Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Wednesday, December 08, 1999 - 03:04 am  Hi can someone tell me if you don't pay a car loan and they decide not to reposses it but to charge it off. DO I have to pay it back? How do I pay it back. Can I make a smaller payment?
|
| | Thursday, December 09, 1999 - 04:40 am Of course you still owe it and are legally liable to pay it back. Believe me, most folks don't just 'forget' a loan. It may take years, but they'll keep the records and it will eventually find you again ... :) Best bet is to contact the company and offer a settlement. If you owe $5k, offer them $2500 and see if they bite. Worst case, they say no or counter offer. They can't report it (to the credit bureaus) forever, but they can try to collect it for as long as they like ... :)
|
| | Thursday, December 09, 1999 - 07:52 am Well, you're morally obligated to pay it back but the legality of it is covered by the statute of limitations which, in most places, is less than the 7 years that it can legally stay on your credit report. Some people have found, though, that even though it isn't reported beyond 7 years that a person may go back to that place 10 years from now and find that they won't do business with you because of the charged off debt.
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 12:00 am I disagree on the moral obligation. There is a moral obligation to pay back human beings. You borrow from your neighbor, you pay back your neighbor. Corporations have no morals, they don't feel pain, the corporate children aren't gonna go hungry. I have never had a client who told me that the creditor/collector called and offered help with the electric bill. Nobody ever inquired whether the kids had presents for Xmas or even dinner. I have NEVER seen a corporation display any kind of morals. Even in the most extreme circumstances, such as when humans were near death, or a spouse died, corporations didn't give a damn. So don't sweat over your moral obligation. However, if YOU have any morals, you might want to consider giving what you owe or part of it to some of those less fortunate humans. During this tremendous economic expansion we managed to INCREASE homelessness to over 800,000 humans now living in the streets of the US. The real question is whether you can live with the truly frightening prospect of them not selling you another car :) Christine
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 01:17 am On second thought, what if you owed Hitler? He's a person, and still I wouldn't feel obligated to pay him. Would you pay Hitler? And I want to clarify that I'm not proposing that everybody stop paying their bills. But when it comes to finance companies and collection agencies, I learned through my experiences what kind of scum they are. They don't get paid, tuff luck. It's their chosen business and part of their business plan. They already wrote off the debt. They chose not to repossess. Do you think the car was a new Mercedes or Lexus? There are a number of companies that I would not hesitate to steal from. That includes FNMA, ITT Financial and Transamerica, just to name a few. If I could figure out a way to get their money and not get caught, I'd do it in a second. And I'd take as much as I could get. Then I'd have the money to hire lawyer to fight their legal teams and to lobby in Washington for some basic consumer rights. If I stole many billions, maybe we'd get somewhere? Christine
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 01:53 am And on third thought, back to the original question: Anonymous didn't give nearly enough information to respond to whether s/he has an obligation to pay the charge-off. I assume that the debt is secured by the car, and in that case s/he can't sell it. It is absolutely NOT true that "Of course you still owe it and are legally liable to pay it back." We don't know how old the debt is or what State or even Country laws apply. This is also NOT true in my experiences: " ... it will eventually find you again ... :)" And finally: "... they can try to collect it for as long as they like ... :)" is also 100% FALSE in MOST civilized countries. Most of the times charge-offs aren't actively collected unless the debtor contacts the collection agency or the debt is sold. The older the debts are, the less likely are collection efforts. As long as you don't want to buy a house, it doesn't matter whether it shows paid on the credit report or not. Paying a charge-off makes little or no difference for Credit Scores. So why bother? Christine
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 03:20 am Christine - Just because you don't appear to agree with the collection practices of certain organizations, you feel that it's okay to steal? That's exactly what you're implying. Regardless of who's money it is or was to begin with, and regardless of who's been harassing you, YOU entered into an agreement to take SOMEBODY ELSE'S money or goods on terms that YOU agreed to and now, after you've gotten what you wanted, you feel that you don't have an obligation to repay them? You may as well call it criminal, because that's exactly what that is. If I borrowed money IN GOOD FAITH (do you understand what that means), then regardless of who I borrowed it from, regardless of what they've done or will do, I have a legal AND moral obligation to repay the debt on the terms that I agreed upon. Scum is what you called the companies that "don't get paid, tuff luck". I would be willing to bet a barrel full of money that you weren't calling them scum when they were LENDING your the money or giving you the goods or services. And whether or not they've written off the debt or not does not relieve you from your obligation to make good on the terms that you agreed upon. If that was the case, we'd all just refuse to pay our bills and, given your opinion, tuff luck and on to the next corporate victim? You said, "Corporations have no morals, they don't feel pain, the corporate children aren't gonna go hungry." Yes, corporations DO have morals. They DO feel the pain (financially), and the corporation does not have children, yes, but we as consumers ARE their children and WE will be going hungry when people with your attitude default on your loans and refuse to pay back what was loaned to you in good faith. WE are the ones that will be paying higher costs and are held to higher restrictions when WE purchase their loans, goods and/or services after other people say "Tuff Luck" to them and default on their word.
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 03:56 am Christine (cont'd) - >> "It is absolutely NOT true that "Of course you still >> owe it and are legally liable to pay it back." Please state your legal reference that releases you from your debt when a creditor has a signed contract with agreed upon terms. >> This is also NOT true in my experiences: " ... it will eventually find you again ... :)" How many times have you moved, changed your phone number and employer since you've chosen to default on your loan(s)? If they know where you are, they will find you. If you actively deter them by moving and changing jobs, it makes it harder, but they can and will find you. >> And finally: "... they can try to collect it for as long as they like ... :)" is >> also 100% FALSE in MOST civilized countries. Again, please state your legal reference(s). You don't seem to be providing any legal backing for your statements. >> Most of the times charge-offs aren't actively collected unless the debtor contacts the collection agency or >> the debt is sold. The older the debts are, the less likely are collection efforts. Absolute B.S.!! Our car was repo'd in early 1994. I have had garnishments attempted once every 6 months or so for the past 6 years (they were never able to collect because my child support obligation comes first, and it was a healthy enough amount to leave them with $0 for the garnishment). Recently, my support all but went away. The next garn that the lender sent hit the jackpot. I made arragements with them to settle the debt immediately (partial settlement), otherwise they'd have collected the original amount AND all of the interest that had accrued over the past six years. If you just run and don't pay, they have the legal right to charge reasonable interest and it keeps building and building. (Note: this was all POST charge -off status). You're not going to be happy when one day, ten or fifteen years from now, your "tuff luck" corporation or collection is going to find you and you find out you owe $15k in interest on a $5 original debt. >> Paying a charge-off makes little or no difference for >> Credit Scores. So why bother? I wish that Dragnet was still on TV, because I'd have to call the bunko squad on you. Little or no difference? Again, please state your references and proof. During the past 2 years, I spent considerable time paying off debts and getting my reports back in good enough order to apply for a mortgage. Tons of things removed, some items updated to PAID instead of showing as obligations, etc. When I applied for my mortgage, I still had the two MAJOR charge-offs unpaid - Ford for $6500 and GreenTree Financial for $7500. Other than that (and my BK from 1993), I had reestablished (multiple truck/car loans and leases, credit cards, loans, etc) and most everything showed a zero balance (I paid everything off to cover debt to income ratios). Low and behold, my scores were 563, 599 and 625. Horrible. After a little research (and speaking with several persons at the agency that generates the residential mortgage credit reports for my potential lender), I contacted Ford and GreenTree (Ford was also garnishing my wages at this time), and made settelment agreements. I sent out $9000 between the two of them, got my letters and watched my credit reports get updates to PAID (no longer charge off). And, gee, what happened? about a month later, they ran my reports again, and my scores were 700, 651 and 634. It makes little or no difference? Tell me that again as I sit here and hold my mortgage approval letter (A+ lending rate, not a B/C loan) for my new house that will be finished being built in April. All in all, I believe that most people would agree that, if you borrow money/receive goods or services in good faith, you have a legal and moral obligation to repay that money or pay for the goods and services as agreed. If you don't, then you are no less a crook that the 'Scum' corporations and collection agencies that you referred to earlier.
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 04:19 am I agree with RCB, that when each of us obtains a loan from "whoever," then we have a moral obligation to ourselves to pay back what we have promised to do. If we say that it doesn't matter, it's just a huge corporation, then we are only demeaning ourselves and lowering the standards by which we live each day of our lives. "Huge corporations" are still owned by people (the ones who buy the company's stock) just like us. They might be our relatives, neighbors and our child's teacher. "Anonymous" will want to sell the car at some pont and without the original title won't be able to. Anonymous can probably make arrangements to make installments to pay the "charge off" and obtain the title. I don't know if any you believe in the old adage "what goes around, comes around," but I have seen it happen time and time again. If you believe in the Christian adage "do unto others" or believe in "karma" or just understand that subconsciously we get exactly what we believe we deserve, then you will change your way of thinking. I know that when I made the firm commitment to pay off everything I (the key word is I) owed that was "charged off" things started changing for the better for me. It wasn't an immediate process and took 3 1/2 years, but it has happened. Things can improve in the credit scene with a lot of work on each of our parts, with a personal and public commitment to make things better. It has to be a true wholehearted commitment or it won't work.
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 07:46 am I agree with the "moral obligation to pay" crowd (considering I started the whole thing). When you sign your name agreeing to pay you have morally obligated yourself to do what you said you would do. At that point the legal entity you are dealing with may report your payment history to a credit reporting industry and the highest rating they give you is PAID AS AGREED. Where I come from, that's a high compliment. Just because the legal entity doesn't seem like a person doesn't mean there aren't real live people affected by your decisions.
|
| | Friday, December 10, 1999 - 06:02 pm rcb: 1) With regards to credit scores NOT or only MINIMALLY increasing when collections/charge-offs are paid, my source is a Fair Isaac employee. I myself obtained this info in November 98. And of course, I've seen enough credit reports and scores to substantiate this. Lets SEE your reports and the associated Scores, before and after. I suspect having the CURRENT garnishments removed made the difference in Scores. TIME is one of the most important factors in Scoring. 2) I have seen MANY credit reports with unpaid collections and no collection efforts whatsoever. Those people were gainfully employed, they had listed phone numbers, hadn't moved in years, the creditors could have obtained their current residence anyway just by running their credit! Yet, nobody called, wrote, garnished .... I have NEVER had a client who was subjected to garnishments other than for child support, alimony, judgments or tax liens. You must have really pulled something! 3) I was just out in the desert for a week, and I didn't hear a lot of news. Did something happen that removed all statutes of limitation? You will find numerous postings in this forum with references to specific laws. Just because YOUR wages were garnished, and YOU had to pay your debts, you want everybody else to have to pay their debts, no matter what their financial, emotional and physical situation? Apparently you have no compassion for anyone. I consider your telling debtors that they'll owe forever a truly evil lie. You've been posting in this Forum long enough to know better. Sean, Where you come from "paying as agreed is a high compliment?" It rates better than providing a healthy environment for your kids? It rates better than caring for family, for your neighbors, for your friends, for some person out there needing help desperately? Do you think people don't "pay as agreed" because they just don't feel like paying? Has it EVER occurred to you that some people have values other than their credit rating? Some general comments: I figured that both rcb and Sean WOULD pay Hitler. It's not a big surprise, most countries DID finance the genocide in the name of legal or moral obligations. There are still Germans who consider Willie Brandt a traitor and criminal. He left Germany during the war and actively fought AGAINST Hitler. No doubt, he broke the German laws, he WAS a traitor. Yet, I consider him a hero. As I stated previously, we now have over 800,000 humans living on the streets of America. Nobody bothered to explain how that could happen during this long-time economic expansion. The comparison to Hitler is not far fetched at all. While American laws and business practices don't *specifically* target non-arians, an unproportionally large percentage of the targeted "poor" ARE non-arians. Not sure how to spell arian, I just did a quick search and found this posting at: http://www.funkalert.com/shoutouts/messages/4719.html ------------------------------------------------- Re: I shall do it for God !!! Posted by The General on December 07, 1999 at 11:59:47: In Reply to: Re: Re Open invite for arian nation to kick this niggers asss posted by Ian on August 21, 1999 at 09:50:00: I shall conquer earth and give all normal people a place to live where no single nikker shall (dare) to come. A place like Monte Carlo. Or maybe you can come over my place. ARIANA CE MANIFEST !!! -------------------------------------------------- Wow! I can't wait to get back to the desert. Anyone who doesn't conform to the American consumerism is punished with higher interest rates, insurance rates, etc. However, this isn't just about somebody having to pay a little more interest due to minor flaws in credit reporting and scoring. It's about the systematic redistribution of money from the already poor, ill and otherwise disadvantaged to the middle class and wealthy. You don't just have some bums who can't afford to go to the bar on Saturday night. You have people who can't get medical treatment and kids who don't go to school and sometimes don't eat. You have more and more humans living on the streets. DYING on the streets. In Fairbanks I met a woman who had been undergoing chemo therapy. When her doctor continued to nag her about the $7,000 she owed him, even though she had told him prior to starting treatment that she wouldn't be able to pay until September, she just quit the treatment. The last time I saw her, she was getting evicted and holding a huge garage sale. Tuff luck? Last summer several senior citizens died during the heat waves. They were afraid to use donated air conditioners because they didn't think they could pay the electric bills. These people chose death over not being able to pay the utility company. That's YOUR morality? I mentioned SPECIFIC companies that I would not hesitate to steal from. Yes, I know that would be a crime as defined by American law. That's why I'd only do it if I was sure I wouldn't get caught. And I'm not, so I won't. Besides, I wouldn't know how. Anyone who read my Transamerica page and still invests in Transamerica, KNOWINGLY supports their fraudulent (criminal) business practices. (I'll make that page a priority, for those who haven't read it.) FNMA drove a single mother to near suicide, after they wrongfully foreclosed on her and evicted her. Then the CPS took her daughter away, because she didn't have "suitable" living quarters. Once she called me, crying and wanting to jump off a bridge. I had seen all her original money order receipts for EVERY SINGLE PAYMENT. And I had read the file in San Bernardino Superior Court and Judge Wade's ruling for FNMA. Against all odds, she lived to get her house back. During my dealings with FNMA I learned how they operate. It sure was an eye opener for me. Prior to my FNMA and Transamerica experiences I had NO idea how corrupt the American legal system is. ITT Financial was actually banned from doing business in California for several years. I don't think I need to say more. There was a time when I fantasized about getting 8 or 10 of those bastard lawyers, judges and politicians in a room and blowing all of us into thousands of tiny little pieces. But I know that while violence will draw attention, it rarely changes anything for the better. And there is the sad reality that most of the American population financially benefits from the exploitation of the poor and subsequently supports the current system. So I decided to publish what I know, and leave it up to the readers to create their own karma. I do believe in karma, although usually in a later life. "Journey of Souls" by Michael Newton is the best book I've read in a long time. A certified Master Hypnotherapist, Newton regressed his clients not into former lives, but in the life BETWEEN lives. He published the case studies including the absolutely fascinating session transcripts. From his conclusion: "I am told large numbers of souls who have had more frequent incarnations in recent centuries on Earth are opting, when they get a chance, for a less stressful world. There are enlightened places where amnesia is greatly reduced without causing homesickness for the spirit world. As we approach the next millennium, the masters who direct Earth's destiny appear to be making changes to permit more information and understanding of who we are and why we are here to come into our lives." I hope so. This book is on top of my recommended reading list, available anywhere including Amazon.com. It's one thing to hurt others because you don't know any better. It's a totally different story when you PURPOSELY inflict pain and suffering on any being. Christianity is one of the most corrupt, destructive and evil organized religions ever. Those are facts of history. From absolution for money, to the witch burnings and the killing crusades ... to name a few. Today, Christians murder indirectly, not with guns and fire, but with laws. Wasn't it mostly Christians who voted for Prop. 187 in California just a few years ago? Prop. 187 left illegal aliens and their children without medical care and education. What does Jesus think about that? I was raised as a Christian, I read the bible. Jesus did NOT worship money, but he preached love and compassion for all people, ESPECIALLY the poor, ill and disadvantaged. If Jesus went into the temples today to do what he did 2000 years ago, he would be prosecuted and silenced very quickly. NOTHING has changed! I find this absurd morality as preached today by so many (Christian) people repulsive. The worship of money and consumer goods is at an all-time high. And the more people have, the less they're willing to give. Spending a lot of time in San Francisco until last year, I had often contemplated whether to give money to those countless homeless people begging in the streets. One time at night I had to get gas in Oakland in a rather dubious neighborhood, when I realized that I'd forgotten my purse and didn't have a penny on me. While standing there, looking stupid, trying to figure out what to do, this big black guy approached me and asked for change. I told him that I didn't have the money to get gas, and I was truly annoyed. He then handed me a hand full of change, enough to buy a couple of galleons to get me home. I was so perplexed, stunned, shocked, I could not get one word out, I didn't even thank him. It was the last thing I had expected. Since I've been on the road, I have met lots of poor people and consistently found that they are much more willing to share what little they have and help me out than well to do people who have a lot. It does make sense too, it's one of the reasons WHY some people have more than others. It's not that ALL rich people suck and ALL poor people are good, but there is definitely a pattern. I sometimes wonder why I even bother to maintain the web site and the forum. I guess it's worth it if just one person starts to think. About something other than their bank account and credit rating .... Christine
|
| | Saturday, December 11, 1999 - 01:50 pm >> 1) With regards to credit scores NOT or only MINIMALLY increasing when collections/charge-offs >>are paid, my source is a Fair Isaac employee. I myself obtained this info in November 98. So someone TOLD you what MIGHT happen to a score IF something specific were to change. I WATCHED it happen differently from how your "employee" stated it would. >> And of course, I've seen enough credit reports and scores to substantiate this. How about some of the OWNERS of those reports writing to the forum to state this. >> Lets SEE your reports and the associated Scores, before and after. I suspect having the >> CURRENT garnishments removed made the difference in Scores. What do you want me to do, post my confidential financial records on the public web, just to prove my point? Don't be silly. My proof is my approval letter for an A+ mortgage. As for the garnishment being removed: even someone as intelligent as you should know that garnishments aren't on a credit report. A JUDGEMENT may be, but a garnishment is not. And neither was on my report either before or after my scores improved. >> TIME is one of the most important factors in Scoring. You are 100% correct. But it's not the ONLY factor, nor the only MAJOR factor. >> 2) I have seen MANY credit reports with unpaid collections and no collection efforts whatsoever. >> Those people were gainfully employed, they had listed phone numbers, hadn't moved in years, the >> creditors could have obtained their current residence anyway just by running their credit! >> Yet, nobody called, wrote, garnished .... That's exactly what happened. I saw every time Ford checked my credit report and KNEW a garn might be on the horizon - and it was! >> I have NEVER had a client who was subjected to garnishments other than for child support, >> alimony, judgments or tax liens. You must have really pulled something! When did I ever say there was not a judgement? I only said there was not one LISTED ON MY REPORT, which is what drives my scores. >> 3) I was just out in the desert for a week, and I didn't hear a lot of news. Did something >> happen that removed all statutes of limitation? So, what you're telling me is that all one has to do is not pay, wait and the legal obligation to repay a debt is forgiven? In some cases, I'm sure that's true, but not all. >> You will find numerous postings in this forum with references to specific laws. That's a lame response. >> Just because YOUR wages were garnished, and YOU had to pay your debts, you want everybody >> else to have to pay their debts, no matter what their financial, emotional and physical >> situation? I spent 6 years repaying my debts ON MY OWN TERMS. The Ford thing was the LAST one on my list to repay, and things just happened to work out where my child support went way down BEFORE I was going to pay them and their garn hit. I've spent thousands repaying everyone else BEFORE they tried to garnish me. Which summarizes my answer: Hell yes everyone should repay their debts. I spent 5 years without a dime of credit extended to me. And I, not the corporations or collection agencies, were to blame and I rightfully suffered. Now that I've repaid EVERYTHING, I not only can reap the rewards of the PRIVILEDGES of credit, but I can also feel better about myself and my fulfillment of my OBLIGATIONS, both moral and legal. >> Apparently you have no compassion for anyone. I consider your telling debtors that they'll owe >> forever a truly evil lie. You've been posting in this Forum long enough to know better. Maybe I haven't learned all the best tricks and swindles to help me NOT repay my debts. Maybe you can educate me. I'm just trying to do what most people feel is the RIGHT thing to do - pay my debts. >> Has it EVER occurred to you that some people have values other than their credit rating? Yea, and those people don't buy new houses or have the benefit of good credit - the finer things in life that cost more than a week's paycheck. >> I figured that both rcb and Sean WOULD pay Hitler. Hitler was a murderer and crazy enough to do all of the things he did. The creditors who lend you money and give you goods and services ON GOOD FAITH only want one thing: you to repay your debt at the terms which you agreed to. >> As I stated previously, we now have over 800,000 humans living on the streets of America. >> Nobody bothered to explain how that could happen during this long-time economic expansion. After the death of one parent and the constant abandonment of another, I found myself homeless and penniless (sp?) several times in my life, starting at age 15. I could have given up and became one of 'those' people you refer to, but I didn't. I educated myself, made my own opportunities, worked my butt off and now make more than double than 95% of persons in my age group. And that's because I didn't just wait around for someone to give me handouts. >> I sometimes wonder why I even bother to maintain the web site and the forum. I guess it's >> worth it if just one person starts to think. About something other than their bank account and >> credit rating .... This is a great site and a great resource. Don't pull the "I'm taking my ball and going home" just because we don't all agree with you all the time.
|
| | Saturday, December 11, 1999 - 08:22 pm rcb: You continue to be completely irrational. I already posted my thoughts on your lack of logic in "Scoring for Auto Insurance." You remind me a lot of that black radio talk show host Ken (forgot the last name.) He irritates me greatly too :) Just because you FINALLY *think* you got it made, because you've had a horrible time getting there, you think everybody has to lead your miserable life to get there too. Your last posting explained a lot. I already knew that your were bitter, but I didn't know how much your life sucked. It must be the same as the child abuse syndrome, you subconsciously desire to "pay back?" Instead of getting back at the people who caused your misery and suffering, you are targeting the easy prey. Yeah, make them work off their butt and pay back every penny! I'll never understand why humans get off on making others suffer. Maybe in my next life. I guess a psychiatrist or psychologist would be more helpful. Have you ever thought about the fact that you can't take your house, and car, and all those "finer things in life" with you? When it's time to go, all that means nothing. It's nice to have stuff, and there's nothing wrong with having stuff, but it's not nearly as important as you think. Money makes life easier, but it won't buy you happiness. Most people believe rich and famous people are happy. It's not true at all. I myself actually had some of the best times in my life when I was totally broke. When I didn't have to worry about when to exchange currencies, whether to buy gold, or land, where to invest without losing it all. There is *some* truth to "Freedom is having nothing left to lose," especially when you're young and healthy. Readers will have to make their own decisions about your credibility. They can read Kristi's and Sean's numerous postings here about the statute of limitations. They can check the BayHouse links page with links to consumer sites or they can call an attorney. There is no point in debating these issues with you. I hope that some day you will get over your tuff life and maybe you'll then be able to just enjoy seeing other people do well and HELPING others. Christine
|
| | Saturday, December 11, 1999 - 11:24 pm If Christine is getting tired of the warped value system in this country, and feels like just packing up and moving to the desert, then I can't blame her! Christine is not obligated to operate this Forum! She spends her own time and money on this and asks nothing in return! Let's not lose sight of the fact that Christine is in no way obligated to us and has every right to express her opinions on her own Website. Let's not lose sight of the fact that she is the person who provides this valuable resource and she deserves our respect and gratitude! Christine brought up a very important point. The concept of morality in this country should not be based on money. It should be based on people. I understand the point that when people make agreements, they should do their best to honor them. However, when people become seriously ill or lose their jobs due to corporate downsizing, the creditors and collection agencies should show a greater willingness to work with them. Instead, they are in the full "give me the money immediately" mode. No exceptions, no humanity, no capacity for empathy. A young man had a cellular phone bill for $700. Shortly thereafter, he was downsized out of work. He offered to pay $100 per month to honor his agreement. The collection agency said half now, half next month, or we'll sue you in court. This man tried to explain that his wife is expecting a child and he is still looking for work. The collection agency (W)itch responded, "You shouldn''t be knocking up your wife if you can't afford to pay your bills". (If you aren't clairvoyant enough to know about the top secret merger that will cost you your job, then you have no right to make love to your spouse, even though you have a license for that!!] Rbielak (rcb), I grew up in poverty, too. (My childhood from age 10 consisted of a rat and roach infested apartment, no heat in winter, starvation, a junkie stepfather, lecherous neighbors, drug dealers all over, scumbag landlords, and vicious dogs to avoid on the way to my "inner city" [ghetto] public school, where I had to carry weapons for self defense because the other kids thought I wasn't tough and unrefined enough to sit in the same room with them.] I delivered newspapers to buy food for my family (more lecherous neighbors and vicious dogs to contend with). I dropped out of high school to get a job because I finally became sick and tired of the wretched conditions and decided to take matters into my own hands. I now have a Master's Degree, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and graduated Summa cum Laude-- Big deal, more superficial BS stereotyping that essentially means nothing! My point is, like you, I didn't "wait around for handouts". But I feel no special pride about that. Each individual's situation is different. If a homeless person approaches me and asks for money, I give at least a few dollars and, if I can, I give $10 or $20. Once I gave a homeless person a $100 bill. [You should have seen the look, it was priceless!! That is so much more uplifting than saying "Why don't you just get a job!"] Christine is right! We need to reassess our values. We need to think seriously about our moral and ethical views. Morality and ethics should not be about money, they should be about people! Christine, thank you for your Website and your wise viewpoints. Thank you so much for all you have done and please know that your efforts and thoughts are very much appreciated!!
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 05:32 am Christine - I am not bitter whatsoever. And my life is (NOW) great! It's even better knowing that, although I dug a hole for myself years ago, I pulled myself out of it and have prospered. No, you can't take anything with you. But one certainly can enjoy the time he/she has here. My motto always has been "Life is a journey, not a destination." For years, I lived in Stone County, Missouri. At that time (and may very well still be) the second poorest county in the United States. We didn't have two nickels to rub together. But it was the best two years of my life, with my mother and step-father. Regardless, I STILL have a moral obligation to repay my debts -- eventually. Barbara - Nobody every stated that Christine is obligated to run this forum. Does respect and gratitude constitute complete agreement and compliance with what her views are? I did not think that this was a Communistic or Socialistic forum. What the heck was the "young man" doing running up a $700 cellular bill when he had no other means besides his FUTURE earnings to pay it back? I learned how to effectively manage credit,and it includes NOT charging what you can't pay off tomorrow IF something such as a job loss COULD happen. That's common sense for the credit knowledgeable. Anyone who lives off credit and credit cards is asking for trouble. You don't feel any differently because you did it on your own versus waiting for government, laws, statutes and handouts to provide a good life for you? A 'no' response inidicates only a lie. Turn on the TV or pick up a paper - most everybody that's down and out doesn't want a handout - they want an opportunity to do it for themselves. We all appreciate what Christine is doing. We don't necessarily agree with all of her opinions, but we respect and appreicate what she does by providing this forum.
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 10:50 am Briefly, let me express myself while skipping over any theological or metaphysical subtleties. Credit Profile A Two revolving accounts. Charge off $892 owed and $892 high balance. Bankcard $10 owed $100 limit. Credit Profile B Two revolving accounts Charge off $70 owed and $70 high balance. Bankcard $10 owed $1000 limit. Credit Profile C One revolving and one installment account. Installment charge off $892 owed. Bankcard $10 owed $100 limit. The question is, will any of these people get a better score if they pay their charge off? The answer is yes, credit profile A (and only credit profile A) will get an increase in their FICO score by paying that charge off. The point is that not only does the charge off hit him from the point of view that it's very negative but also it shows as a maxed out revolving account. That puts credit profile A's debt-to-limit ratio at 91 percent, which is WAY too high. Notice that credit profile B doesn't suffer from this because of the high limit bankcard and the low amount owed on the charge off. His debt-to-limit ratio is at 7.% percent and that's pretty good. Notice also that credit profile C doesn't suffer from A's problems because the collection account is an installment loan and doesn't affect his debt-to-limit ratios. The point I'm trying to make is that it's too simplistic to say that paying charge offs will ALWAYS (or NEVER) improve your score. ************************************************* A promise is a sacred thing. It has nothing to do with a person's credit profile, money, personhood or anything else. It has to do with a person's personal standard of integrity. As for dealing with Hitler, if he loaned me 5000 marks and I agreed to pay it back with 10% interest in a year and I showed up at the end of the year with 5500 marks to pay and he said to me, "Hey that's great ... I need the money to buy an oven to fry Jewish people in." then YES, I would still pay as agreed. ************************************************* School is great and so is college. They teach people many useful and important things. However, they often teach people to be ignorant about money. Many times their parents, also ignorant of money, are part of the problem. "Go to school, get good grades, get into college, get a good degree, and find a nice, stable job with great benefits, tenure and a pension plan," the parents will say. This is not an automatic device for success in the world regardless what anyone says. Many people with masters degrees making $80,000+ a year (with their spouse a combined $150,000+ annual income) are still living paycheck to paycheck. Whenever these people get a raise they respond to it by increasing their monthly outgo. They buy a new car, a larger house, a DSL internet connection, a cellular phone, etc. Our public schools that are staffed by socialist teachers have taught them nothing about how to succeed in a capitalist society. ************************************************ Perodically someone posts a message here saying something like, "I owe $14,000 on credit cards and I'm having difficulty making my payments. I lost my job and had to take a new, lower paying one. One of the accounts has already been referred to collections. How can I avoid bankruptcy?" We never give them the answer to their question, usually we just assure them that bankruptcy isn't the end of the world or we suggest they contact CCCS or negotiate their way out of their financial situation. The answer to their question should be a series of questions to get them thinking, for example: 1) Do you really need cable TV? 2) Do you really need a 3-bedroom apartment? 3) Do you really need to see a movie once a week or eat out once a week? These questions are the soft, underhand throw questions. Try these ones on for size. Do you really need... 1) a phone? 2) a television? 3) internet access? 4) a car? 5) electricity? gas? water? 6) to eat lunch? Most people walk very willingly into the arms of bankruptcy. The very thought that they would go back to living like Abraham Lincoln, reading by candlelight, is anathema to them.
|
| | Sunday, December 12, 1999 - 02:36 pm Let me just first start with this. What type of board is this Miss Christine? You have just lost myself and I will be sure to recommend EVERYONE and then some to stay away from your site. I thought this was a site about credit and finance...not a site for Christine to bitch about who and what she likes as well as letting us know what a raciest she really is deep down. You think the world is so wrong, you think all Christians are so wrong, you think that African Americans seem to really tick you off. Gee lady that's just too bad you feel that way. And you know what I don't think anyone cares to hear it. If you’re looking for friends then why not get your assets up out into the real world and find someone to talk over your MANY issues. So I thought this was a site to talk about credit and to help one another out. Didn’t know it was Christine’s personal venting site. Yeah so what the lady runs this site.... big deal there are over 800 million sites and I just happen to own a few of those myself. As shown in all the above post its clear to see that Christine is not really a people person. Choose your words wisely lady...I've never seen so many negative and disgusting comments made by one person who claims to run a professional website. I'm not a Christian and I'm not Black but I can see in so many ways how your many sick comments could greatly offend people whom are either. Sure I'm young but I am also very well educated on the subject of credit as I have been there done that and worked my way out. However it seems to be I have been to this board for a while now and watched Christine (there goes that name again) give WRONG advice and info to many people here. Its people like Sean that give real info and state the word opinion when necessary. I could sit hear and list all the times I have watched all this bad info get passed along by the owner of this site. Go figure you run a credit site yet seem to know so little about how to really help others with there own credit. Its too bad that, that black man at the gas station didn’t just walk away from you as I know I would probably be able to see in your eyes the type of person you really seem to be. Yes the world is wrong and people are suffering.... but Christine as you sit and bitch about it at your keyboard, DO YOU do anything about it other than talk trash about other peoples religion and ethnic background? You want a better world then how about you start with yourself. The world could use a lot less of what you choose to share above and maybe even what I've written here. I don't wish to make you feel as ill as your words have made me because then I would be in the same boat as you (wouldn’t want to be there). People please wake up...free speech is great but will you all just sit back and let ignorant people throw this crap in your face. As far as Christianity goes.........well Christine when all is said and done...it’s not about this board, people like me, or anyone else. It will be just about you and God and what you have DONE with your life. HE wont care about what others have done to you but ONLY what you have done. Fine don't pay off your debts because you cant at the time, because your kids need shoes. Yes that's fine however as many have stated you signed and agreed to do so. So when your back on your feet and things are looking up, why not go back and pay IN FULL all that you owe. You can hide behind the fact that its a Corporation, you can give all the reasons you want (if it makes you feel better). You can even use the bible to get you out of your mess like you so creatively did above, however once again he knows all and can see it all. And you as well as he, know what you did and didn’t do. You know as well as I know for myself that when we smile and say oh how nice we didn’t have to even pay it all back, that is not being our best that is not doing the right thing. Just think what would happen to all these corporations if everyone thought the same way Christine does. Yes my real name is Adam Miller and I wont be back to this board. I am 23 years old and have a world to challenge and its clear to me that I could learn very little from hanging around here any longer. God bless you Christine and may you all find happiness and piece of mind. Adam
|
| | Monday, December 13, 1999 - 09:11 am Some very extreme opinions. How should we address the morality of breaking promises. Ask someone who deals with it 1.5 million times per year. Sean already began to consider bankruptcy. Very simplistically, bankruptcy is when the government says that despite your freedom to contract, we are going to render that promise-to-repay unenforceable. Even if that contract was notarized by the Pope and witnessed by nuns. Even though you got the benefit of the bargain. Seems immoral to me. So why would the government afformatively become the instrument for people to do such things? Even to the extent where people could even discharge income tax liabilities! If it's legal to render a debt unenforeceable, where the creditors are not even allowed to telephone or write the consumer to try to collect, isn't there a great potential for abuse? Yes. That's why the laws are periodically reformed. Through trial and error Congress has tried to address the above arguments. If a 10 year old promises to pay you back the money you lend him, can you compel that repayment? No. An extreme example. How about a 17 year old? Again no. How about a financially unsophisticated, uneducated and flat out dumb person who is a few months older, and therefore legally able to contract? Yes. Is that fair? Morally right? From the current state of the law, I think that the answer is that it depends. The government seems to accept some of Christine's argument. On one hand you have a financially sophistically deep-pocket lender who knows statistically exactly how much average risk that take in lending money. On the other hand you might have someone of youth or financial inexperience. Of course some consumers are sophisticated and know what they are doing. If a consumer never intended to repay, and they committed fraud upon the credit card company, that debt survives bankruptcy. Then what is to stop every credit card company from alleging fraud, even when it was not the case, just to extort money from consumers. They used to. The Supreme Court decided that it was not enough that a credit card company allege that a consumer lied when they promised to repay. The company must have "justifiably relied" on the consumer's representation. The standard used to be "reasonably relied". Why did the Supreme Court place a more difficult burden on the credit card companies? Because they would recklessly throw money around, where there was no real possibility of getting repaid. Consider this, and this is new ground for me. You're adults and you know better than to complain when either a 17 or 18 year old doesn't repay you a large sum of money. You know better than to loan the money in the first place. Here is my suggested analogy. You are to a teenager, what a credit card company is to some adults. They extend pre-approved credit to people when the pre-approval inquiry already indicates (from the pre-existing debt burden) that they cannot possibly be paid. What the money was loaned to a known gambler? I have more to the analogy, but let me get a response to this first.
|
| | Monday, December 13, 1999 - 10:30 am I can sort of guess who is going to disagree with the analogy. I just painted a target on my chest. But consider that whatever you might think of politicians, lawyers and judges - the Supreme Court justices are not the average bear. They are protecting people from themselves. I personally believe in absolute freedom of contract. But does that mean that prostitution should be allowed? How about loan sharking? Child pornography? Just because someone accepts money, are they necessarily competent enough to be forced to perform their side of the promise? Morally or legally. Hitler can burn eternally. But if he acted in good faith when he lent you money, what does his evil-doing in other transactions have to do with this one? I think I disagree with Christine on this. I feel that it is God's place to punish him and not mine, so I have to repay a good faith loan IF I CAN. Oddly enough, I would probably stab him after I paid him in full. Weird. But what if the bad faith was in the lending. When a loan shark lends you money with full knowledge that you can't repay and that he will therefore own you till you die, some might argue that he should not be allowed to enforce the promise. I'm not saying to intentionally rip off the shark. But IF AND ONLY IF you cannot repay, do you live on the street and eat sand, so that you can afford to repay? Some people had their eyes open when they signed the credit card appplication. But how open are an 18 year old's eyes, getting his first credit card, who has no idea about interest, penalities, etc. I was never poor so I can't argue from experience against the positions of the formerly poor. But consider high school science. Mazlow's hierarchy of needs. Clearly, before we can worry about self-actualization, we must worry about eating. By the same token, morality is less important than food. One only has the luxury to argue about the morality of not repaying a credit card company when one has food, shelter, clothing. I think that was part of Christine's point. Christine, you could have said the same thing without being quite as incendiary. I'm not at all bothered about the "bastard attorneys" comment, but maybe you're over-editorializing.
|
| | Monday, December 13, 1999 - 01:26 pm Speaking of moral obligations (in keeping on topic), here's a real situation that occurred in Detroit today: A man found a bag of money ($10,000) in the city of Southfield. He did the morally correct thing: he turned it in. What would you (everybody, but Christine especially) do? Would you turn it in? What if it belonged to an old lady - her entire life savings? Well, turns out that the money belonged to a mortgage company that resided in the building. I suppose that would be grounds enough to not return it, eh? Their "tuff luck".
|
| | Monday, December 13, 1999 - 02:44 pm I just believe in full disclosure. If you want to loan out money at 100% interest and you have every borrower sign acknowledging that you charge 100 percent interest, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that most of these "disclosures" occur in fine print, hidden deep in the contract where most people can't find it. Or you ask for information about the product and the unhelpful people you reach on the phone don't know. Things like "What credit agency will my credit report be pulled from?" and "What credit scoring system do you use?" just strike them as irrelevant and they never give you a helpful answer. The reason bankruptcy exists is not a moral one but a practical one. Bankruptcy exists for the same reason LLC's exist -- to make people more likely to start a new and semi-risky business knowing that they won't be beholden to their creditors for the rest of their life if their first business venture fails.
|
| | Tuesday, December 14, 1999 - 03:16 am Sean - Then there should/would be no personal bankruptcies, just businesses, correct? (DISCLAIMER: I don't know, I'm just asking). All the hubbub about the "moral obligation to repay a debt" thread started, not because there was some hidden, undisclosed fine print, but because some people feel that it's okay to screw corporate America because someone lost their job, got sick or didn't spend and/or save properly. (DISCLAIMER: Opinion following) I certainly agree that, if you were conned or they misrepresented the product or service, then you should have legal recourse IN COURT. But to simply not pay your bills (nor have the decency to repay them when you CAN) because you're having a 'tuff' time is just plain criminal.
|
| | Tuesday, December 14, 1999 - 04:29 am Rcb: Well when the framers of the Constitution sat down they decided to incorporate into the Constitution the authority for Congress to legislate how bankruptcy would work. There are some passing references in it in the Federalist papers, but nothing you could pin anything solid to. But since there were no credit cards at the time I doubt they had in mind the idea that a person would use "plastic" money to buy consumer electronics and later repudiate the $30,000 debt while still retaining $40,000 in equity in a single family residence. Not to say there aren't times when a person may have a legitimate need for bankruptcy. The failure of a sole proprietorship and serious medical bills are the two cases that pop immediately to mind, and I'm sure there are more.
|
| | Tuesday, December 14, 1999 - 03:39 pm To RCB: In a sense, aren't most consumer conned by credit card companies, even aside from small print. I agree with Sean that if there is full disclosure, then a person should be bound by that contract. But what if that person was not competent to understand the contract. Some might argue that any adult understands what a credit card is. Yes. But do most consumers have a practical understanding of how hard it is to repay an interest and penalty bearing debt? Are they aware that contract terms can change without need for additional signed documents? Do they realize how much that credit card can hurt other credit, mortgages and car loans? Are they aware of judicial liens and wage garnishments? Without this information, is there really full disclosure? From reading your posts I assume that this information was hard won for many people posting here. You must realize that some people in the same circumstances might not have been able to recover as well, and then give credit advice later on. Don't project your tenacity and intelligence on others. So many of my clients are young, in their early 20s. They got credit cards when they were still teenagers. When they first got plastic they were more concerned with the long term affects of benzoyl peroxide than they were with the long term affects of interest. I submit that if you have someone sign a contract to repay, and you KNOW that they are ignorant of the practical pitfalls, then this is misconduct on the part of the lender. Taking advantage of the pitiful. I am just arguing for a little more tolerance and understanding of the people who "screw" corporate America. Some of them are dirtbags and I hate breathing the same air. A lot of them are nice and were just ignorant. Just a thought.
|
| | Wednesday, December 15, 1999 - 04:27 am I suppose that I can agree with you to some extent. But who's responsibility is it to verify a person is "competent"? Who sets the rules and guidelines that define "competent"? And what about people who, although they ARE competent enough to understand, are denied the privilege of consumer credit because some guideline says they are not competent? And who should be responsible if the "competency system" fails? No, I emphatically disagree that "most consumers are conned by credit card companies". I do, however, emphatically state that most consumers are IGNORANT and/or too lazy to educate themselves and/or FULLY read contracts before signing them. And if they don't understand them, they should at least be intelligent enough to have someone else (parent, friend, lawyer) read them over before signing. Are the auto dealerships responsible for teaching you how to drive before selling you a car? Is the judicial system responsible for teaching you (ahead of time) that such-and-such crime is against the law? Is it your potential employer's responsibility to teach you that you need to go get a college degree before applying for the job? No, not at all. These things are the normal, adult, competent things a person is responsible for - EDUCATING HIMSELF/HERSELF - before taking the leap. And with the judicial system, any judge will tell you that ignorance of the law is not a defense. In order to obtain a high school diploma in Michigan, you MUST take a Consumer Economics class. This class covers everything from writing a check to credit card usage to installment loans to understanding how the "system" works. If the kids are too busy smoking grass or skipping school, why should I feel the pinch of higher prices for retail items because some (now adult) loser's account was charged off by the creditor because he didn't learn how to manage his money and credit? I somewhat agree, but the question still remains: who makes the rules, who enforces them, and who do we go to if we don't like it? Sounds to me like another excuse for the Democrats to pump our tax money into more unnecessary bloated federal programs.
|
| | Wednesday, December 15, 1999 - 06:46 am I can't hang with the idea that a test should be required to determine if a consumer truly understands how much extra it will be to pay a loan due to compound interest. That part of the equation is handled by competition. A consumer may not know exactly how hard it is to repay $2,000 at 19% interest through 60 payments of $51.88 but they do know that a high interest rate is bad compared to a low interest rate. A guy that agrees to pay 19% interest does so because he can't get 18% interest or because he was too lazy to shop the rate. The lender should not be culpable for the consumer's failure to qualify for a better loan product, nor should the lender be culpable for a consumer's failure to competitively shop the rates. On the other hand, I don't agree that a lender should have exculpation for burying a punitive rate deep in the fine print of some contract that the person doesn't get to see until after he's applied and been approved, nor do I approve of inflicting punitive rates without an objective, externally verifiable measure. The idea that a lender can unilaterally impose a 29.99% punitive rate because of a proprietary in-house judgemental scoring system that they changed last week and you're not allowed to know anything about is bogus. There was no required consumer economics class at my school and I didn't take one. My credit experience has come in the school of hard knocks. I am especially bitter at Trans Union, LLC and Bank of America, NT&SA for the damage they've inflicted on me and I won't do business with either of them again if I can at all avoid it. As for if a person is competent, that's not that hard to do. You get 12 people similar to that person and you present the same situation to them and see if they understand it. Normally this is called a jury but due to the magic of "voir dire" often some uneducated and moderately intelligent person is judged by 12 college graduates. That's not right.
|
| | Tuesday, December 21, 1999 - 06:39 pm Wow, too much to respond to guys. AOL kicks me off every 10 minutes with the holiday traffic, so I only have time to respond to RCB. Firstly, it's not fair to call those consumers ignorant. Or lazy. Look at this board. There are intelligent people posting here. Prosaic and opinionated, but clearly not your average bear. I'm careful about what I write because I don't want to get shredded (not intended as a bear joke). I read and learn to defer to people with greater knowledge. BUT, not one of you impresses me a having a complete handle on the credit thing. After all the web-reading, research, school of hard knocks, why aren't you all enlightened. Are you ignorant? No the effort to understand is there. You ignore nothing except each other's feelings. Maybe credit can't be understood. The information is not only proprietary. It's counter-intuitive and contradictory. Can't you understand why some 18 year old signing his first contract might not realize: that inquiries are bad, but that not all inquiries count against FICO, and that they might be reported for more than 2 years if reported without a date, or that if reported without a stated purpose 10 car loan inquiries within 2 weeks might show as 10 inquiries, etc. Do they reaize about the difficulty of repaying even $2,000 at 18% interest? Or the risk of judgments, execution, garnishments? I want MORE disclosure to consumers. This is hard stuff. There are both legal and practical ramifications to contracts. I know enough to make a living at it, but note how infrequently I am willing to give an opinion on this board. It's because I know that they are only my OPINIONS. This credit stuff is like a cloud. It's amorphous and can never really be grasped. To compare the understanding of the significance of credit cards to learning to drive a car might be improper. I learned a stick in a day. How abut your analogy to crimes. Those are largely intuitive and common sense. Even an 18 year old knows enough to get by. But I was not suggesting a competency test. My message got lost somewhere. A competency test before a contract were deemed enforceable would have a chilling effect on the freedom to contract. It would be a silly suggestion and that was not my intent. I'll explain if AOL allows.
|
| | Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 02:22 pm On December 9th someone introduced the issue of the morality of not paying debts. Some rather strong responses on both ends. I suggested that we not re-invent the wheel. That this issue was already addressed by government. When the government was faced with the question of how to deal with so many insolvent consumers, it seems inevitable and unavoidable that they must have considered the morality of legalizing and validating the consumers' non-payment of these debts. Even so, they promulgated some very liberal bankruptcy laws. I hope that we can agree that the morality issue must have been raised. So why would the government allow discharging credit card debts? Especially when it would open the door, and lead to even more consumer defaults once word got out that consumers could escape from past OR FUTURE mistakes. Legislative history would no doubt cite public policy considerations and the importance of a fresh start. But didn't Congress basically engage in a morality decision. That is what laws are in my opinion. They are often just codifications of what we, as a culture, feel is right or wrong. I submit that the bankruptcy code indicates a belief that it would be less moral to allow creditors to pursue debtors. Perhaps it is because the creditors took advantage of the consumer's ignorance. Most consumers are not competent. They are unaware of what they are getting into.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |