3 ms·

If you default on a debt, even if the original debt holder writes it down, a lawyer can buy it, and file a lawsuit against you. You are served with papers requi

by svnt 4y ago

If you default on a debt, even if the original debt holder writes it down, a lawyer can buy it, and file a lawsuit against you. You are served with papers requiring you to “appear” and usually pay hundreds of dollars in fees, not to mention the additional work and discomfort of a court appearance about something you usually really have no legal argument against. If you cannot afford to pay, or cannot or do not appear, the judge will grant whatever is requested, which is usually that the full amount of the debt be resurrected, with a punitive go-forward interest rate, and a lien instated, typically upgrading the debt from unsecured to essentially secured and also enables wage garnishment. You can head this off by filing bankruptcy, but that also costs hundreds to thousands of dollars and requires significant time, organization, and frankly risk as the limits for things like keeping a reliable car are absurdly out of date. Why do we allow lazy lawyers and others to leverage judges in order to stand on people’s necks?

thephyber 4y ago
> Why do we allow lazy lawyers to leverage judges in order to stand on people’s necks? Diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. Also, Calvinism. It’s a very destructive belief within some strains of Protestantism that treats people as if they are irredeemably lost if they are unsuccessful, sick, mentally ill, criminal, etc. It is highly corrosive towards any functioning society. This belief makes people feel as if fees / punishments / dark patterns on “those people” are morally justified.
johngladtj 4y ago
How is the court standing on people's necks? If someone takes something from me, and doesn't return it, should I not have the right to take it back? As far as I am aware no one is forcing people to take on loans at gunpoint (other under threat of some criminal act being committed against them), not would any court enforce a debt incurred in such a way, so what exactly is the problem here? Don't take on debt you can't afford to pay back and you won't have a problem. Don't default on your debts and you will never have a problem.
- flangola7 4y ago
  Willful and unimaginative ignorance is boring.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Gunpoint or not, a lot of people take loans out of survival instinct. I'm not saying loans good or loans bad, nor am I saying financial literacy good or bad, but I am saying that clearly a lot of loans and credit cards are given to people who in all likelihood cannot easily pay them back and this is either a failure of the issuer at best or predatory at worst.
  - johngladtj 4y ago
    So you agree that these people of their own free will chose to take on that debt. The credit companies did take into account the likelihood that they wouldn't be able to repay (both willingly and unwillingly), that's the reason for the interest rate they charge. Is your stance that people should be able to make deals and then renege on them after they received the benefits with no recourse for the other side? Can you give me a single consistent standard for your view? Because from what I can tell your entire argument seems to boil down to "I like the debtors and hate the creditors, so I'll support whatever takes from the creditors and gives to the debtors, regardless of the harm those policies cause".
    - ParetoOptimal 4y ago
      > The credit companies did take into account the likelihood that they wouldn't be able to repay (both willingly and unwillingly), that's the reason for the interest rate they charge. The problem is they aim to not get paid back in full so they receive payments far in excess of the original loan amount in perpetuity. They aim to trap the people in a bad spot taking their loans.
      - johngladtj 4y ago
        I can assure you that no credit provider wants it's clients to default. You're confusing accepting the risks and cost of some defaults with desiring the defaults. The first is a reasonable decision based on risk-benefit analysis. The second will get your company into bankruptcy. Seriously rethink this preconception you have, because it's not in line with reality, and directly goes against the very interests (profit) you seem to think motivates them. The ideal borrower for these companies is one that always pays their debt on time, and comes back next month for more.

by svnt 4y ago

thephyber 4y ago

> Why do we allow lazy lawyers to leverage judges in order to stand on people’s necks? Diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. Also, Calvinism. It’s a very destructive belief within some strains of Protestantism that treats people as if they are irredeemably lost if they are unsuccessful, sick, mentally ill, criminal, etc. It is highly corrosive towards any functioning society. This belief makes people feel as if fees / punishments / dark patterns on “those people” are morally justified.

johngladtj 4y ago

How is the court standing on people's necks? If someone takes something from me, and doesn't return it, should I not have the right to take it back? As far as I am aware no one is forcing people to take on loans at gunpoint (other under threat of some criminal act being committed against them), not would any court enforce a debt incurred in such a way, so what exactly is the problem here? Don't take on debt you can't afford to pay back and you won't have a problem. Don't default on your debts and you will never have a problem.

flangola7 4y ago
Willful and unimaginative ignorance is boring.
hammyhavoc 4y ago
Gunpoint or not, a lot of people take loans out of survival instinct. I'm not saying loans good or loans bad, nor am I saying financial literacy good or bad, but I am saying that clearly a lot of loans and credit cards are given to people who in all likelihood cannot easily pay them back and this is either a failure of the issuer at best or predatory at worst.
- johngladtj 4y ago
  So you agree that these people of their own free will chose to take on that debt. The credit companies did take into account the likelihood that they wouldn't be able to repay (both willingly and unwillingly), that's the reason for the interest rate they charge. Is your stance that people should be able to make deals and then renege on them after they received the benefits with no recourse for the other side? Can you give me a single consistent standard for your view? Because from what I can tell your entire argument seems to boil down to "I like the debtors and hate the creditors, so I'll support whatever takes from the creditors and gives to the debtors, regardless of the harm those policies cause".
  - ParetoOptimal 4y ago
    > The credit companies did take into account the likelihood that they wouldn't be able to repay (both willingly and unwillingly), that's the reason for the interest rate they charge. The problem is they aim to not get paid back in full so they receive payments far in excess of the original loan amount in perpetuity. They aim to trap the people in a bad spot taking their loans.
    - johngladtj 4y ago
      I can assure you that no credit provider wants it's clients to default. You're confusing accepting the risks and cost of some defaults with desiring the defaults. The first is a reasonable decision based on risk-benefit analysis. The second will get your company into bankruptcy. Seriously rethink this preconception you have, because it's not in line with reality, and directly goes against the very interests (profit) you seem to think motivates them. The ideal borrower for these companies is one that always pays their debt on time, and comes back next month for more.