My 2.9 Cents (Warning: Long)

Why apologize for voicing integrity wrt to how one handles credit card debt? You wrote an excellent post, and since this is a public forum, you're not breaking any rule in stating your opinion.

I hope that the future scoring models rate paid debts higher than unpaid debts. The jury is out on whether that is the case now, but I don't think so. But however the scoring models rate debts - I still believe a person's willingness to pay a debt if the money is available is the right thing to do.

 

Whenever possible, it's always best to pay a debt, even if you have to take a while to do it. Maybe there are no brownie points in the credit world for paid chargeoffs and collections, but there is self-respect, integrity and the satisfaction of knowing you did the honorable thing.

Sometimes circumstances are such that it's not possible to payand I understand that. It's really scary when the bill collectors are calling and there is no money to appease them. If money isn't coming in, sometimes there simply isn't any way to get caught up.

When I found myself in financial trouble, I did eventually get everything paid and it sure was a relief! I feel better knowing I did the right thing and I don't have to worry about any collectors coming back to haunt me.

Donna

 

I totally agree with you! I personally have never advised anyone to not repay something that is owed. Even if someone files bk - that doesn't mean that they can't go back and repay what was "written off". Afterall, in most cases the person sign a promise that they would pay the creditor back. And, as Donna stated, its a boost to your ego, and says alot about your integrity.

While I agree with everything you said - I'd like to take it a step further. I don't agree w/ all the "disputes" from people trying to get late payments deleted from credit reports....especially if it was from years ago - it doesn't even effect you anymore anyway, so why put yourself and the creditor through all that trouble. Besides - answer this question - "Is the information TRUE?". If it IS true, and you really did pay late, then why try to lie about it now?

Now if the information is truly inaccurate, then by all means dispute it. But I just don't like all the disputes for accurate information. Whats happening is all this is clogging up the system, and making people with LEGITIMATE disputes have to wait. Whats worse is that I'm afraid that this abuse of the system will eventually make it even harder to dispute inaccurate information......to the point that the burden of proof may eventually fall on the consumer, rather than the creditor.

Ok - sorry to ramble - but you just got me thinking.

Bingo

 

Bingo,

As I stated previously, whenever possible, a person should repay a debt. That's the honorable thing to do.

In terms of late pays, if I can get a creditor to agree to remove then...hehehe I'm no fool; I'm going to accept their offer. I've found that if I ask, especially if I've generally been a good customer, a creditor will make the deletion.

Haven't you ever been offered grace before. Perhaps someone, a friend or family member, forgave you for something you did and you didn't have to continue worrying or sufffering.

If, when I ask, a creditor is unwilling to ask for grace, then obviously I have to live with the consequnces. Admittedly, I've done my share of disputing. But I've also written letters to some of my creditors explaining why I had trouble paying a few years back. Crises do occur and we're not always prepared. In my case, I wasn't. What I did was get through things as best I could and try to clean up afterwards.

Not everyone here will agree but that's understandable. I'm comfortable with my decisions. To be sure, I learned from my experience and have done everything possible to avoid a repeat.

Gotta scramble. Friends just called us to meet them for dinner.

Donna

 

Eating the debt

Bingo:

I am not in the least offended by your post nor your opinions nor the fact that you used one of my favorite terms as a reference. As a matter of fact, I think you made some excellent points that I would like to comment on.

In all instances, economics dictates that, inevitably, WE the consumers will end up paying for
this debt if it's charged off. Particularly with credit cards, the more people who just "walk
away" from debt and make the CC companies "eat the debt", the more fees will be incurred by
future "higher risk" consumers, and the less apt that CC company will be to granting credit
and/or higher increases to consumers. Inevitably, businesses are in business to make money,
not to eat debt.

What you say above is absolutely correct and I must agree wholeheartedly. In the same vein of thought, it is no different than it is with shoplifting losses. We all must foot the bill one way or another in the end for the criminal acts of others or we will not long have the convenience of shopping at those merchants we like to shop at. They simply will not be able to stay in business if the losses they sustain are too great, no matter what sort of losses they may be. But like any other issue, there are two or more sides to every coin.

One of the other sides to the particular "coin" under discussion is the moral fabric of our society and that moral fabric is under attack at all times by the debtor and the creditor alike.
The average citizen, debtor or not, is a child of God who has endowed him with inalienable rights which have been recognized since the time of King Richard of England when in 1215 the Lords forced a despotic king to sign the document we know as the Magna Carta at sword point and recognize those God given inaleinable rights and to respect them. The Magna Carta and it's tenents have been recognized and ascribed to by every civilized nation on earth since that time and the constitutions of most of the nations on earth recognize that documents and the inalienable rights of man in at least one form or another. Our own constitution draws most of it's concepts from the Magna Carta and in fact amplifies greatly upon those concepts in it's attempts to construct the moral fabric of which I spoke above.

And it also recognizes that the citizen needs protection to keep our government and our companies from violating our rights and providing for a means of redress when we are wronged by either.

In other words, when we are wronged, we have a right to redress against our transgressors and I fail to see where demanding that a company "eat the debt" when it is already a lost cause and uncollectable for all practical purposes rather than facing court action and possible huge fines when they have transgressed against us and violated our rights is likely to cause them any great additional expense.

In your opinion, how is it that a debt that the company has already written off and taken a tax write off on is going to increase their costs of doing business if they can use that already lost debt to offset the costs of hiring an attorney, and going to court to defend themselves against an action for redress of greviances for their having violated the rights of others?

Especially when the person they have wronged has an almost air-tight case against them??

I think you will have a hard time indeed explaining that. The money is already lost. They already wrote the debt off as uncollectable and usually turned it over to a collection agency.

And on top of that, it is most likely that it will be the collection agency, not the original creditor who commits the illegal acts and ends up having to pay the price, not the original debtor. So how is it that forcing a collection agency who commits criminal acts to foot the bill will increase the costs of doing business for the original creditor? In most instances, it is the collection agency that commits the errors and ends up "eating" the bill, not the original creditor.

Can you explain how that might be so?


Therefore, at least in my mind, the right thing for ME to do was to pay the bills off.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Sir.



I'm not saying at all that I like the current credit system, in fact, I hate it. In my mind, I
should get credit for paying those bills off, particularly for the reasons stated above.
Good point. I must agree with that too.

However, those with "Paid Collections" in the number that I have typically are looked at as higher credit risks than those who were absolved of their debts and allowed to begin anew.

Well, again, we are a nation of laws and we must live with those laws as they are written right now, not as we wish they might have been written. We have to take what we have, make the best of them and work to make the situation better. Since we do not have the finances nor the time and usually not the inclination necessary to make our voices louder in the halls of Congress than those who would abuse us however they can then we have to work in a different way than they do. We have to use the laws forced upon us to attempt to make the system better. Showing those who wrote the laws that we are not happy with the results is the only way to get them changed to our benefit.

Making the system they invented work for us is our only option short of armed revolution and nobody wants to even think about that, much less advocate nor foment it. However, it is historically proven that a populace trodden upon by it's government and it's companies will eventually revolt against their oppressors.

One may scoff if they like, but when we actively force our abusers to obey the laws of the land and shoulder their responsibilities as they demand that we shoulder our responsibilities we are undermining neither our economy nor our social fabric but in fact are acting positively upon our constitutionall y mandated responsibilities as citizens of this great nation.

In parting, let us look at the words of the Supreme Court in American Communications Associatin v Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950) in which the Supremes ruled "It is not the function of our Governmetn to kep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."

Do you think it any less the duty of the citizen to keep some idiot employee of a collection agency from falling into error?

 

AJile,

I agree. I also agree with Donna and her position. If you ask the creditor for a favor and they honor it thats fine. You can ask for what you want but don't have expectations. When people who have had debt issues get that big "A....HUH" thats when things start turning around, regardless of where you're at.

To me it seems when you realize its not about the money, but about the beliefs and attitudes you have, you can begin to prosper from that moment. In my attempts to recover from bad credit there have been many stumbling blocks along the way that now looking back I can see they were necessary learning experiences. With every rejection and (those very few approvals) I know they have something to teach me. And thats what gives me assurance that I will eventually get back on top.

Mahalo,
PuuOoPaul

 

Ditto. That's how I got my 13 for 13 deletions. But I think "Bingo" was referring to people who dispute accurate information directly with the CRAs even when the creditor is not willing to delete.

Exactly. For a while, I thought I was the only person on this board who felt this way.