Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#101

Post by latchkey »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #100
latchkey wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not advise this That sounds like an interesting story...

It's not that interesting - it's just that there is a much larger number of parties who have to be in agreement about the sale, and the sale price, than is typical - you end up with probate court judges, lien holders, the executor, the estate's attorney as well as possibly a second real estate attorney for the estate and absolutely all of them (and their staff) can be sick / on vacation / golfing which wreaks havoc o…

Thanks for the explanation... so yea... it sounds like everyone dips their fingers into the pie and by the time you take ownership, you've paid almost as much as a regular house purchase. I mean "paid" not just in the financial sense, but also in time/energy/sanity.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#102

Post by antisthenes »

flangola7 wrote: post #85
cj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be hard for HN readers to believe given the anti-employer sentiment in many threads here, but... My friend owns 15+ apartment buildings in "not so desirable" neighborhoods. He deals with a lot of tenants who don't pay rent and eventually he has to evict them. 3 months ago he was evicting someone for not paying rent for 12+ months, and a week before the police were going to help get the tenant out of the apar…

Landlords that own entire apartment buildings are parasites, so there's not going to be very much sympathy. Most parasite species are mitigated much more directly once detected by a human host.

What's your address and how soon can I move in?

DM is okay, if you don't want to post it on the internet.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#103

Post by antisthenes »

coldtea wrote: post #95
AlexandrB wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably doesn't matter how functional the legal system is, these kinds of operators will always find grey areas where what they're doing is not technically illegal but still makes your life harder.

Then the law should enumerate very specific actions that only those are allowed (e.g. sending you an email or calling your director home or mobile number only, and only, say, once a month). Anything else should be punishible. Or the law could get a little more flexible and punish them for their intent, even if what they do is a "gray" area. Or it could also make "collection agencies" illegal in their entirety. The ot…

The law about collections has been trending towards "only this is allowed" for a long time.

It takes time for the legal system to set precedents and create a legal body of work around issues like these. It moves very slow.

Thankfully, at least for medical debt, there are pretty harsh laws against collections.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#104

Post by TMWNN »

rhaway84773 wrote: post #19

> Without addressing the politics of it, the impression among many informed people that most defaulted debt is medically-related is the result of successful advocacy work rather than being substantially based in reality. Is this actually an impression informed people have? I’m the prime target for such opinions because of my issues with the U.S. healthcare system, but even I always understood the common understanding…

>I’m the prime target for such opinions because of my issues with the U.S. healthcare system, but even I always understood the common understanding to be that most bankruptcies are caused by medical debt, and not debt defaults in general

Only 4% of US bankruptcies are because of medical bills. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/0...> A tipoff that [insert large percentage here] of bankruptcies aren't actually because of medical costs is that only 6% of bankruptcies by those without health insurance are because of that cause. The biggest cause of bankruptcies is lack of income, which health insurance doesn't affect anywhere in the world.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#105

Post by antisthenes »

willprice89 wrote: post #68

> One other thing debt collectors due is robo-sue their targets, bulk-filing boilerplate suits against debtors, real and imaginary. If you don't show up for court (which is what usually happens), they'll get a default judgment, and with it, the legal right to raid your bank account and your paycheck. That, in turn, is an asset that, once again, the debt collector can sell to an even scummier bottom-feeder, pocketing…

It's optional, because for a lot of smaller debts (They get to mark it 90% of it as a loss on their balance sheet and pay less taxes as a result.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#106

Post by tzs »

l33t7332273 wrote: post #4
blcknight wrote: post #3

Sort of. I got into a rough spot after I got out of the military and I ended up defaulting on all my credit card debt. I got kicked out for being gay with no notice and had no savings. What little I had went to moving and finding a new job. Only AmEx sued me (and we settled). I later sued most of the collection companies with the help of a lawyer and netted about $40K in settlements. Some had called my parents and to…

> Another called me work repeatedly and told my boss Even from a purely self serving perspective, why would they do this? If your boss gets mad that you have bad debt and fires you, then it’s now even less likely that you will be paying off the debt, no?

> If your boss gets mad that you have bad debt and fires you, then it’s now even less likely that you will be paying off the debt, no?

It might increase the chances that when you get another job you will agree to start making payments on the debt so that they won't get you fired from that job too.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#107

Post by aworks »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #64
singleshot_ wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a relationship; creation of the relationship was enabled if not formed when you signed the card agreement and agreed that your debt could be sold, transferred, or exchanged to or with a third party. If you thought that was unethical, you should have redlined it at the time.

And then the credit card company would have told me to piss right off, and I'd be struggling to live in American society without credit cards or a credit score.

I was just in line at the grocery where an elderly couple bought $600 worth of groceries and paid by check. I wasn't even sure stores still took checks.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#108

Post by mistrial9 »

blcknight wrote: post #7
mistrial9 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why doubt me? I’m 40. The gay ban ended in 2011…

because the only other guy I know in real life that said that, was hired by the company I worked for, and he proceeded to write company checks to pay off his student loans, and tried to seduce multiple males in the office for sex acts. When the management found out, since he was a "protected minority" they simply fired him instead of pressing the well-deserved criminal charges. The story was always how oppressed he was.. actions did not match the words. So yes, I do doubt you and others with this kind of simplistic explanation of real situations.

Re: Paying consumer debts is basically optional in the United States

#109

Post by mindslight »

rsynnott wrote: post #59
DangitBobby wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's how it works here in Tennessee too. Not sure what happened. Edit: looks like the literature referenced was from almost 200 years ago.

Only thing I can think of is that the author was a guarantor on the mother’s debt. Which I suppose is possible. Even still though I don’t understand why the house would go to the state. The book she mentions is pretty old, but the situation with her mother she mentions is current.

The house going to the state could be due to Medicaid reimbursement. But I share your general frustration that when such details are glossed over it tends to propagate myths (two, in this example). If this is what happened, a will wouldn't have helped. Deeding over the house while keeping a life estate or putting it into a formal irrevocable trust, before the lookback period, could have.
Post reply on HN