Re: ok...let's get a debate started Well, for what it's worth, some of us who choose to pay the debt collectors also put family first. At least I feel like I put my children and my wife first. I'm just having trouble equating paying off debt with not putting family first. While that may have been the case in your situation (which I certainly respect), you need to understand that this isn't the case in all situations. I *do* put family first, and I decided to pay off my debts in full -- the two aren't always mutually exclusive. I just had the eerie feeling that you were suggesting that perhaps I devalued my family because of the course of action I chose. Doc
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Talking about your car situation reminded me of the night I got the call that my father was not doing well in the hospital and I needed to get there (CO to TX). With no credit cards, no debit cards, and a 15-year-old clunker, no money for a plane ticket or a bus ticket, I remember the panic. I was prepared to walk. There are just times when it is impossible. Then, two months later, found ourselves unexpectedly in the same situation when hubby's younger sister passed away. In addition to all of this, I paid the debts that were mine. But, I refused to pay the debts that ex-troll's wife used my SS# to get. She literally had me responsible for their engagement ring. Uh, no! That's true. And, I refuse to pay the ex-troll's bills, yes.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Doc, I have a file cabinet full of debts that I paid. I have about 5 paid collections that reported and about 12 others that didn't. I don't have any disrespect for those of us that chose to clear it up. Frankly, I wish I COULD pay them off and just be done with it. Unfortunately, circumstances do not allow this. I have both shoes on. I have paid collections and unpaid collections/chargeoffs. I don't loose any sleep at night wondering when the phone is going to ring, or when I'm going to get a letter in the mail. I have a clear conscience about my debt. They couldn't collect it in the time the SOL allowed because I didn't have the money to pay it. Am I worried about it now? NO.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Doc, not a problem with the whatever...as that is my nick......actually thought of changing it since it gives the perception of "not caring." But to get into that nick and why I choose it....well let's not. As for your question about having a problem with paying off your debts....no problem here, wish I could, but can't. People do what they can at the time and make those decisions based on what they have at the time. Not that I can speak for tmitchell, but when I decided to provide for my family first...meaning shelter, which was renting and still is, food on the table and medical insurance, the choice was easy. Pay the collector or the things important for survival? Medical insurance was a MUST. Shelter was a must and moving to a cheaper place was not possible. Let's just say that my credit may suck and I chose to default on some loans, but I always paid my rent on time, never late, never a bounced check. So NO, I did not lose sleep over choosing my priorities.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Doc, I think tmitchells' situation and yours, were entirely different. It sounds like you had the resources to pay the debts AND take care of your family at the same time. In tmitchells situation, it appears that he didn't. It sounds like he had xx amount of dollars and did what thought best at that time. BTW, as far as I'm concerned, there is no prejudice here against those that pay their debts. In fact, I think it's the right thing to do, but, it is not always possible. Some people just say the hell with it and don't care. For most of the people here, I choose to believe if they could pay, they would.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Well, just in case somebody thinks I'm disagreeing with the family-first priority, I'm not. I'm a DaveRamsey.com fanatic (great site, by the way), and I completely concur with Dave that these needs must be met before paying any creditor: 1) FOOD, 2) SHELTER, 3) UTILITIES 4) ESSENTIAL CLOTHING, 5) FUEL and TRANSPORTATION. If those things aren't met, then forget about paying for credit cards. The problem, of course, is that some people believe that "transportation" means continuing to make payments on that 2001 Lexus. Others may desire to be house-poor (keeping a home that is way beyond their means). Still others are income-poor (they need to get a second job temporarily until they get back on their feet). That said, I'm for having a good time too. All work and no play can drive you over the edge. Anyway, I completely concur with paying credit card debt dead last, so I don't think we disagree. In any event, I don't disagree with the idea of exercising ones federal rights and asking every creditor to prove the debts. My point is to defend a couple of things: 1) Oftentimes those who pay their debts are disparaged on this board as stooges or, at best, as accomplices to CAs, a prejudice I vigorously and obviously oppose. 2) The idea that those of us who were able to pay off our debts through rearranging our lifestyles, selling things, etc., means that somehow we didn't put our families first is anathema to me, and I wanted to speak out regarding that. Doc
Re: ok...let's get a debate started OK out on a limb here and holding on for dear life as well... In my experiences and reading of these type of boards, there seems to hold some themes that repeat themselves. You have those that made a few mistakes and never had nothing more than a few annoying phone calls and a bit a stress to their lives. This could either change their way of thinking and actions, or they repeat the same behavior again. A perfect example is the few that I have known to file BK and look at it as "the fresh start" that BK lawyers proclaim it to be. Only to file and return to the previous state that got them to file in the first place. Then you have those that end up in financial hell, sometimes thru actions of their own but not intentional or thru some hard, unexpected times. Those that live within the paycheck that offers the credit or those that live within the paycheck that they know they can pay back. I had, at one time, the combined income to live way beyond the means we were living. I applied for credit based on the lower income of one person. The CL's and min. payments were well within a budget. But that can change and it did. That 10-20 dollar min payment was food on the table. Trying to explain the situation to the debt collector resulted in the "when are you sending in payment?" response. They were not only refusing to work with me, but to belittle me, for something I had no control over at the time. What I needed was some time to make changes, not some jerk trying to make his commission for the month. I was brought up to believe that good credit was worthy. I even made payments along the way to these uncaring jerks. to preserve this good credit that I was supposed to have. In the meantime, I was taking away from the necessities of life. This was not a time of I need some new clothes, this was a time of I need to pay rent and have some food on the table. These were second in line to having health insurance. So I screwed up by placing other things in priority over the things that were necessary and I pay for it by 7 years of bad credit. I could have had a shorter sentence by commiting a misdeamnor.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Why would anyone care whether another persons decides to pay? Personally, generally speaking, I believe people should pay their debts, if they can. Their in-statute, still with OC, perhaps turned over for collections, not-written-off debts. Or, if they have the means and can get it back to the OC, any debt not out of statute. And, I think the person is crazy not to use any leverage they have to get the account reported favorably. Once a debt has been written off, and is past a certain point (depending on how it has been handled) the "system" is designed so that it penalizes the person who pays, and lets the person who doesn't pay off the hook. At that point, I believe the individual has a right to make the choice that is in their own best interests. Period. It is the system that is faulty, not the person's choice. For those who choose otherwise, knowing all the options - that's fine with me. I still always suggest that if it is a matter of conscience with the individual, they consider the option of giving it to someone who needs it, like donating it to a worthy charity, or something else that does people good. But if they need to pay the collector in their own mind, then that is what they should do. I would not dare judge anyone for anything they honestly decide to do. Or even dishonestly decide, for that matter. They are the ones who have to live with it, not me.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started I had to change what I wrote...cuz I was thinking and yes, I have seen this. I apologize for earlier post, I was in error. Wow, first mistake of my life... ROFL
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Well this thread got me started...... As for your statement Doc that paying your debt thru whatever (see there that word is) means you can, sets you up for a predeterimined prejudice is wrong. It is great to see that debt can be paid off thru hard work and some self sacrifice. But there are those that can and do. I just happened to fall into that category of wanted but couldn't and had to make choices. My choices at that time were based on what I had available as well at that time. Those that couldn't like me, feel they have to defend themselves for their choices at that time.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started I have no prejudice against those who pay off their debts. I wished at the time that I could have but simply couldn't. I have no issues with anyone on this board who has (or has not) paid their debts. My whole problem is that the original story just sounds too made up. That's just my take on it. Think about it - is there a CA out there that's "in it to help the consumer"? Please, CAs are in business to collect debts and make money - not help consumers. And that is exactly what this person is trying to pass themself off as. Bogus
Re: ok...let's get a debate started LOL, NanaC, that was my intention -- to alter the sensitivities here just a notch if I could. In our society those who don't pay debts (often because of horrible circumstances) are often unfairly criticized -- IRRESPECTIVE of the circumstances. And, as we know, those circumstances are sometimes tragic and completely beyond ones control. Regardless, sometimes overextended debtors are treated horribly, stigmatized, and generally abused. This leaves them angry -- and understandably so. But... sometimes... it leaves them irrationally angry. Some (not all) actually BUY INTO the abuse they've received, so they begin to defend against what becomes a "truth"... i.e. "You should feel guilty for not paying your bills." I don't believe that, but unfortunately that becomes internalized. THEN, the individual defends against that by... ATTACKING THE VERY IDEA OF PAYING BILLS, lol, as somehow against the moral fiber. Paying bills becomes the moral equivalent of: 1) not putting family first, or 2) supporting nasty collection agencies, or 3) becoming an accomplice to the evil FICO conspiracy, etc. Those who were fortunate enough to pay their bills, or chose to rearrange their lives and sacrifice so that they could do so, become a threat to the self-esteem of those who did not. And on and on. Raising these issues can actually become therapeutic: 1) Not paying bills is perfectly ok. In fact, several respectable laws make that possible, including: a) unvalidated debts are not owed, and b) the bankruptcy option. 2) There is nothing immoral about exercising ones right to not pay an unproven debt. That being the case, one doesn't even need to "buy into" the social stigma and say things like, "I don't lose sleep," etc., lol. 3) Since not paying the bill can be perfectly fine if exercised within the context of ones civil rights, there's no need to be angry with those who do manage to pay their bills. 4) If one truly believes he's okay, then there's no need for anger. 5) Anger shaves years off your life. (This is a well-documented and statistically proven fact. The life expectancy of people who measure high in anger have been compared with that of those who measure low in anger. Guess who lives longer...) Whenever I see that old defensive anger that comes from actually buying into the stigma that society unfairly places on debtors -- which takes the form of defending against the "truisms" -- I like to confront it. In this case, I did it by attempting to get others to consider that buying into the prejudice actually stigmatizes all of us -- including those of us who paid our debts. Doc P.S. tmitchell: if you want to keep discussing that woman, then you're missing an opportunity for a different sort of debate -- the kind of discussion that casts away some unhelpful and unfair social stigma. That woman may well be lying for all we know; but the issues raised by her post can naturally be discussed at the next level without getting bogged down into a discussion of her bogus-ness, lol. (Bogosity?)
Re: ok...let's get a debate started But, Doc, may I add, and oh, boy, this could be a proverbial can of worms on my part.. there are some I listen to intently, and some who, er, make one-line statements and seem to be as judgemental as the supposed collector that started this whole thing, and well, er, I don't listen to so intently (...or at all)...and I believe I've seen those kinds of comments primarily from the latter...er, ahem..er so, because I need to overlook some comments and only pay attention to others, well, er, ah, it seems like that's not a commonly held belief on this board... Oh, sheesh, that was a mess but I bet you get the idea, huh? And, IMHO, bogusositivism (LOL) or um, lying
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Well of course you're exactly right. What I'd like to see is a situation where all Creditnet members come to understand that they are as morally righteous (or not) as anyone else. Validation was not some quasi-legal tactic invented by a website as a deadbeat maneuver. It is a federally-mandated right which was constructed to protect consumers. Validation is a civil right. It is a morally correct exercise. And so is paying ones debts, lol. Doc
Re: ok...let's get a debate started Doc.... It's not that I wish to continue discussing the woman. My original replies were in the contaext of that woman's situation. I think you took some of my posts as directed at you and they were not. I'm just explaining my points as they pertain to the original post. As far as I am concerned, there is no debate regarding stigmas. It is perfectly legal to not pay an unvalidated debt and there is not, from my perspective, any stigma associated with it. I also harbor no ill will towards those who pay their debts. As for the morality of such cases, you really can't argue it - morality in and of itself can only be defined by each individual. Thus, there are millions of different moral standards - not just a single standard.
1* Directly or indirectly just about everyone else is so you don't need to feel alone. 2*CA always put you in one. 3* You and others as well. 4* This is inexcusable and totally uncalled for. 5* Yeah: Don't they ever get real? 6*Wouldn't do you any good if you had one ! How would you get a loan on it with trashed credit ?? They say they want their money yet do every thing they can to see to it that you can't get it. I have never figured that one out !
Doc, I think I've read every single post from this board, since inception lol. I really don't see where you get the idea that someone who pays legitimate debt is held is shorter regard than those who don't.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started I too think she sounds like a good person, although I personally think there are other jobs one could choose that would better enable them to help folks in trouble. I don't think anyone looks down at those who pay their debts, although let's get serious CA'S are notorious for using under handed collection techniques. adding interest and other charges they are not entitled to, and being downright abusive. People generally do what their heart tells them is right, but it tends to go both ways..some people are genuinely dishonest, and some collector's are snakes in the grass.
Re: ok...let's get a debate started If the debate is a morality one...I think the morality of what one person does vs another is a moot point. I explained morality very simply to my daughters when they were entering adulthood...basically the golden rule and every morning you have to look at yourself in the mirror...if you're happy about the person you see then you're doing ok. We have all had or have known someone that has had unfortunate circumstances happen to them...if during that time you are additionallt penalized by usurious fees and interest on your debt...then you deserve to use the tools that are available by law to help combat them. I worked for one of the largest banks in the country as a corporate officer...and let me tell you they are making money! If you know anything about the way banks make money...the "multiplier effect" in essence....you would know that very every dollar you deposit the banks get $9 from the feds to "loan" out...the banks pay the interest rate to the feds at the lowest and charge 100s of basis points above that in order to make money. Credit cards are just another way to lend money...and even at 9.9% it is still 100s of basis points above what they are paying. Now is this an excuse to not pay what you owe....no it is not....but serial "deadbeats" are not the people here who are trying to cure their problems...they are too busy trying to figure out another way to scam the creditors. IMO the people whose posts I have read here at creditnet are trying to get back into the mainstream...and the effort it takes will probably insure that unless something very unfortunate happens again...they will not get back into the same situation. So whether you can pay 100% or not isn't the point...the point is once you cure the ill...make sure that you don't fall into it again....each individual's solution that works for them is the "right" way as far as I'm concerned and I wish everyone that is trying "good luck" and "good fortune"... clc
