IUBillsFan Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 I don't know, why don't you tell us? Your post is at the least very presumptuous. Not everyone who gets hit with a crippling med bill "has an illness coming to them." 335498[/snapback] Well one I didn't throw out a statistic without any backup. Two feel free to point out in my post where I said ANYTHING about someone having an "illness coming to them"... I'll wait while you link you source...My point was that MAYBE just MAYBE SOME people may not have to declare bankrupcty because of medical bills if they hadn't wasted money elsewhere. I know a few people (more than five) that have declared bankruptcy and not one was due to medical bills but if they would have had medical bills put them over the top I would think that they may be in that "70%" which IMO would skew the stats.
IUBillsFan Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 Perhaps. But people deserve a second chance, especially those that have struggled many years with debt. 335476[/snapback] Some people do deserve second chances but IMO it became too easy to just wipe away bills that people didn't want to pay. Hell my sister is one she couldn't save a dollar to save her life but you sure wouldn't know it with her car, house ,ect...But two years ago poof, all her bills went away. She couldn't control her spending but she didn't need to in the end. I love my sister but it's people like her and her bastard ex that hurt people that may really need it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 Some people do deserve second chances but IMO it became too easy to just wipe away bills that people didn't want to pay. Hell my sister is one she couldn't save a dollar to save her life but you sure wouldn't know it with her car, house ,ect...But two years ago poof, all her bills went away. She couldn't control her spending but she didn't need to in the end. I love my sister but it's people like her and her bastard ex that hurt people that may really need it. 335532[/snapback] The idea that bankruptcy has been "abused" is a fiction perpetrated by the credit card companies. If bankruptcy was truly hurting those corporate behemoths, then they would never turn a profit. But it's not. They still are making money hand over fist.
IUBillsFan Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 The idea that bankruptcy has been "abused" is a fiction perpetrated by the credit card companies. If bankruptcy was truly hurting those corporate behemoths, then they would never turn a profit. But it's not. They still are making money hand over fist. 335632[/snapback] So what? Why do you think this? Maybe they are still making a ton of money but it is because of the fees and rates they charge the people that still make their payments. Really it doesn't have to hurt them they just pass those costs onto the other customers just like taxes gov't rasies taxes compaines don't leave there prices fixed they raise them to make up the difference. Like I said some people need and should declare but too many people, IMO, use it as an easy out. Based on your response to a previous post it seems like you think people should be able to charge whatever they want and if it gets to be too much then boom clear it all away...Hell the CC make enough money anyway so who cares those people should get there stuff close to free... Should the CC give people soooo much credit probably not but nobody forces them to go to best buy and get a $5000 TV people make the decision themselves.
CookieG Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 If he so chooses, he should be able to file for bankruptcy. Look, the bankruptcy laws only protect certain assets and only a certain amount of assets. If someone is living egregiously over their head, they're going to lose a lot of what they accumulated. 335414[/snapback] Yeah, you're right, the guy in the example might not be able to keep alot of what he just bought, because even if his other bills were wiped, he might not be able to afford the payments on the car and boat anyways. But the new law, even though its very creditor friendly, doesn't absolutely prevent someone from filing for bankruptcy. First, as I said before, it doesn't apply to those who are in the bottom 1/2 of the median family income of their state. Second, it only applies to those whose net income exceeds their monthly budget. Third, even if that is the case, people aren't barred from bankruptcy, they are only required to use a Chapter 13 repayment plan. Their plan is, in large part, based on the excess of their net income over their monthly expenses. Rarely, if ever, would they be required to pay off something like catastrophic medical costs in full, even through a Ch. 13 plan. Its based on what they can afford. Sure, there's little, if any money left at the end of the month, but its not overwhelming. Besides, most bankruptcy courts have loosely been following this principle for years. Courts have long had the ability to deny Ch 7 protection to someone that will show a large monthly surplus at the end of the month after a bankruptcy. The new law basically codifies it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 Besides, most bankruptcy courts have loosely been following this principle for years. Courts have long had the ability to deny Ch 7 protection to someone that will show a large monthly surplus at the end of the month after a bankruptcy. The new law basically codifies it. 335647[/snapback] You got it. So basically nothing's changed is what you're telling me? Even if someone was in the upper half of median income, so long as their expenses are equal or more than their income, they'll still be allowed to file chapter 7? If so, then that's the right thing to do, IMO. What pissed me off was it sounded like even IF your expenses equalled or exceeded your income, that they'd still force people into 13. The other issue I had is with forcing Ch. 13. Like repayment plans it just keeps dinging people's credit scores. With 7, people get hurt for the first 7 years, but at least have a shot to improve their standing. With 13, it's however many years you're paying bak, PLUS 7 years after that. A little bit harsh, IMO.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 14, 2005 Posted May 14, 2005 Perhaps. But people deserve a second chance, especially those that have struggled many years with debt. 335476[/snapback] It says so in the Bible!
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 14, 2005 Posted May 14, 2005 The idea that bankruptcy has been "abused" is a fiction perpetrated by the credit card companies. If bankruptcy was truly hurting those corporate behemoths, then they would never turn a profit. But it's not. They still are making money hand over fist. 335632[/snapback] True. Out of say 40 billion in profit, they lost 2? I understand nothing is pefect... Yet, in trying to make things perfect, don't the wheels fall off. You can over maintain things, over grease the workings before fail results. It is a happy medium. The CC companies have been screaming chicken little. We will see how getting their way pays out and the affect on a culture of spending. The economy and this discussion reminds me of a Steven Wright joke. The one where he has a friend that names his dog "Stay." You know what happens? "Stay, come here... Come here, Stay!... Etc..." What's it gonna be? We talk with forked tongue whenit comes to spending and the economy, budget, etc... All the while the consumers are being marketed to one way and then lectured the other. What's it gonna be?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 14, 2005 Posted May 14, 2005 You got it. So basically nothing's changed is what you're telling me? Even if someone was in the upper half of median income, so long as their expenses are equal or more than their income, they'll still be allowed to file chapter 7? If so, then that's the right thing to do, IMO. What pissed me off was it sounded like even IF your expenses equalled or exceeded your income, that they'd still force people into 13. The other issue I had is with forcing Ch. 13. Like repayment plans it just keeps dinging people's credit scores. With 7, people get hurt for the first 7 years, but at least have a shot to improve their standing. With 13, it's however many years you're paying bak, PLUS 7 years after that. A little bit harsh, IMO. 335791[/snapback] Exactly. Where are all these family friendly Bible toting Christians? Not working for the CC companies! Where do you think that 7 year concept came from? Of course things where a little bit different years ago?
IUBillsFan Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 This article hits on some good points on young people...Generation Broke Too many 22-year-olds expect to start their adult lives at their parents' level of material satisfaction, without the 30 years of labor it took them to get there.
Recommended Posts