Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-06-27 10:51:30
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA
https://img641.imageshack.us/img641/7723/3059666001e775a1a6em.jpg

Get Rich Slowly wrote:

When people speak of bankruptcy, they usually speak of the debtor in human terms and the creditors in faceless terms. I have heard people essentially say “The debtors are just trying to get by and the creditors are mean [somehow forcing credit on people] and/or should know better [because they allowed people with bad credit to owe them money].”

But I am a creditor, and I’m just trying to get by and make a good life for myself and my family. By not paying their rent or allowing me to find new tenants, Peter and Tara forced us to cover all our expenses out of pocket. This had real and serious consequences for my family. (How many of you could afford $5000 in mortgage payments plus cleaning/repairs without feeling some pain?)

...

Part of the most recent bankruptcy reform bill is to weed out repeat filers and other people who abuse the system. Before reform, there was nothing to keep Peter and Tara from refiling as soon as their case was dismissed. Now there’s a mechanism in place to look at refilers more closely if they file twice within a year. Either way, it still bugs me that it took so long for such a blatantly bad filing to be dismissed. The fact that they weren’t eligible due to a previous bankruptcy should have meant that the court wouldn’t even let them file in the first place. That’s a big part of my problem with bankruptcy — not the people that file, but how easy it is to abuse once you understand the system. After an experience like this, I’m disillusioned.

Bankruptcy has a place, but please remember that creditors have a face too.
Source: Reader Story: The Other Side of Bankruptcy

---

People game the system - we shouldn't be surprised.  Creditors have a face too...
2010-06-27 11:11:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
Personally, I support the return of debtor's prison.
2010-06-27 11:16:25
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I support the return of debtor's prison.
I'm going to be a dick and quote from wikipedia:

Samuel Byrom wrote:

What barbarity can be greater than for gaolers (without provocation) to load prisoners with irons, and thrust them into dungeons, and manacle them, and deny their friends to visit them, and force them to pay excessive fines for their chamber rent, their victuals and drinks; to open their letters and seize the charity that is sent to them! And when debtors have succedd in arranging with their creditors, hundreds are detained in prison for chamber-rent and other unjust demands put forward by their gaolers, so that at last, in their despair, many are driven to commit suicide...gaolers should be paid a fixed salary and forbidden, under pain of instant dismissal, to accept bribe, fee or reward of any kind...law of imprisonment for debts influicts a greater loss on the country, in the way of wasted power and energies, than do monasteries and nunneries in foreign lands, and among Roman-Catholic peoples...Holland, the most unpolite country in the world, uses debors with mildness and malefactors with rigour; England, on the other hand, shows mercy to muderers and robbers, but of poor debtors impossibilities are demanded...
2010-06-27 11:17:37
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I support the return of debtor's prison.
thats an odd statement coming from you considering how you feel about the labor practices of the industrial north during the civil war
Tu Stultus Es
2010-06-27 11:17:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
I'm pretty sure our Constitution would prevent a debtor's prison system from becoming like that.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-27 11:19:17)

2010-06-27 11:18:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I support the return of debtor's prison.
thats an odd statement coming from you considering how you feel about the labor practices of the industrial north during the civil war
True, but...  Times change.  We have labor laws to protect people nowadays.  Back then, we didn't.
2010-06-27 11:19:46
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Turquoise wrote:

I'm pretty sure our Constitution would prevent a debtor's prison system would prevent things from becoming like that.
1) Who's going to pay for it.
2) US prisoners are already abused by far more perverted inmates.
3) How ridiculous would debtor's prison look like with the leeway we give to serious criminals?
2010-06-27 11:23:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm pretty sure our Constitution would prevent a debtor's prison system would prevent things from becoming like that.
1) Who's going to pay for it.
2) US prisoners are already abused by far more perverted inmates.
3) How ridiculous would debtor's prison look like with the leeway we give to serious criminals?
Hey, I support other reforms as well.  End mandatory drug sentencing, create mandatory sentencing for murder and rape.  I'm completely against "good behavior" allowances for murder or rape sentences.

I also believe that insanity is not a valid defense for heinous crimes.  If you kill, maim, or rape someone during something like a psychotic episode, you should get the same sentence as a sane person guilty of it.  In fact, I believe the insane who commit these crimes should be more eligible for the death penalty, since they are more of a threat to society than sane people.

Debtors would go to minimum security prisons rather than the others that more serious criminals go to.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-27 11:24:34)

2010-06-27 11:33:07
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Alright, but how many new min-sec prisons would we have to build and staff to fairly sentence all debtors?
2010-06-27 11:39:12
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Alright, but how many new min-sec prisons would we have to build and staff to fairly sentence all debtors?
Depends...  If we legalize marijuana and end mandatory drug sentencing before we implement debtor's prison, possibly no more than those that already exist.

I'm not saying that bringing back debtor's prison should be the first thing on our agenda as a country.  I'm just saying I have nothing against it on principle.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-27 11:40:46)

2010-06-27 11:43:42
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Fair enough, but it is assuming that the government will be able to maintain what we already have indefinitely with the economy in the condition it is.
2010-06-27 12:07:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Fair enough, but it is assuming that the government will be able to maintain what we already have indefinitely with the economy in the condition it is.
True, it may not be the best time to implement debtor's prison because of how many people would be currently eligible for it.  I understand that.

However, when the economy recovers, I think it would be a worthwhile reform to prevent another slew of defaultors that could bring us down again.

Granted, I'm not saying that creditors are innocent either.  I think we should limit ARMs to a very small segment of the market.  They only tend to work for very specific situations that typically involve people who make a decent amount of money or more.  They shouldn't be marketed to the poor, because most of the time, the poor don't know what they're getting into with them, and they obviously are less dependable to make even static rate payments.

To be honest, I would prefer that banks return to the conservative practices they had before the CRA.  Yes, that does ultimately result in classism regarding loans, but seriously, institutions should not be forced to lend to people who have a high likelihood of defaulting.  It's just a stupid idea.  Certain people (most notably the black community) can bitch all they want about it, but a banker should be allowed to discriminate against potential customers based on income, because it makes sense to do so.
2010-06-27 12:42:05
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Yup. In all honesty, I think a better solution would be to allow banks more freedom in turning down people with bad credit, even with some of the social flaws that follow.
2010-06-27 22:13:26
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not saying that bringing back debtor's prison should be the first thing on our agenda as a country.  I'm just saying I have nothing against it on principle.
Nothing in principle?  You sign a contract to get into debt.  Breach of contract is a civil matter, not criminal.  Do you really want to imprison people for civil crimes now?  Like, say, copyright violation?  Patent infringement?

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-06-27 22:13:54)

2010-06-28 16:23:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not saying that bringing back debtor's prison should be the first thing on our agenda as a country.  I'm just saying I have nothing against it on principle.
Nothing in principle?  You sign a contract to get into debt.  Breach of contract is a civil matter, not criminal.  Do you really want to imprison people for civil crimes now?  Like, say, copyright violation?  Patent infringement?
http://www.researchcopyright.com/articl … gement.php

In reality, criminal prosecutions involving violations of copyright law are not common in this day and age. Some experts in the field believe in the not too distant future we will see an increase in criminal prosecutions associated with copyright infringement.

Many people scoff at the idea of criminal prosecutions for copyright infringement. Because these types of prosecutions have not been common historically, some people are willing to breach or infringe upon a copyright interest with little regard for possible penalties.

One area in which criminal prosecutions have become frequent is in cases in which people have been charged with wholesale pirating or copyrighted materials. In other words, people who have reproduced copyrighted materials -- primarily CDs and DVDs on a large (commercial) scale face criminal prosecution.

In fact, as the FBI warning notice set forth previously in this article indicates, the possible criminal penalty for copyright infringement is significant. If you were convicted of criminal copyright infringement you face a possible maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 monetary fine.

While not common, copyright infringements can be prosecuted criminally, and the door is open for a prison sentence to be involved.

That being said, no, I don't believe that things like pirating should result in going to jail, unless you're running a really large scale operation.  In other words, it's not just a matter of sharing something online via a peer-to-peer service, I'm talking like those large scale movie copying scams over in China.  That should be criminally prosecuted.  Beyond that, no, it should only be a civil crime.

The reason why I argue in favor of criminal charges for bankruptcy is because of how far it's gotten out of hand.  Severe penalties don't tend to deter violent criminals, but they do tend to deter nonviolent ones.

Also, I think it would be reasonable to give someone forgiveness for the first filing of bankruptcy, because that can happen to a lot of people in situations where it really is mostly bad luck.  I understand that.

However, a repeat offender should be jailed, because after the first time, you should know better.
2010-06-28 17:20:42
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

http://www.researchcopyright.com/article-penalties-for-copyright-infringement.php

In reality, criminal prosecutions involving violations of copyright law are not common in this day and age. Some experts in the field believe in the not too distant future we will see an increase in criminal prosecutions associated with copyright infringement.

Many people scoff at the idea of criminal prosecutions for copyright infringement. Because these types of prosecutions have not been common historically, some people are willing to breach or infringe upon a copyright interest with little regard for possible penalties.

One area in which criminal prosecutions have become frequent is in cases in which people have been charged with wholesale pirating or copyrighted materials. In other words, people who have reproduced copyrighted materials -- primarily CDs and DVDs on a large (commercial) scale face criminal prosecution.

In fact, as the FBI warning notice set forth previously in this article indicates, the possible criminal penalty for copyright infringement is significant. If you were convicted of criminal copyright infringement you face a possible maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 monetary fine.

While not common, copyright infringements can be prosecuted criminally, and the door is open for a prison sentence to be involved.

That being said, no, I don't believe that things like pirating should result in going to jail, unless you're running a really large scale operation.  In other words, it's not just a matter of sharing something online via a peer-to-peer service, I'm talking like those large scale movie copying scams over in China.  That should be criminally prosecuted.  Beyond that, no, it should only be a civil crime.
Yes, I forgot that for-profit bootleggers are criminally prosecuted.  But that actually makes sense because of the element of fraud and deception. 

Turquoise wrote:

The reason why I argue in favor of criminal charges for bankruptcy is because of how far it's gotten out of hand.  Severe penalties don't tend to deter violent criminals, but they do tend to deter nonviolent ones.

Also, I think it would be reasonable to give someone forgiveness for the first filing of bankruptcy, because that can happen to a lot of people in situations where it really is mostly bad luck.  I understand that.

However, a repeat offender should be jailed, because after the first time, you should know better.
Is bankruptcy really abused so bad that it should warrant a criminal charge?  Why not look for lying on court filings or other things that are already crimes....and enforce those!  Besides, what good does throwing people in jail for debt really accomplish?
2010-06-28 18:05:24
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6833|San Diego, CA, USA
My take if someone knowingly files for bankruptcy in short period of time, which this person did, then it should be the same as lying under oath because you violated the original terms of the bankruptcy.
2010-06-28 18:08:17
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Yes, I forgot that for-profit bootleggers are criminally prosecuted.  But that actually makes sense because of the element of fraud and deception.
Fair points.

SenorToenails wrote:

Is bankruptcy really abused so bad that it should warrant a criminal charge?  Why not look for lying on court filings or other things that are already crimes....and enforce those!  Besides, what good does throwing people in jail for debt really accomplish?
I understand where you're coming from, but I would argue this precedent needs to be set so as to make people more careful in the long run when agreeing to a contract.
2010-06-28 18:21:21
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but I would argue this precedent needs to be set so as to make people more careful in the long run when agreeing to a contract.
A contract requires both parties to agree to it.  Yea, it sucks that lenders can get totally boned by someone who is deadset on breaching their end of the contract...but it's also a risk that they take.  I don't think debtor's prison is the solution to the culture of credit, ya know?  Enforcing personal responsibility and accountability is probably the best way, instead of throwing people into jail.
2010-06-28 18:24:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but I would argue this precedent needs to be set so as to make people more careful in the long run when agreeing to a contract.
A contract requires both parties to agree to it.  Yea, it sucks that lenders can get totally boned by someone who is deadset on breaching their end of the contract...but it's also a risk that they take.  I don't think debtor's prison is the solution to the culture of credit, ya know?  Enforcing personal responsibility and accountability is probably the best way, instead of throwing people into jail.
Part of that enforcement is punishment -- which can include incarceration.

Now, I realize we already have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  However, that can be fixed by gradually ending the War on Drugs, so admittedly, I see that as a higher priority than debtor's prison, but I would have nothing against instituting it after ending mandatory drug sentencing and legalizing most of the less addictive drugs out there.
2010-06-28 18:40:58
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Part of that enforcement is punishment -- which can include incarceration.

Now, I realize we already have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  However, that can be fixed by gradually ending the War on Drugs, so admittedly, I see that as a higher priority than debtor's prison, but I would have nothing against instituting it after ending mandatory drug sentencing and legalizing most of the less addictive drugs out there.
You know...it looks like this sort of thing is actually happening in some areas of the US.
2010-06-28 19:11:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Part of that enforcement is punishment -- which can include incarceration.

Now, I realize we already have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  However, that can be fixed by gradually ending the War on Drugs, so admittedly, I see that as a higher priority than debtor's prison, but I would have nothing against instituting it after ending mandatory drug sentencing and legalizing most of the less addictive drugs out there.
You know...it looks like this sort of thing is actually happening in some areas of the US.
Well, if you miss a court date concerning significant debt... 

And besides, it's only a brief stay.  I'm not saying it's going to be a pleasant experience, but that's not really debtor's prison -- not if we're referencing the historical version anyway.
2010-06-28 19:13:38
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Well, if you miss a court date concerning significant debt... 

And besides, it's only a brief stay.  I'm not saying it's going to be a pleasant experience, but that's not really debtor's prison -- not if we're referencing the historical version anyway.
For missing the court date or for non-payment of court ordered debt.  Yes, it's not the classical debtor's prison...but it's a start I guess.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-06-28 19:14:24)

2010-06-28 19:15:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, if you miss a court date concerning significant debt... 

And besides, it's only a brief stay.  I'm not saying it's going to be a pleasant experience, but that's not really debtor's prison -- not if we're referencing the historical version anyway.
For missing the court date or for non-payment of court ordered debt.  Yes, it's not the classical debtor's prison...but it's a start I guess.
This limited form of debtor's prison might be all that's needed...   hmm...
2010-06-28 19:27:36
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

This limited form of debtor's prison might be all that's needed...   hmm...
Well, other than the horrifying idea of being thrown in jail for a debt, I object to debtor's prison if it were added to the system as it now stands.  I have debt that generally cannot be discharged--student loans.  So, if my student loans cannot be discharged, why are a few of the private ones at a higher interest rate?  That rate was deemed necessary because I didn't have a cosigner and I was considered 'risky'.  But...the debt can't be discharged, so realistically, what is the risk?  Why do I have a higher interest rate?  That's why I have very little pity for creditors in this situation.  Of course, I agreed, and I'm paying.  If I didn't pay though, the company would still get their money from me--plus huge fees.  If I did such a thing, I'd essentially be in a financial prison.

I'm not whining about my loans or anything; I'm just using them as an example of my 'beef' with the system.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard