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

91–100 of 116 posts

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

#91

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

rsynnott wrote: post #43

From the linked piece: > Well, not all of it. I didn’t inherit the assets. She didn’t leave a will, which meant the state of Tennessee inherited her house. What I inherited was her debt. Wait, is this right?! In Ireland, and I thought most common-law places, if someone dies intestate, an administrator is appointed, in practice generally the next of kin. Any assets go in the estate, the administrator pays any debts ou…

When you die, your debts don't die with you - they are still part of your estate.

The major function of the executor of an estate is to settle the debts of said estate. If the estate runs out of money (even after selling property, for example) before paying all the debtors, according to order of seniority, then everyone else in line is out of luck.

However there are quite a few states with "filial responsibility" laws (Tennessee is one of them) that oblige children to take care of their parents in usually vague and under-specified ways ... those have been used to chase children for unpaid nursing home debts etc.

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

#92

Post by vel0city »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #62
lukas099 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing you agreed that the CC company could sell your debt when you signed up for the card.

Could be! But I'm not sure that a coerced choice - "if you don't pay us exactly on time, we'll sell your information to criminals who'll harass your family" - is itself ethical. And yes, it is a coerced choice. It's difficult to live in modern American society without a credit card, or a credit score which is very difficult to keep high without a credit card.

It's not that difficult to live without a credit card. Debit cards don't have that same collections concept and can almost always be charged through credit card networks netting the same outward experience.

As for not building a credit score, well, it sounds like you're not really interested in taking out loans in terms that others wish to offer them, so what good is a credit score? The people who care about credit scores are largely the same who will only do contracts with collections classes and be unwilling to adjust contracts. If you're working with a lender who is willing to change contracts like that they're probably also going to be fine evaluating your non-normal financial arrangements.

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

#93

Post by wongarsu »

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.

It can be a mutually beneficial relationship: you want to live somewhere, but with the flexibility to be able to move on relatively short notice with minimal hassle, and without all the work, capital requirements and risk that comes with owning a house or condo. Somebody else owns an apartment building, and is already taking care of maintenance, paperwork etc. A perfect match.

The problem in the current market is that in many places there's far more demand than supply, so there's little pressure on the landlord to actually be a good landlord. If people could actually find other apartments at a similar price point in the area, people would just move out when the landlord doesn't uphold their part of the bargain, and competition would drive prices down to a point where the financial difference between buying and renting is a reasonable fee for the conveniences and flexibility of renting. But that's not the world most American cities live in. Instead tenants are stuck because there are no viable alternatives on the market, and some landlords shamelessly exploit that.

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

#94

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

syngrog66 wrote: post #10

Federal debt? gov keep borrowing or printing more to payoff past debts college debts? hope Dems get power in DC biz debt? declare bankruptcy its hard to find a type of debt that cant just be magically blinked away with a procedural wave of the hand

>biz debt? declare bankruptcy

That's totally an option for individuals too (modulo student debt for the most part).

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

#95

Post by coldtea »

AlexandrB wrote: post #40
coldtea wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another called me work repeatedly and told my boss This, in a functional legal system, should have them immediately arrested and/or slapped with a fine.

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 other side can just inform you of your debt, once, and if you fail to comply within a legally mandated deadline, they can go through the courts if they want to pursue it further. Who said "debt collecting" companies should be a thing?

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

#96

Post by rsynnott »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #91
rsynnott wrote: post #43

From the linked piece: > Well, not all of it. I didn’t inherit the assets. She didn’t leave a will, which meant the state of Tennessee inherited her house. What I inherited was her debt. Wait, is this right?! In Ireland, and I thought most common-law places, if someone dies intestate, an administrator is appointed, in practice generally the next of kin. Any assets go in the estate, the administrator pays any debts ou…

When you die, your debts don't die with you - they are still part of your estate. The major function of the executor of an estate is to settle the debts of said estate. If the estate runs out of money (even after selling property, for example) before paying all the debtors, according to order of seniority, then everyone else in line is out of luck. However there are quite a few states with "filial responsibility" law…

> However there are quite a few states with "filial responsibility" laws (Tennessee is one of them) that oblige children to take care of their parents in usually vague and under-specified ways

Huh. Interesting; was totally unaware that was a thing.

Some places seem to go further:

> Singapore, Taiwan, India, and Mainland China criminalize refusal of financial or emotional support for one's elderly parents

Emotional support! Idea for Chinese sitcom; awful couple make life difficult for their adult children, on the basis that the children are legally required to be nice to them.

“You have to pay your parent’s posthumous debts” still seems like a hell of a leap from “you have to take care of your parents”, tho. I’m very surprised more states haven’t repealed these (looks like about half of US states have one, though it’s not clear how active they are).

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

#97

Post by effingwewt »

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…

When I read/hear things like OP's statement I try and remind myself I say/write things I look back on and regret all the time. Sometimes my face turns red from shame.

Every day a bit wiser or whatever.

I was in the army back then and Im 43 this year.

We had 2 guys in my basic training platoon who pretended to be gay to get kicked out. It backfired as they were held in reception for several months before finally being sent home (long after basic/AIT had ended).

Compare that to a woman (we were the first co-ed basic training barracks) wboy was caught staring at other women inappropriately in the shower who was on a bus home the next day.

If they thought it was real it was instant.

I truly feel for you, and things like this are what make me mad when I get told today that young gay people are oppressed, or harassed. Your generation truly was, and I'm also glad the worst today's generation can complain about is pronouns, because to me that really means we have come quite far.

I hope things turned out better for you

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

#98

Post by latchkey »

h2odragon wrote: post #32

Wife and I tried to start a business a couple years ago; ran onto circumstances that made it difficult, went bankrupt. We talked to all our credit card issuers about our troubles beforehand, trying to get some better option than "just stop paying"; they were not interested. Discover actually laughed at my wife when she asked about it: "you're not even delinquent yet!" We were going to be the next day, and would've li…

I had a lot of debt on a Discover card once. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but I do remember that they were awful and will never use that company again.

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

#99

Post by latchkey »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #83
crazygringo wrote: post #69

This headline/article is silly. Yes, it's optional in the sense that you won't go to prison . But if you want any chance of being able to take out a mortgage on a house, or to finance a car purchase, then it's not very optional. Not to mention a bad credit score makes it much harder to even rent many apartments. Also, lenders will sue you if you have the money. In which case it's no longer optional either, when they…

> If you don't pay, it generally has real negative consequences. If you owe a lot of money on your credit cards, the lender will actually sue you - rather than selling the debt - and then put a lien on your property. I once bought a house in an estate sale which was also a short sale (I do not advise this) and both American Express and another bank had done this to the prior owner who owed $20-30K.

> I do not advise this

That sounds like an interesting story...

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

#100

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

latchkey wrote: post #99
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't pay, it generally has real negative consequences. If you owe a lot of money on your credit cards, the lender will actually sue you - rather than selling the debt - and then put a lien on your property. I once bought a house in an estate sale which was also a short sale (I do not advise this) and both American Express and another bank had done this to the prior owner who owed $20-30K.

> 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 on the closing timeline.

Plus if there is any FUBAR paperwork it is much more difficult to fix if it means going back to probate court to (for example) add a spouse who was wrongly omitted from the approval to sell ... in this case, I ended up getting the mortgage and deed by myself and then quitclaiming the property to the two of us because that was less hassle.

Oh, and short sales in probate are basically always as-is because the estate has no money to make good any repairs to the property.

Post reply on HN