3 ms·

I always thought that the reason it wasn't dischargeable was because the product couldn't be taken back in bankruptcy either. Like, why wouldn't you just go to

by pkulak 7y ago

I always thought that the reason it wasn't dischargeable was because the product couldn't be taken back in bankruptcy either. Like, why wouldn't you just go to medical school for 12 years, then declare bankruptcy? I'm probably missing something about how bankruptcy works, but it seems like you'd be set for life in that situation.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
At least according to the judge, the petitioner had to pass a few tests. 1. Good faith efforts to repay the loan. 2. Present lack of funds to pay. 3. Unlikely to be able to pay going forward. A newly minted medical school graduate would not pass any of these tests execpt perhaps #2.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  In this case, the petitioner went to law school and simply decided being a lawyer wasn't for him. A medical school graduate could declare that they want to pursue a career in music, thus making them qualify for both #2 and #3. #1 perhaps not, but "good faith" is pretty squishy.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    So is "undue hardship", but it's not so squishy that it hasn't stymied many attempts to discharge student loans in the past.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nosianu 7y ago
So anything that is either used up or that loses value - which is pretty much everything there is apart from very few things that keep their value or increase - would fall under the same argument. That would apply to most loans, and even houses don't have a natural law that their values always remain or increase. Seems like a lazy and made-up excuse to me rather than an actual reason. I don't mind people making lazy arguments - I mind those that accept them unquestionably and even more lazily (because finding fault in other people's words is far easier) much more, meaning not anyone here specifically, but the fact that that argument could spread so far in the first place.
- pkulak 7y ago
  > So anything that is either used up or that loses value No, exactly the opposite. This is the one case where the item gained in creating the debt both cannot be recovered (or even destroyed) and still continues to have all of its original value to the owner.
vkou 7y ago
If I borrowed money from you, bought a bunch of whskey, and drank it all, you can't take that back, either. That doesn't mean that credit card debt should be undischargeble through bankruptcy.
- AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
  You don't have the use of the whiskey going forward. If you get an education, you still have it no matter what. Unless I hit you in the head hard enough, I guess.
- pkulak 7y ago
  Sure, but as long as you are no longer drunk, that whiskey is no longer of any value to you either.

by pkulak 7y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

At least according to the judge, the petitioner had to pass a few tests. 1. Good faith efforts to repay the loan. 2. Present lack of funds to pay. 3. Unlikely to be able to pay going forward. A newly minted medical school graduate would not pass any of these tests execpt perhaps #2.

jeffdavis 7y ago
In this case, the petitioner went to law school and simply decided being a lawyer wasn't for him. A medical school graduate could declare that they want to pursue a career in music, thus making them qualify for both #2 and #3. #1 perhaps not, but "good faith" is pretty squishy.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  So is "undue hardship", but it's not so squishy that it hasn't stymied many attempts to discharge student loans in the past.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nosianu 7y ago

So anything that is either used up or that loses value - which is pretty much everything there is apart from very few things that keep their value or increase - would fall under the same argument. That would apply to most loans, and even houses don't have a natural law that their values always remain or increase. Seems like a lazy and made-up excuse to me rather than an actual reason. I don't mind people making lazy arguments - I mind those that accept them unquestionably and even more lazily (because finding fault in other people's words is far easier) much more, meaning not anyone here specifically, but the fact that that argument could spread so far in the first place.

pkulak 7y ago
> So anything that is either used up or that loses value No, exactly the opposite. This is the one case where the item gained in creating the debt both cannot be recovered (or even destroyed) and still continues to have all of its original value to the owner.

vkou 7y ago

If I borrowed money from you, bought a bunch of whskey, and drank it all, you can't take that back, either. That doesn't mean that credit card debt should be undischargeble through bankruptcy.

AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
You don't have the use of the whiskey going forward. If you get an education, you still have it no matter what. Unless I hit you in the head hard enough, I guess.
pkulak 7y ago
Sure, but as long as you are no longer drunk, that whiskey is no longer of any value to you either.