4 ms·

This is ripe for a lawsuit. Not only should the statute of limitations apply to all of this debt, but confiscating independently earned money from your children

by teilo 7y ago

This is ripe for a lawsuit. Not only should the statute of limitations apply to all of this debt, but confiscating independently earned money from your children is a modern version of holding one's children responsible for the sins of their parents — a defacto caste system.

jimbob45 7y ago
To my knowledge, this is only happening en masse with student loans.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  In what way is it happening with student loans that the parents didn't co-sign on, i.e. debt that the parents explicitly took on?
prepend 7y ago
Suing the government is very hard [0]. There are many flaws in the US Tort system, but it at least incentivizes law firms to create class action suits to fix stuff like this article describes when private entities are the ones doing the behavior we want to change. When it’s the government, these types of class action suits are rare, I think. A better attempted solution would be to write to congresspeople. Cynically, I would try to find some globocorp that could benefit from having this function privatized. At least then there would be a regulator and two different orgs to argue. [0] https://www.wikihow.com/Sue-the-Federal-Government https://www.wikihow.com/Sue-the-Federal-Government
- beerandt 7y ago
  Class action suits against the US government (or states) are rare because even if the plaintiff class wins, the government still has to volunteer to pay (in most cases). Sometimes it even requires the legislature budgeting the funds for payment. Since class action lawyers generally rely on the proceeds of the lawsuit to collect expenses plus ~35% of the proceeds as their fee, it's highly risky for them to take such a case. Additionally, since the cases in the article are to essentially prevent a debt collection, even if the lawyers win, there isn't necessarily going to be a payout, just an injunction. One way to handle these situations is to eliminate administrative courts. Two, the government should have to sue to recover money from individuals as any other entity would have to do. That being said, the article admits that in at least one of the cases, the lady was making payments on what I assume was a legitimate debt, then abruptly stopped. She was surprised to find out she still owed the remainder some years later. That's on her. But it also makes me question the extent of the problem. If one of the 3 most sympathetic cases that they chose to write about isn't even an illegitimate debt.
hurrdurr2 7y ago
This reminds me of how cops can just confiscate your property if they suspect you of a crime via "civil forfeiture". Kafkaesque indeed.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Technically they have to accuse the property being seized as being involved in a crime. Not the person. But yes, still BS.
beerandt 7y ago
1) Statue of limitations doesn't apply to government debt (or actions). (With some rare exceptions.) >confiscating independently earned money from your children 2) The "child" is only involved because the welfare benefits were claimed using her as a dependent or claimant. That same child's Taco Bell wages put them over the limit to qualify for benefits, but those wages were also not included on the application. This probably falls on the mother for claiming a child that was no longer a dependent. Or purposefully excluding income in order to qualify. But it still is attached to the child. And for all we know, the child could be the one who lied about her income. Assuming it was the mom's fault, it was shitty of the mother to do, but the child is still liable. Just as if the mom opened a credit card in the kids name and ran up debt.

by teilo 7y ago

jimbob45 7y ago

To my knowledge, this is only happening en masse with student loans.

CydeWeys 7y ago
In what way is it happening with student loans that the parents didn't co-sign on, i.e. debt that the parents explicitly took on?

prepend 7y ago

Suing the government is very hard [0]. There are many flaws in the US Tort system, but it at least incentivizes law firms to create class action suits to fix stuff like this article describes when private entities are the ones doing the behavior we want to change. When it’s the government, these types of class action suits are rare, I think. A better attempted solution would be to write to congresspeople. Cynically, I would try to find some globocorp that could benefit from having this function privatized. At least then there would be a regulator and two different orgs to argue. [0] https://www.wikihow.com/Sue-the-Federal-Government https://www.wikihow.com/Sue-the-Federal-Government

beerandt 7y ago
Class action suits against the US government (or states) are rare because even if the plaintiff class wins, the government still has to volunteer to pay (in most cases). Sometimes it even requires the legislature budgeting the funds for payment. Since class action lawyers generally rely on the proceeds of the lawsuit to collect expenses plus ~35% of the proceeds as their fee, it's highly risky for them to take such a case. Additionally, since the cases in the article are to essentially prevent a debt collection, even if the lawyers win, there isn't necessarily going to be a payout, just an injunction. One way to handle these situations is to eliminate administrative courts. Two, the government should have to sue to recover money from individuals as any other entity would have to do. That being said, the article admits that in at least one of the cases, the lady was making payments on what I assume was a legitimate debt, then abruptly stopped. She was surprised to find out she still owed the remainder some years later. That's on her. But it also makes me question the extent of the problem. If one of the 3 most sympathetic cases that they chose to write about isn't even an illegitimate debt.

hurrdurr2 7y ago

This reminds me of how cops can just confiscate your property if they suspect you of a crime via "civil forfeiture". Kafkaesque indeed.

beerandt 7y ago
Technically they have to accuse the property being seized as being involved in a crime. Not the person. But yes, still BS.

beerandt 7y ago

1) Statue of limitations doesn't apply to government debt (or actions). (With some rare exceptions.) >confiscating independently earned money from your children 2) The "child" is only involved because the welfare benefits were claimed using her as a dependent or claimant. That same child's Taco Bell wages put them over the limit to qualify for benefits, but those wages were also not included on the application. This probably falls on the mother for claiming a child that was no longer a dependent. Or purposefully excluding income in order to qualify. But it still is attached to the child. And for all we know, the child could be the one who lied about her income. Assuming it was the mom's fault, it was shitty of the mother to do, but the child is still liable. Just as if the mom opened a credit card in the kids name and ran up debt.