Okay, I need to stop going over there, but I just can't~ http://www.collectionindustry.com/templates/content/discussion/discussion.cfm Christine Baker, whom many know from Bayhouse.com, posted a message there. Basically it was her note that she has on her website that tells collectors and creditors why people are litigious and want to ensure 100% accuracy. The debate of last week regarding DebtCollector01 was also confronted by some people like bbauer and others. Go read what she had to say. So, read "Tuffy's" response to Christine. What do you guys think? This was one of her responses: Christine, There is a fundamental flaw in your logic. Why should someone with unpaid bills {some prehaps years old} suddenly decide to pay on the condition that all is forgiven? All actions in life have consequences. Good actions good consequences and bad actions have bad consequences. Why should a deliquent debtor be placed on the same playing field as some one who has consistenly paid there bills on time and in the agreed amounts? Why should people with a poor payment history reap the benefits of good credit because they finally decided to pay when, those who pay there bills when they are supposed to get no credit or acknowledgement for doing the right thing? Lenders need to be aware that people who pay late have a predispostion to not honor there agreements. And, they need to be able to identify those who go through life honoring there commitments and price credit accordingly. Thank you for the suggestion about contacting our representaives. I've already emailed both Senators ....
Thanx RBlues, I was hoping you'd post this. I've been waiting for ou to do it. I am so sick and tired of DebtCollector01's BS!
I think Tuffy's response is very one-sided and narrow-minded. I think the key here is "intent"... She seems to be only refering to the people who have no intent to pay their bills on time or at all for that matter, by which she is "ASSuming" that all people who don't pay their bills are irresponsible or whatever he exact words were. Some people want to, but can't. The intent is there, but unfortunately, the funds might not be. Why is that so hard for some people to swallow??
I agree that her response was also one-sided. I mean, the whole point that Christine was trying to make was that the FICO system is unfair and basically (to quote George) a RNG. People like Tuffy are the ones who are most likely to have terrible scores, because they think they are immune to the FICO system, just as long as she pays on time. There are just so many other factors.
None of them even came close to answering the question (asked twice I believe), which was: What is the incentive to pay if the end result to your score is the same (bad) or worse. The "Right is right" and "fair is fair" Bulls**t, is just that. Fair would be, that a paid collection would not effect your score nearly as much as it does now. Thus incenting someone to pay. But it'll probably never happen.
