I've got my credit reports showing a "JR" next to my name. I am not a jr. Is info like "JR" an inaccuracy per se? I feel I should dispute all negative information on my credit report, including my bk, but the negative information is correct. Nevertheless, the 3 cra's are reporting my name wrong. but that is a technicality. This raises an ethical/moral question I was hoping the board may want to debate. Where do you draw the line at individual conscience when you try for a dispute resolution? Is it ethical, from the standpoint of individual conscience, to dispute negative but correct information on the basis of a technical error?
When I started my credit repair I disputed everything. You never know, they might keep an incorrect one on your report and take a correct entry off. I can't count on the CRA's to be moral and correct, so I deal with them in the same way. Bottom line, I disputed everthing, have 3 clean reports, and have no problem whatsoever going to bed at night. Matter of fact, I sleep a little better
I've won disputes on "technical" issues. The morality issue is something personal. I sparked a major debate on exactly this topic many moons ago. The bottom line, from my perspective is this: Creditors, CRAs, and CAs don't let morals stand in the way so why should I? I'm certain there are others on this board who will disagree.
Who is John Galt? I would dispute it. The less personal info you have on your CR, the better. And everything wrong on it should be deleted. Who knows, maybe someone is confusing you with a Your Name, Jr. out there somewhere. -ingenue
If someone has a negative on their report, they should try to get it off regardless. When you are closing on a mortgage and having that late payment removed from your record saves you thousands in interest, the ethical part doesn't really matter.
If the technical error involved is, in fact, an error - then it is not ethically wrong to dispute the error. The FCRA mandates that information be reported accurately and completely. I do think that it is unethical to dispute completely accurate negative information. In situations like this, I chose to work with the original creditor to have the items removed. And, so far I am 13 for 13.
If you had followed Ayn Rand's philosophy you would have sacrificed all to pay every last penny.instead of declaring BK. My personal ethical and moral decisions involve prioritizing my goals. If you put the family and personal value of clearing your credit at a higher level than what is "fair" for the collection companies and credit reporting agencies, then you will use every legal method of clearing your record,including disputing the "wrong name".
One question: Are you looking for the opinions of others or rationalization to justify your own actions? YOU should draw the line at the level of individual conscience that YOU are comfortable with. How can it ever be ethical to dispute correct info unless you are asking to update negative info with the corrrect negative info? BUT, if you ask me if it is right that correct negative info be reported for 7-10 years, my answer is NO and please get it off my report NOW.
Why no, WhyChat, I did use Ayn Rand's philosophy in deciding to declare bankruptcy. I used the principle of justice. Here's what I wrote a friend six months ago who was pondering the issue of declaring bankruptcy for medical bills, the same situation I found myself in three years ago. I will share the email with you and the group as to my ethics for declaring bk. I think bankruptcy laws are objective in principle. So long as one's behavior in breaching a contract is not criminal, the only remedy against that person is money damages, payable to the victim. Bankruptcy laws simply recognize that you can't get blood from a turnip. That is, when a man has so hopelessly fouled up his financial affairs that he has no more funds or prospect of making money in the near term, he simply *cannot* pay his debts (or damages that might be won against him in court). Short of imprisoning him for debt, an archaic (and self-defeating) remedy that has long been abandoned in our society, there is literally no way to achieve justice in this unfortunate situation. In such an event, it's to everyone's benefit that he be allowed a second chance free of old debt (or paying "cents on the dollar" for old debt). Otherwise, he might as well commit suicide, because he will never be able to survive if every dollar he earns must go first to pay the big debts he has accumulated. Having to pay back something so big that it has swamped him would sap his motivation for the future. Objective limits are necessary. You can't declare bankruptcy every six months. And you can't get rid of a debt (or liability for damages) if it's the result of intentional bad acts (such as fraud). These limits help ensure that bankruptcy does not become a cover for what amounts to criminal theft. But that's not much of a danger, because in every bankruptcy the debtor is ... well, bankrupt. He has nothing left. He's broke. What's the incentive for anyone to intentionally put themselves in that position? Just the pleasure of hurting other people financially? Not a likely motive.
Take a good look at your credit report, I will bet there are items being reported incorrectly that are causing your credit score to be lower than it should be. The "process" that you must go through to correct this is immoral, these companies are making millions and have no desire to contribute time and effort to resolve inaccuracies. The tactics these companies use to make a profit keeps millions of consumers from obtaining credit they deserve or causes them to pay more for credit than they should. Morals have nothing to do with this, this is pure business and nothing more, the CRA's are out to make maximum profit with minimum effort and consumers are out to obtain the best rate for their credit, no one is stealing or robbing citibank. We are simply using the same laws the CRA's wrote to help us. There are lots of people who can't get credit to rent an apartment, get a car, or make purchases that have been screwed by the CRA's and CA's. CA's make millions of dollars collecting on accounts from people who aren't even responsible for the account. (ie:single moms with thousands in debt after their husband left). These companies are using credit as a weapon against consumers. I have no problem using tactics within the law to make the best out of my situation.
{I think bankruptcy laws are objective in principle. So long as one's behavior in breaching a contract is not criminal, the only remedy against that person is money damages, payable to the victim. Bankruptcy laws simply recognize that you can't get blood from a turnip. That is, when a man has so hopelessly fouled up his financial affairs that he has no more funds or prospect of making money in the near term, he simply *cannot* pay his debts (or damages that might be won against him in court). } Not everyone has "hopelessly fouled up" I had a business partner "blow" our business up his nose while I was on vacation, instead of declaring bk I chose what I thought was the "right" thing to do and paid off my business debts. All at the expense of my personal credit. After becoming more enlightened, I now know that this was incredibly stupid. I will never make that mistake again and when given a chance to make my current situation better (ie an inaccurate tradeline) I will do so.
As individuals we each have our own level of what we consider unethical or immoral. I have always played by the rules. I have never disputed inaccurate information. Then again I have led a very blessed life with little, or no trauma, so I don't agree with a persons ethcial code that is different from mine. But I don't preach about it either. As long as we can stand seeing ourselves in the mirror each morning and living everyday as it comes I don't think it is someone else's job to tell us what we are doing wrong (or condone us for it). I can silently disapprove, but it is not my right to tell others what is bad or good, black or white. Dani
O.K. Heres my 2 cents. Greenspan said something about bk during the .com washout that is relevent. Its not an exact quote... Capitalism is designed to take capital from the less efficent hands and place it where it can be used to greatest efficency...This is free market at its best.... you are free to rise or fall based on your ability... so if the .coms couldn't make a go at it and failed they probably went to work for someone else who could make it or on to new careers...maybe something simpler or better suited to their abilities... Bk is built into the system.. there will always be bk. It is compassionate, really. As long as it doesnt become an excuse for irresponsable behavior. Even the biblical laws talk about freeing debtors from their debts after 7 years if the load is keeping them oppressed. Similar concept to Greenspans bk(who was in Rands inner circle at one time). Oppression doesnt allow the intellect to grow and develop. Bk or the sabbatical laws were designed to allow the human to become a productive person again. Excessive debt that makes a person non-productive and hopeless is not moral. That said, I think people in the last decade became very indulgent and some have crushing debt for reasons other than medical problems, ect. and many arn't willing to struggle with challanges and concequences of their actions...
An objectivist that followed Ayn Rand's teachings might leave this whole society behind and fly off to a utopia of strict reciprocation high in the mountains. I love the objectivist philosophy but don't believe it can be adhered to in its strictest interpretation in this society. The way big-business and government is run, the value of some goods and services can be artificially inflated. Individuals who meet their prescribed "obligations" end up worse off than the people who ignore them. On this unlevel playing field, it is difficult for the inflexibly principled objectivist to prosper (and sometimes, to survive). For example, in an objectivist society, would I really need to pay a years' salary (or several years of all discretionary income) for a week-long stay in a hospital? -ingenue
Excellent post, Hermit5. I could tell that Greenspan was a "randy" guy from your first paragraph. He's also an economic demigod. -ingenue
Okay, more blabber from me to answer your question, Mr. Galt. Definitely get the "Jr." taken off, it shouldn't be there. If your conscience is bothering you, you should give serious thought as to whether you truly believe the negative correct listings on your credit report are unjustly punitive. When I consider the usurous interest rates creditors can justify using your past indiscretions against you, I lean towards answering "yes". Also remember, these negative notations on your report are supposed to be a warning for those who do not want to extend credit to those with recent late pays or bk's on their record. When these things "fall off" your report, you are officially "rehabilitated" from your "reckless" money management and have become a good credit risk. Do you feel that you are already "rehabilitated" and ready for early parole for good behavior? Do you forsee any "parole violations"? I guess the point of my blabber is this: If you're purpose (in deleting the correct negative notations on your credit reports) is to run up new debt and default again, then a deletion campaign is definitely unethical. If your purpose is to establish a responsibly managed financial portfolio with creditors that won't take advantage of you with the "deadbeat" label, then it's a matter of motivated self-interest. -ingenue "You see, she's perfect in this immoral world."
Oh, this is good... I won't repeat my story in this thread....but, let me say this.... Your morals and ethics won't get you a loan, a better rate, or a better credit card...but a higher credit score will. After the late pays/wife's Ch 13 discharge circa 1996, I (not being in the financial field at the time) allowed correct negative information to remain on both of our bureaus--but, after this same negative information dogs you year, after year, after year--well, you just get used to being a second class citizen, figuring you're really not one of the "good people" who pays his/her bills. And--in the midst of circa 1999/2000, picture yourself going to your local friendly bank in the town you've lived in since 1975, and being turned down for a small, used auto loan because you "haven't been at your job long enough" (oh, I see: 5 years at my previous job and 16 months at this one? Sure...) And, in my current job, I see A LOT of peoples' credit bureaus in this same said home town (I lend a half hour away), who's reports--when compared to mine and the wife's at their WORST, have more lates, charge-offs etc--and yet these people are somehow "worthy" at my local friendly bank. My disdain builds. Then, picture wanting to put siding on your house, and turning to Greenpoint for financing, and have the woman on the other end say "I must say, Mr. Applicant, you and your wife have certainly re-established yourselves in the last 4 or 5 years..." I damn near cried. Don't remember the payment, the interest rate, or even the term, but that sentence will stay with me til I check out of this world. Had I been SMART, and credit educated, I would have disputed all that crap off years earlier--correct, not correct; I wouldn't have cared. Morals? Ethics? Please. If people can file Chap 7's in one year and have a clean bureau the next? More power to 'em. Oh, and the local bank? Revenge will be mine (my wife accuses me of having a memory like a [pink]elephant)....2 or 3 years down the road, I'll put in an app to refi the house--maybe even sign the docs--then rescind during the 3 day period...."oh, I'm sorry, did I waste a lot of everyone's time here? How simply DREADFUL of me--guess I better be careful where I sling this 750 FICO around at--it could put somebody's eye out". Cheers, David
Some of her books have essays in them by him on the gold standard. "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal", I think.
