My opinion- there is no excuse to come here and bash someone unless of course you are god and are perfect.
I don't think anyone was bashed. Hawg and I take exception to what Opie is trying to do, not with Opie himself. I don't know Opie, or anyone else on this board for that matter. What little information I do have of Opie's circumstances has been provided by Opie himself. There is a difference between condeming a person's behaviour and condemning the person. Wichita
If opie wants to pay a debt, PAST the sol, that's up to him, but he certainly doesn't have to. If opie wants to pay a debt, it is owed to whoever the OC is, NOT the lawyer. If opie wants to pay a debt, it doesn't matter what his credit report says. Just because something isn't reported doesn't mean it's not collectable. Ya'll should do a search on morality, you'll find plenty to read, but don't think you represent the collective majority -- it's not a moral decision one way or another. It's not using the laws to do to them what they did to us. It's not escaping responsibility, it's not destroying the economy, nor jepordizing the laws themsevles. It's not any of the things you 3 are trying to make it be. It just isn't. It's not even a matter of morality. It's ALLOWED by the law -- proof of the debt is allowed, in fact, it is required. what is the problem with exercising that protection? Sassy
see? you must listen to sassy. with well over 1k posts she is elite. I might be elite with over 600 posts but I cannot remember the number we decided on elitedom.
LOL marc, Thank you, I was thinking I climbed up on a soapbox on the eliteness thread. flick, sway, flick! Sassy
It's not hurting the economy??? Perhaps you should take the time to read about the collapse of Sears yesterday. They wrote off almost 20% of their credit card customers; customers who had balances between $0 and $90 and were largely in default. That cut Sears stock in 1/3. What are the ramifications of those actions? Sears in Chicago will likely need to layoff between 500 and 1000 employees. Their bonds got downgraded. Sears stock was also in a lot our mutual funds, pensions and 401(k)'s. That means that when Sears did this move because some people were trying to avoid taking care of their obligations, other people were forced to suffer. Call it a morality issue, think that I'm holier than thou...but I'm not, or at one time in life I wasn't. And I don't mean to preach. But when one member of this board said that it isn't his responsibility to worry about paying his bills, that his priority is his wife and family, think about the families that are torn apart because 20% of Sears customers could pay a stupid $90...and that's just one company. Your actions may not seem like they hurt other people, but they do. Connect the dots. I'm done preaching now. You can respond if you want to but there's no point in discussing the matter any further. My goal wasn't to offend any of you but merely share my opinion with you. Hawg Hanner
Hawg Hanner, This transaction took place 8 years ago. The original creditor has writtent this debt off and taken a tax deduction as a result. This debt was purchased (probably for pennies on the dollar) by a debt collector. Opie didn't buy anything from the debt collector! The debt collector is just trying to make money off of a bad deal. It is too late for Opie to "pay his obligations", for his obligation was with the Original Creditor, not the debt collector. I wouldn't want to pay the debt collector either. It will not improve his standing with the original creditor because it is too late for that. The only person who can benefit by paying this debt is the debt collector. It is time barred for suit, it is time barred to be reported to the CRA's, and the money only goes to the debt collector who purchased the debt. Please do not get on a soap box and preach ethical issues when discussing debt collectors in the same sentences. Debt collectors are almost always unethical in their business practices. This is just my opinion.....
I was reading a debt collection site last night that said if the debt is beyond the SOL then the going rate is a penny or below per dollar. Oh sure let's fork out some cash to these scumbags.
OK, if you want to argue ethics. Has anyone ever ever wondered where the 7 year rule originated in the first place. Why 7 years, why not 5, or 20, or eternity? I will tell you. In the Judeo-Christian manuscripts, G_D established a "year of jubilee" which occured every 7 years in the jewish faith. It is outlined in the Old Testament and the Torah, in the law given to Moses. In the year of Jubillee all debts were to be forgiven by creditors without exception to members of the faith. This established a financial system where people had to manage thier loans and repay accordingly without charging usury and taking unfair advantage of the poor, or they would end up getting screwed in the year of jubilee. Jesus preached to forgive one another your debts/tresspasses as your father in heaven forgives your's. This statement can be expanded to include monetary debts as well as general evils such as murder, lying, stealing, etc... Religion being a normal societal benchmark for determing ethical behavior provides established ethical guidelines for members of a society to follow. So ethically/religiously it is not "right" for the creditor to demand payment after an established period of time (7 years). It shows a lack of forgiveness and good will to your fellow man. "Unethical b@stards!" lol P.S. I think Sears' primary problem is increased competition brought on by Walmart. Not credit card losses. Walmart has dramatically effected all department stores profitability. I also think the economic downturn was intiated with Sept 11, and low consumer confidence, not credit card defaults. Furthermore you stated that our country was founded on credit an earlier post? I think our country was founded on seeking religous and other forms of freedom. As I recall a well-established credit system was not developed untill well into the 20th century.
1.) Credit cards make up the bulk of Sears' revenue according to the article I read in the Wall Street Journal. 2.) Just because a bill is written off doesn't mean that the company recovered their loss. It just means that they take a tax break, which is not equal to the sum that was written off. Opie could pay the original creditor directly and they would in most cases accept the payment. As for the lawyer who purchased the debt, he has a legal right to the debt (unless the SOL has expired). And regardless of the case, Opie has a moral debt. 3.) I understand how and why the 7-year rule came into effect, but unfortunately our court system doesn't crucify people any more for simple crimes and we don't have public executions. Our society has evolved since those early days and a sense of decorum and morality and ethics is in place. Opie's not going to pay the debt any how, so it's kind of a moot point. Just be aware of how we all pay for the Opies of the world. And don't complain when interest rates go up, when the cost of goods go up and jobs go away to other countries. We have ourselves to blame. Hawg Hanner
Imagine, under Hawgs suggestion if our country was indeed founded on credit. John smith immediately would have established a credit card company when he got off the Mayflower and issued cards to the other pilgrims, but only after a careful review of each their FICO scores. The indians would be considered, but only for secured cards, since they had no previous credit history. Some of the less "respectible" pilgrims probably had to settle for Cap1 and providian cards...
hey everyone hawg is saying to pay all your debts no matter what the age. I think we have a CA employee here.3 days of posts. spy spy
also a little about "our founding fathers" a majority of them died broke or with excessive debt. those land-owning bastards tried to avoid paying debt by dying on their creditors!!!!!!! if it were me, i would have put a lien on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc, (that' sarcasm) humblemarc
Excellent conversation. And yes we should have it once in a while. Here's my question: Scenario; #1 Debt collector decides to put a fake $1000 debt on your credit file and will go through all manner of contortions to force it's collection, even knowing you don't really owe it. Scenario; #2 Debtor really does owe creditor $1000 and will go through all manner of contortions to evade the responsibility, even though you know you really DO owe it. Which of these 2 scenarios do YOU find most repugnant? #1, #2, or BOTH ???
Butch, It depends on which side of the wall you're on. If you're the consumer, scenario 1 is worst. If you're the creditor, scenario 2 is worst.
Hawg, The original creditor would probably not take the money because they do not own the debt any longer. The lawyer does. And if they did take the money, Opie would end up paying the OC and the Lawyer. That's not right. The credit card companies would have people believe that they are victims when people do not pay. But look at all the money they make off of everyone. I mean reaalllyy look at it. They make a killing. If they aren't happy with their bad debt then they should be pickier about who they extend credit to. They hold too much faith in the CRA's whose information is more often inaccurate than accurate. They make the decision to play the credit game just like the consumer does. Sometimes when you play you pay...... Hawg, Are you a debt collector? Because you are really starting to sound like one.
EXACTLY. Very few smart consumers shop at sears anymore. They have admitted to scamming thousands of their own customers. Most of these scams were for auto repairs or parts. There is a videotape of a sears executive taking old car batteries and cleaning them up and restocking them on the shelves as new. They've also done scams on people who buy appliances. Usually they charge extra fees when the service person delivers the item or repairs an appliance under "warranty". BTW did you know that the sears mngt. from about ten years ago now are in charge of ALLSTATE? One of allstate's execs was quoted as telling agents "you can take customer service and throw it in the trash". As far as the current economic troubles most economists will tell you that it is a business recession and not a consumer recession. Consumer spending is keeping the economy going. Christmas is around the corner. I won't be shopping at sears. I'll be going to costco, home depot, lowes, wal-mart etc. At least these stores treat you like a customer and not a piece of plastic.
No, I am not a debt collector, and frankly I am kind of put off by the suggestion that I am. Why is it so hard for people on this board to accept that I am a consumer like the rest of you (perhaps more conservative) who believes in paying my debts and others doing the same. I'm also concerned about the ramifications of people not paying their debts and how that affects my bottom line indirectly. Perhaps I'm too idealistic. I don't know. I just think that if my neighbor lends me his lawn mower, I should return it, even if it is still in my garage for 8 years. If this lawyer is trying to recover excessive fees up and above what is owed (e.g. anything up and above what is an acceptable interest rate), then I am not in favor of a credit collection company trying to take advantage of the consumer. I find that every bit as awful as the person who does not pay his or her debts. Frankly when I found this board (via FATWALLET.com) I was excited. I have been wondering if there was a place where like minded consumers could swap ideas on how to repair credit, maximize credit and save money (for obvious reasons). That's not exactly what I found. While the information I found here is very, very helpful, I'm concerned that there are a lot of people in our midst who are trying to avoid paying their fair share and meeting their obligations. Personally, and frankly, I find that dishonest and unethical. Everyone has their own motivations for what they do and I do not expect to understand everyone's situation, but please, boiled down to its most basic form, not paying back someone for something they used, whether it is a good or service, is wrong. I made some mistakes in my life. And while I figure that I'll make more mistakes in my life, I hope to avoid as many of them as possible. When I made a plan of attack for fixing my credit and doing what I could to maximize credit, I determined that it was high time that I also pay the piper. I had tradelines that were many years old and while I might have had ways not to pay for them, I decided the root of my problem was that I was not being RESPONSIBLE. If I was more responsible in college, I wouldn't have had to spend a year of my life improving my credit to a point where for the first time I could actually sign up for a credit card without the worry of having to be declined. I personally feel that if I don't have the mindset that if a person doesn't take responsibility for their actions, then they are destined to repeat those actions. And if those who take advantage of the system continue to get into trouble but can easily avoid paying for their debts via loop holes, then the system itself, which was created to protect consumers, will only be made tougher and tougher for honest people to succeed. Is that what you want? Couple that with my conservative ideology, I think you can begin to see where I'm coming from. I'm sorry I even brought the issue up, but I think this conversation is good. However, I'm resigned to the fact that I'm never going to convince those otherwise who think that its their right to get credit but not pay for it. As such, I guess I'll just let sleeping dogs lie and gather what information I can for my own use and not try to force my beliefs on those of you who don't want to hear it. I still think it's wrong, but I'll keep my opinions to myself. Hawg Hanner
