4 ms·

Just saw your edit- and the reality is that when people don't have money, or intend to jack someone, chasing after them usually doesn't work. that said, I do f

Just saw your edit- and the reality is that when people don't have money, or intend to jack someone, chasing after them usually doesn't work. that said, I do feel for people who get stiffed. But for my company, it is not really addressing loans or debts between people on a small scale but a trillion dollar defaulted debt market where large funds buy debt and then hire agencies to collect. For the funds, its not about what was owed, it is about return on investment.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
Companies buy and sell debt a lot. Defaulted debt is still debt. It is a riskier buy and probably comes at a discount. But it is still one company paying another company and assuming the debt collection process. In the case of my mortgages that have been sold numerous times, there is little (or no) risk to the buyer since the payment history is sound and the account is in good standing. They don't need to harass me. They just send me a nice letter telling me where to direct my payment going forward. For defaulted debt, of course there is a risk. They are dealing with people that have already shown they are not [able|willing] to pay. But I don't see any difference between the company that bought my mortgage and the company that bought my neighbor's defaulted mortgage[1]. Although the one might have to get a little more aggressive to get my neighbor to pay up. None of this changes the reality that my neighbor owes money to someone who wants very badly to collect it. [1] I'll admit that mortgages probably are not handled in the same way as other debt but that was the only high $$ debt I could think of... and it sounds like we're not talking about skipping out on a $100 cable bill here. Perhaps we're talking more about charging $20k on a Visa and then not paying. Feel free to substitute any other example where one person pays their debt and the other does not.
- jfrisby 13y ago
  "more aggressive"? So you feel bullying and abusive tactics are justifiable means of collecting a debt. That's pretty fucked up.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Not paying your debt is pretty fucked up too.
    - jfrisby 13y ago
      Stop and think about this for a second: If someone intends to not pay, abusive language isn't going to change their minds. If someone cannot pay, then abusive language has no value either because, well, they cannot pay. The only case where abusive language is beneficial is if someone is actively trying to pay down their bills, but they have more bills than they can pay all at once and a debt collector wants to get their bill paid before every other debt collector's bill. And gee, that's exactly what happens when someone loses their job / suffers a major medical crisis / etc. tl;dr: Abusive behavior is useless if someone is NOT going to pay their bills, and only does anything if someone is TRYING to pay their bills: It's a means for collectors to try and jump the line to get their own debt paid first. And frankly, anyone who thinks that two wrongs make a right is a terrible person.
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        I never said two wrongs make a right. Both are wrong and that just makes two wrong... nothing right. Both are equally fucked up. So why do we villainize only one?
        jfrisby 13y ago
        Because the group not being demonized are mostly comprised of people who are trying their best but in circumstances that make it impossible to live up to their obligations and the group being demonized are mostly comprised of people who are breaking the law.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

Companies buy and sell debt a lot. Defaulted debt is still debt. It is a riskier buy and probably comes at a discount. But it is still one company paying another company and assuming the debt collection process. In the case of my mortgages that have been sold numerous times, there is little (or no) risk to the buyer since the payment history is sound and the account is in good standing. They don't need to harass me. They just send me a nice letter telling me where to direct my payment going forward. For defaulted debt, of course there is a risk. They are dealing with people that have already shown they are not [able|willing] to pay. But I don't see any difference between the company that bought my mortgage and the company that bought my neighbor's defaulted mortgage[1]. Although the one might have to get a little more aggressive to get my neighbor to pay up. None of this changes the reality that my neighbor owes money to someone who wants very badly to collect it. [1] I'll admit that mortgages probably are not handled in the same way as other debt but that was the only high $$ debt I could think of... and it sounds like we're not talking about skipping out on a $100 cable bill here. Perhaps we're talking more about charging $20k on a Visa and then not paying. Feel free to substitute any other example where one person pays their debt and the other does not.

jfrisby 13y ago
"more aggressive"? So you feel bullying and abusive tactics are justifiable means of collecting a debt. That's pretty fucked up.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Not paying your debt is pretty fucked up too.
  - jfrisby 13y ago
    Stop and think about this for a second: If someone intends to not pay, abusive language isn't going to change their minds. If someone cannot pay, then abusive language has no value either because, well, they cannot pay. The only case where abusive language is beneficial is if someone is actively trying to pay down their bills, but they have more bills than they can pay all at once and a debt collector wants to get their bill paid before every other debt collector's bill. And gee, that's exactly what happens when someone loses their job / suffers a major medical crisis / etc. tl;dr: Abusive behavior is useless if someone is NOT going to pay their bills, and only does anything if someone is TRYING to pay their bills: It's a means for collectors to try and jump the line to get their own debt paid first. And frankly, anyone who thinks that two wrongs make a right is a terrible person.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      I never said two wrongs make a right. Both are wrong and that just makes two wrong... nothing right. Both are equally fucked up. So why do we villainize only one?
      - jfrisby 13y ago
        Because the group not being demonized are mostly comprised of people who are trying their best but in circumstances that make it impossible to live up to their obligations and the group being demonized are mostly comprised of people who are breaking the law.