This whole thread is (in my opinion) VERY DUMB The point of this board is to give the advice and help that is asked for,not to question the "morality" of the person seeking help, or the "ethics" of the response. You can take ANY subject and pervert it from a "how do I do this" to a dissertation on the morality of even asking the question. If someone were to post a question in a cooking forum for a recipe for leg of lamb and be lambasted by the vegetarians in the newsgroup for even asking the question-- or perhaps a woodworking newsforum where a post asking for help about using certain types of wood would be treated to a harangue about disappearing rainforests-- or closer to the topic-- a forum for battered women where a response comes from a "conservative" about the sanctity of marriage. Let us all leave our judgmental attitudes, moralistic platitudes and sanctimoneous preaching where they belong, in our own lives and own families. If someone wanted ethical or moralistic advice about how they deal with their own responsibilities they wouldn't come here, and neither should those misguided boorish fools who seek to impose THEIR own personal values on others in order to justify their ideas to themselves.
I might note that in one way or another, the system makes you "pay" for seven years. Bankruptcy stays on a report for seven (or 10) years, unpaid accounts stay on reports for seven years. In a sense, debtors who don't pay their debts in cash are paying for them another way - by having to live with the punishment of a bad credit rating. Why are we so down on Opie, who paid off the bulk of his debts, and not stigmatizing those who declare bankruptcy and get all of their debts dissolved. (Not that I'm saying that we should persecute them.) But we pay more for each of the millions of bankruptcy filers than we do for the "Opies". Having already "paid" by having poor credit looming over him, why would he now want to pay money with the probable result that he will extend the existence of a nasty stain on his credit as his reward for being responsible? -ingenue
Actually, I tell people I am "getting out of debt", and that I need to "get out of debt" before I can buy X, Y, and Z. I'm getting out of debt by paying it all off, BTW. -ingenue
Back in the day when codpieces were the fashion, I believe they were also used as one's wallet. So I guess if you're broke, others would be able to tell by your slim balls. *giggle* -ingenue
Just some notes... The Sears issue is misleading. The relationship between paying debts and our general economic well-being is more complex than Hawg would have it. For example, opie doesn't pay Sears, but he takes the money and pays some other company, or buys some other product or service, which is good for the economy in general. For a variety of factors too complex to list here, it is probably slightly more efficient for the economy to pay debts than not, but only slightly. I suspect, though, that the argument could also be made that small-scale reneging on debts is actually good for the economy as well, as long as the broader issue of delinquency does not damage people's confidence in our economic system, of which I see no sign currently . Just keep in mind that the Sears example is anecdotal, and way too oversimplified to mean anything in a discussion of this type. (Sears, as someone else pointed out, is dealing with issues far more fundamental than CC debt, a field they got into as a way of supplementing their declining profits from retailing). Second, it "makes [Hawg's] blood boil" when people don't behave the way he wants them to? Learn tolerance, or you're going to be going through life with your blood permanently on fire. If you decided to pay your out of SOL debts, bully for you. That was your choice, you made it, now live with it, just as those of us who chose a different route live with ours (I live with mine a few thousand dollars richer, though). There are many times when I see people here talk about paying old debts, and I want to ask them why they bother, but I choose not to out of respect for their decision, and their right to make it. Too bad everyone can't follow that simple pattern. The bit about responsibility was touching: Hawg insults opie several times, and then suggests he's doing it for opie's own good, because if opie doesn't pay this debt, he's doomed to repeat the same patterns that got him into trouble. What a humanitarian. Of course, that is your belief, and you are entitled to it. Myself, I know people who have filed BK twice, and are now multi-millionaires. I know many people who have ignored debts and are now quite successful in life. Somehow, given the overall tone of your posts, I think the real issue you have is that other people are not paying debts that you chose to pay -- the rest of your arguments are there to rationalize your own resentment of that fact. Learn to deal with your resentments, preferably in a private manner. People have all sorts of different moral perspectives and motivations. Preaching yours belongs in church, not on this message board.
1*isn't this board about credit repair? Not about how to get out of paying a debt one legitimately owes? 2*I didn't think the board members here actually were interested in helping people get out of bona fide debts. 3* Before the validation process, how about agreeing to pay your debt in exchange for not reporting to the CRAs? (or deleting the negative information if they have? Wichita ================= 1*What do you consider a legitimate debt? 2*Again what is a bona fide debt? 3*This question is oversimplified. The issues are far more complex than black and white. LB 59
thanks for all thr responces i read every single thread i really appreciate it. a little more than i asked for. seems like im always getting myself is messes go figure! its been so embarressing all these years having bad credit, i just want it to end. thanks
I did read that sears acticle about how a huge amount of their chargeoffs are under $90. Why would anyone chargeoff an account under a lousy $90. My guess- Sears screwed them. This company has horrid customer service and their employees are often so rude I have stopped going to their store. I bet people just go so sick of this company they let the charge go and ruin their report rather than pay even a dollar on their card.
1*hes asking about validation as a way to get out of paying for something he acknowledges is his responsibility. 1***Dosent matter he has as much rite to validation as you do. 2*Some merchant out there is out some sort of money. 2***-No merchant is ever out the money when a CA don't get paid. 3*Maybe pay the original creditor after you've gone through the validation process, something. 3**This is not practical the OC can't always be the one to be paid. Another flaw in this is why pay an unproven debt?If you are going to do that why even bother to validate? +++++++++++++++++++++++ We have 3 newbies posting here with less than 60 post each who have been members for less than 30 days trying to tell us who have been here for months or years how it is. Many of us have read and or posted thousands of post. Perhaps after these 3 acquire more experience as we have their comments will be more creditable.
1*I don't see to many people reminding others of their obligations. There are a lot of honest, hard working people who are trying to repair their credit and I wonder out loud whether we should be helping those who are trying to avoid their responsibility. By doing so, we merely end up lumping everyone into that same category. 2*I wonder out loud whether we should be helping those who are trying to avoid their responsibility. 3*If Opie is able to have this item removed from his credit file, doesn't it make it more difficult for the creditor to get their money back? 4*Doesn't that remove a good bit of leverage they have to collect? 5-I hope we don't assist those who do not intend to make good on their obligations. 6-In doing so, we're merely increasing the cost of goods and services for everyone else. Hawg Hanner ========================== 1*That's because the board is about the legal aspects, we're not the moral POLICE. 2*That's not for us or you to decide. Every one is entitled to protection of the law regardless of their motives for utilizing them. 3* Sure it does as well it should be. If it can't be proved they don't have any money coming to them. 4*Exactly as it ought to. No leverage is need to collect an invalid debt. 5*Again the board isn't the moral police. 6*Please Give Me an accurate explanation of how Not paying a CA causes that.
1*what it is, remains to be seen .2* Helping Opie to avoid his obligations is not. 3*(2) protect the interests of the creditor, who is obviously owed money Hawg ====================== 1*Bingo - the purpose of validation. 2*There is no legal proof at this point he has a legal obligation. 3*It's not the consumers job to protect the creditor just as it's not the creditors job to protect the consumer.Look around you how many businesses are protecting your wallet? With out proper validation nothing is legally obvious, LB 59
Hawg, 1*The reason why validation is important is to make certain that the numbers on the "bill" are correct. 2* whatever money this CA were to get from opie would stay in their pockets and none of it would go to the original OC. 3*If opie were to pay this CA and then find out they were bogus (s)he would still owe the OC the original amt. 4*You've got a lot to learn about collection agencies and their tricks. hmongster ======================= 1*But Hawg seems to feel that OPIE should pay this without question. Hawg how many of us do you think ought to pay without proof just so that you can pay less for what you buy? 2*I'ed like to know how Hawg thinks paying CAs keeps the cost down for him? 3* Getting people like Opie to pay the same debts twice ought to get Hawg a big price reduction shouldn't it? 4*Don't he though? only the uninformed could make some of the statements he's Made. LB 59
Now a matter of semantics::::: Debt to dentist whose work was poor and teeth ultimately has to be extracted. Turns debt to CA who purchased the debt. They paid pennies on the dollar. Do I feel I owe them(the CA) the original amount? Absolutely not. SCMomof5 To Witch and Piggy ============================ Here is the way I see it Once it's sold I have no further obligation to the debt. At this point the OC has gotten all they are going to get out of the debt. It makes no difference to the OC wither I pay or not. Mom of 5, Another point about Your statement Above about the dentist. Why should The, CA make more than the dentist on the deal?? Piggy and Witch have a lot to learn concerning what it's all about don't they.? Once they wise up-which hopefully they do they will realize that every thing isn't either black or white as they now assume it is. LB 59
1*but your attitude makes my blood boil 2*If more people had an attitude like your own, that company would not be in business - 3*Why should I pay more for goods and services because you lack any responsibility for your actions? 4* the $1900 you owe? 5*This country was founded on credit. Hawg Hanner 1*I don't think it's Opie causing it, it's your misconception of the facts. 2*There are a lot of business that should not be in business because not enough people have his attitude. 3*How does Opies paying A CA an un validated debt that is past the SOL fulfill his responsibility to the OC?Also how does his paying or not paying a CA affect what you pay. i can see why your blood boils it's you turning up the heat not Opie. 4*I '' say the same to you as I would the CA ==Prove it. 5*Now I see that you are as misinformed about History as you are about consumer law! LB 59
1*For the simple fact that most creditors and collections agencies cannot validate an account or debt is the reason why they do not get paid what they claim we owe. 2* $5000.00 = FCRA/FDCPA State Violations $1900.00 = Claimed unvalidated debt $3100.00, make that check payable to Tac, ============================ 1*But Tac you can't go by law you have to go with a higher up like Hawg and the other two green horns and pay because they rule the law don't apply. 2*Tact its the 3100 only if the CA actually validates And the full 5000 if the debt was not validated.
LBrown, You're the only person keeping this thread alive (repeated postings to it in the past several days). I've put it to rest, could you do the same? Hawg Hanner
One does not have to fulfill their responsibilities Hawg Hanner =================== It's never been proven as yet than Opie has a legal responsibility in this matter. Your post are beginning to sound more like a collector than a collector do. LB 59 ************************ 1*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. HawgHanner ----------------------------------- HedgeHoge: Please explain to me one more time how folks failing to pay CAs caused this to happen to sears! lb59 ********************************** 1*Opie could pay the original creditor directly 2*and they would in most cases accept the payment. 3*As for the lawyer who purchased the debt, he has a legal right to the debt 4*Opie has a moral debt. HawgHanner =========================== 1*The issue is not he could but should he. 2*This is an excellent way for OPIE to wind up paying twice. I suppose you would be all for that however since you are deluded in your mind his paying it twice would lower your cost of goods and services. 3*When was that fact proven? Wow must have gone right by me so slow that I couldn't catch it! 4*Prove it. LB 59 *************************** 1*No, I am not a debt collector, and frankly I am kind of put off by the suggestion 2*that if a person doesn't take responsibility for their actions, HawgHanner ======================= 1*Walks like a duck quacks acts like a duck; must be a polecat 2*The thing you don't see is the credit industry is trying to make folks responsible for actions that aren't theirs. LB 59 ***************************
