231–240 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you lose badly enough at credit that you end up declaring bankruptcy, maybe homeownership or car loans aren't for you. Just a thought.
Ironic you are saying this on an entrepreneurial forum Phil. As I mentioned elsewhere, Donald Trump has filed been through bankruptcy more than once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if theyre making payments on the debt, the debt collector won't sell it because theyre actually getting their money. The only debts OWS is going to be able to buy are the ones not making payments and the ones that havent made payments in a very long time. So, as cool as not having to pay 50/100 a month sounds, that wont happen to anybody because the ones paying are not the kind of people that would be getting rel…
This seems like the key insight about this issue. The debts OWS buys on the cheap are debts that were never going to be paid off in the first place. The net practical effect of this action is to transfer money from well-meaning people into the hands of debt collection agencies. Seems like the only people being bailed out are debt speculators. Doesn't sound like a worthy cause to me.
For the benefit of folks who might not understand how debt collection works, which may include OWS: if you buy $10,000 of an individual's debt for $500 and then forgive the debt, they have just incurred income of $10,000 and are obligated to pay taxes on it exactly as if you had handed them $10,000 in cash for services rendered. If you don't inform the IRS that you forgave the debt, via a 1099-C, you're going to get…
Why not ask the people to make nominal payments, and use those payments to purchase additional discounted debt? This would both solve the IRS problem and potentially make this a self-sustaining venture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can read their whole explanation, it's an interesting read: http://strikedebt.org/debt/ Short answer: various methods of systematic trickery and financial booby-trapping perpetrated by, you guessed it, the 1%.
In shock revelation, OWS blames all ills of world on "the 1%". Film at, you guessed it, 11. One of the reasons OWS isn't more popular is that 99% of the 99% understands that the vast majority of personal debt was and is incurred by regular people living beyond their means, and not by nefarious schemes by nefarious monocle-wearing capitalists. Unsympathetic as it might be, they merely provided the rope.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/amer...
62% of all bankruptcies in the US have a direct medical cause, a sharp rise from only 8% in 1980.
"Vast majority" of debt incurred by lavish living indeed!
It must be a surreal world for you, one where it's okay to heap blame upon tens of millions of Americans without seeing one single shred of evidence against them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be. But there are some unlucky people in there as well - single parents who bought a house at the peak of the housing bubble because they were afraid that home prices would keep rising and leave them without a place to live. And then promptly lost their job in the recession.
What about renting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about renting?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4763091
I wonder how my move to Singapore will play out.
But should I ever come to the US, I'll make sure I have plenty of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then set up a charity where people with medical bills can submit them and ask for some assistance. That way they stay out of debt/bankruptcy, have a cleaner credit report, and can focus on their health issues not financial issues.
So... universal health care then :P An organization that receives all your medical bills, keeps you out of debt/bankruptcy, and charges you an amount that it determines would not cause undue hardship? Like insurance, except everyone qualifies! Slight side note: this whole discussion is somewhat depressing, but I've come to expect this from HN lately. This whole thread is divided into two rough parts: people addressin…
This isn't LN, it's HN. Where both the methods and the motives can be discussed. My opinion is that OWS is aiming more for a political statement with this program as opposed to helping people. They may believe that this political statement will do more to help people than just acting as a charity; I'm not ascribing cynical motives in any way.
I'm also not advocating that a charity charge in any way. For example, when I had cancer, my church, without any prompting gave me a cash payment to help with my bills. I had been fired two days before Christmas, and unable to work during my surgical recovery and post-op chemo. It was immensely welcome, though as many are, I was intensely embarrassed to need the $$.
For a hobby, I kept all my bills and tallied up the cost I'd be responsible had I not been covered by my wife's group policy. I stopped after it hit the $600K mark. So I know first hand how staggering my debt would have been.
But I could have discharged all that medical debt in bankruptcy. But that wouldn't have put fed my daughters, nor helped keep a roof over my head. That check from my church did. I know the fine line between being privileged and being out of work and afraid of dying. The old straw about the difference between middle class and poor being one paycheck is really one malignant cell.
So be careful when you start calling people privileged or sexist, or racist. And when you start to decide whether a question is "legitimate" or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'm not entirely disagreeing with your point, there is an element of dubious optionality wrt student debt when one systemically cannot find gainful employment without a college degree. College degrees are increasingly becoming the new high school diplomas—wherein they are, for all intents and purposes, of equal compulsory nature, without the defense of laws requiring all 18-21-year-olds to be there. Thus, for v…
The problem isn't that people are pursuing degrees, it's that some are pursuing economically unviable degrees. Here's a little anectdata from a friend. His daughter is in debt $60k for a degree in theater. Did well in college, but wants to "make it" in NYC. Now obviously the theater industry is very competitive, especially in NYC. So while trying to do various theatrical activities to get her foot in the door, she's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what DUIs have to do with this. I'm thinking about the guy who lost his job, and the closest position he could find was 50 miles away from his home, which he can't move out of without losing a lot of money. He's exhausted from the long commute each day and the stress of being up to his neck in debt, which is what he's distracted by when he doesn't see the pedestrian step out from behind a parked car. It's go…
As a society, we expect people to follow norms of behavior; we usually call them laws. Driving without insurance is breaking the law. Driving impaired in the case of alcohol is against the law. Driving impaired because you're tired and exhausted and stressed about life and then striking a pedestrian is usually going to result in either criminal charges or civil charges at the minimum. You might even have to wear a si…
Edit on your edit: Selecting a single extraordinary instance to support your case isn't helping your case. This is no different from someone looking at the idiotic things on Fox News' prime time shows and saying they represent all conservatives.
I know many decent conservatives who think Fox News is for idiots, just as I know many poor people who are completely responsible and still struggle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4763091
Thanks. I never lived in the US. I came to Britain (from Germany) with neither car nor credit history. They let me rent a place, and I never had to buy a car. (Oh, and didn't have to worry about health insurance, either. But that's a slightly different topic.) I wonder how my move to Singapore will play out. But should I ever come to the US, I'll make sure I have plenty of money.