the court order is something to the effect of "pay $100 / mo", even if this would never actually pay off the debt.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  It is also possible for the ordered payment to be too high to be able to be paid, such as in the case when someone lost a well paying job during a recession but the other party's lawyer argues that they are taking a reduced wage job so they don't have to pay in full. While such cases may be rare, they still signify a problem in our legal system.
  - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
    The most prominent case that I can think of is Dave Foley's run in with Canadian family court law[1]. [1] http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/comedian_dave_foley_fears_arrest_owes_500000_in_childsupport.html http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/c...

gist 11y ago

> No story. And in particular $1500 owed since 1987, almost 30 years ago. Now of course we don't know when the last payment was but it makes sense that they would pull an enforcement list based on age of debt and also perhaps smaller amounts where it was clear that the debtor was making no attempt to pay off the debt.

at-fates-hands 11y ago
You also have to keep in mind even student debt comes off your credit report after seven years. Why would you pay anything on it after that? You have no incentive to since its not hurting your credit. However, if some Feds showed up on my front porch after 30 years, I'd probably make sure I pay it off promptly. Going to jail or paying off my student loan? No contest there what I would do.
sjg007 11y ago
Why didn't they take it from his tax returns?
- adventured 11y ago
  He might not have had much or anything in the way of tax returns. For example if he was working under the table a lot, in construction or dozens of other trades.

efes 11y ago

> The US Marshals enforce (federal) court orders. He was subject to a court order mandating the payment of a debt. That is itself absurd. As a private person you can really only ask courts to put liens on property (or garnishes on income) to get your money. You essentially must identify specific property you own due to their lack of payment as not paying you isn't a crime. > It's not like he fell into arrears and they "just showed up". If it was a mortgage debt, or an eviction proceeding, typically it'd be the local sheriff. No, they interfere to allow property to be taken by its rightful owner as decided by a court. If you don't struggle to stay in a house you are not arrested when evicted.

jschwartzi 11y ago
If you fail to comply with a court order, can't you be held in contempt?