public accountant (no jokes please) allen074 =============== Many if not most accountants are as naive about what goes on behind the scenes in the financial world as is the average U S common citizen. ------------------------------------ SORRY TO SAY THIS IS NO JOKE. -----------------------------------
Kindly refrain from misrepresenting my position(s). Hawg --------------------- Sorry Hawg;That was not my intention.I was just trying to point out the similarities in yours and Allens opinions
whats funny is that hawg and myself got into it a couple weeks ago.. people dont like the fact that i tell it like it is... no sugarcoating from this yankee bottom line is if you cant do the paying, dont do the buying (it almost rhymes!) you got people on here who are going to claim bankruptcy who are paying over $500 a month for a car. anyway im a nice guy and will do anything for anyone that i can... heck i run a free help site where im lucky if i make enough to cover the costs every month
2) Just because I owe the money doesn't mean that they get to break the law in their attempts to get me to pay it. 3) There are a lot of people out there who DON'T know their rights under the FDCPA and FCRA, and every time that I just roll over and pay the money without making them adhere to the law, I'm making it worse for the next guy they try to collect from because it only adds to their arrogance. 4) If I make them obey the law, through a lawsuit or a settlement that includes deletion in exchange for me not suing them, it's possible I may have made the road a little less bumpy for that next guy because they may think twice before pulling the same tactics with him - in fear of reaching yet another educated consumer. waalien ================= 2-4*Very well put.
Remember, say you default with Citibank... now citibank has to make up for that some way... they cut jobs, they raise rates, lower service levels, etc. allen074 ============ I will ask you the same question I asked Hawg about this. Hawg never gave me a direct answer so perhaps you can explaine it. How Does paying a CA instead of CitiBank help CitiBank recover the funds you owed them? ? ? ? ? [/B
. It shouldn't anyway in most FDCPA lawsuits, but you always run the risk of getting a judge like Allen here. lyttlemac ================== There are two many ALLEN JUDGES in the courts who rule by how they wish rather than enforcing the law.
1*people dont like the fact that I tell it like it is. 2*bottom line is if you cant do the paying, dont do the buying ALLEN =============== 1*I know the feeling: That's why I get put on ignore around here,that and the fact that what I say don't always tickle some folks ears. 2*This has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
lbrown59 wrote: "How Does paying a CA instead of CitiBank help CitiBank recover the funds you owed them?" This is so simple it's obvious. Perhaps I've given you the answer but you chose not to accept the answer. If a customer defaults on a loan or sum of money owed to CitiBank, they will attempt to collect. If they are unsuccessful collecting, they will (1) sell the debt to another company (e.g. CA) and then (2) write off the balance. The order in which they do this is dependent on their accounting methods of approach (but that is neither here nor there). If the CitiBank customer collection rate was HIGHER, they would not have to sell the past due accounts receivable for a loss. RESULT: More money for creditor. If the CA collection rate was HIGHER, CitiBank could sell its past due accounts receivable for a higher price and thus write off less. If CitiBank writes off less of a loss, its stock price goes up, its cost to borrow money and pay for bonds goes down, etc. What is so difficult about this to understand? But more importantly, paying for goods or services that one consumes is just plain the right thing to do. If everyone failed to pay for the goods or services they used or consumed, our economy as we know it today would not exist and chaos would ensue. And in my opinion, to do do that is nothing short of theft. Hawg Hanner
I have decided to move to China where there is no fico.. i just woke up and see that now judges are ALLEN JUDGES goodness! btw i woke up on the same side as yesterday... LOL
I have decided to move to China where there is no fico.. i just woke up and see that now judges are ALLEN JUDGES allen074 =========================== Might not be a bad idea especially if you take the Allen judges with you. LB 59 L O L Again
If a customer defaults on a loan or sum of money owed to CitiBank, they will attempt to collect. If they are unsuccessful collecting, they will (1) sell the debt to another company (e.g. CA) and then (2) write off the balance. The order in which they do this is dependent on their accounting methods of approach (but that is neither here nor there). If the CitiBank customer collection rate was HIGHER, they would not have to sell the past due accounts receivable for a loss. RESULT: More money for creditor. If the CA collection rate was HIGHER, CitiBank could sell its past due accounts receivable for a higher price and thus write off less. If CitiBank writes off less of a loss, its stock price goes up, its cost to borrow money and pay for bonds goes down, etc. What is so difficult about this to understand? HawgHanner =================== You are correct in the above were it the way things work out , but in the real world it's not working out that way.59 Perhaps there are other better ways, if so lets pursue those rather than tagging consumers as imoral.unethical ETC. LB If the CA collection rate was HIGHER, CitiBank could sell its past due accounts receivable for a higher price and thus write off less. HawgHanner =================== The way to do this in not for the CAs to ride rough shod over consumers while breaking every law in the books. CAs obeying the law is all this thread is about -nothing more nothing less. The morals and motives of the consumer are another matter entirely and a completely differenf subject. So please lets keep this thread on topic. LB 59
You replied to my answer with more hyperbole. The simple truth is that people who use and consumer goods and services should be paying for them. Not to do so hurts the business they took from. Attempting to avoid one's responsibility to pay for goods or services is nothing short of theft. Hawg Hanner
The problem is this The system is designed to hurt the consumer who is in trouble. Say Joe Schmoe has a good job, pays his bills and has good credit. He's rolling along, not overextended at all. He gets T-boned at an intersection, and is hurt bad. (Or gets hurt on the job, his wife gets cancer, his kid gets sick, he loses his job...whatever) - OK he has insurance that can pay the bills, he has some savings to tide him over in case of lost job, he has safeguards in place. Then something goes wrong. Insurance company balks and he has to sue. (Unemployment goes on too long, or whatever). He (his family) uses credit just to get by until things get straightened out. Pretty soon he is using one credit card to pay on another. His credit card companies see the snowballing debt and jack his rates to kingdom come. So, he calls explains and asks for hardship program. A couple of the CCC's agree, but a couple of them don't. He finally defaults. By this time his family has little left, and they are struggling to get by. His credit is shot. Collection calls start. He still isn't back to work, still has medical bills or whatever. The debt continues to snowball because the CCC's anticipate a write-off. In order to maximize their situation they need to get the amount of the debt really, really high. They have more to write off, and more to sell to CA. Then each debt is written off and sold to CA. Joe is still not back at work. All his assets have been exhausted. No one sues because there is nothing to take. Joe finally recovers, gets another job, and begins to get back on his feet. CA's have put his debt collectionss on the back burner because he is such a deadbeat. Every now and then one of the debts gets sold, and he gets a letter and some calls, but they eventually go away. Joe struggles to regain the ground he has lost. Maybe the new job isn't as good as the one before, maybe it is. It's entirely likely that in some occupations his bad credit prevents him from having a position of responsibility. He makes less than he did before. Several years have gone by, the bad stuff begins to fall off his report, there are no collection calls, only a few derogs, and he wants to rebuild his credit rating. So he accepts a preapproval for a secured card (or a Providian or whatever). The inquiry triggers the collection agencies, and they all crawl out from under their rocks and start after him. He has just been through a hell NOT of his own making, and now it starts again. But Joe finds creditnet. He learns that these debts are past the SOL and he does not have to pay them. We all hold his hand while he fights th CA's off, in an effort to keep his reports THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE - CLEAN. His time in hell is over, he should no longer be penalized for what has occurred. He wishes he could have taken care of these debts when his troubles started but no one would work with him. He never intended to default. Then he gets a particularly intransigent CA after him - they see his mortgage app, they see his good job, and they want money. He posts about what he suspects is a violation of the FDCPA, hoping that it is so he can make these vultures go away and get on with his life. The vultures re-age the debt, and send him nasty letters. They call him at work and jeopardize his employment. And the response he gets on creditnet is , "hey man, you owe this money, pay up, you are damaging our economy. You should pay your bills. You are a bad person...." Excuse me, the bad entity in this scenario is the CCC who refuses to give him hardship, and jacks his rate to where the debt is impossible to pay, in order to write off more. It is the CA who is out to ruin him again, even though the debt is past the SOL. It is the CRA who continues their notification service to the CA's. It is the CRA who refuses to accept disputes. It is those who ignore the law, while hiding behind it. It is not wrong to use their own weapons against them The system is broke. It preys on consumers who never intended to default. The Bible says "judge not that ye be not judged" and in Matthew in one of the parables Jesus said "get the telephone pole out of your own eye before you go picking at the splinter in someone else's" (paraphrased). 12 step programs say "who are you to take someone else's inventory? Keep your own house clean and let the other guy worry about his house." I'm sure there are many other religions and programs that add to this point of view. I, for one, am tired of seeing these posts asking for help being answered by Hawg and his ilk. Who do you think you are??? If you don't want to help someone, then just mind your own business.
Re: The problem is this I'm not saying that the system doesn't suck. That's not the issue though and your position as such is nonresponive, leading me to believe that you're looking for excuses for not paying some bill in your own past. With all due respect, it took you 2000+ words to make your point. What I'm saying is that if you purchase a good or service, you are obligated to pay for it. Does that mean you should pay unreasonable interest or legal fees? No, that's not what I'm saying. Does it mean that the consumer should be beaten over the head even though they are in no position to pay at the moment? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that if you take possession of goods or services, you should pay for them. It's that simple. It's a basic pillar of what is considered fair and good in any culture through any time in history, regardless of what you purport...and frankly, it makes sense. Arguing otherwise is pure insanity. Too often our society places blame on others. Too often we are given the ability to not live up to our responsibility. People who deliberately try to avoid making good on a contract for the purchase of goods or services is a thief. Hawg Hanner
Re: The problem is this Thanks Breeze for taking the time to put that message together. I totally understand your point and I think that the system sucks too. Last year I had to leave town for 2 mos. I missed one amex payment and they jacked me to 29.99% interest on my 3700 balance. No matter what I do they wont lower it. I also totally understand about the ability to not pay due to unforseen circumstances. And you are right, if the law says x thing needs to stay on your cr for x years, after x years it should be removed or you should sue. When I was in college I amassed over $14k in cc's. My best friend did the same thing. He filed for bk and today 7 yrs later owes 0 and has a better credit score than I do. I on the other hand have done everything I can to pay them off. It pisses me off that he walked away without paying a damn dime. Please do not label me as Hawg's ilk. I stand for my own views and principles. I do not know Hawg and most of the time do not agree with him. Thanks Breeze, I hope we can continue this conversation so I can learn more about why and when we do the things we do. It is this type of conversation that allows me to learn more about this subject. I appreciate it. Thanks, Allen
