Dead Man's Debts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2016, 04:01 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2016 04:05 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(09-07-2016 06:06 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Please read the entire article Vosur. The lady in question has not defaulted on the loan that she co-signed. Her financial situation is not insufficient. This isn't about the money, it's about the suffering.

She is suffering because she was stupid. She is now paying the "I was stupid tax".

Here is a good test to tell if your kid is smart enough to go college. Just ask yourself, "Is my kid smart enough to figure out how responsibly pay for college him/herself?" If the answer is no, steer your kid to community college or vocational school....or advise them to marry well. If your kid is SYZ, put a helmet on his head and cork at the end of his fork.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2016, 06:43 AM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(10-07-2016 04:01 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Here is a good test to tell if your kid is smart enough to go college. Just ask yourself, "Is my kid smart enough to figure out how responsibly pay for college him/herself?" If the answer is no, steer your kid to community college or vocational school....or advise them to marry well. If your kid is SYZ, put a helmet on his head and cork at the end of his fork.

[Image: tumblr_inline_mv8upcv7571rvtvr9.png]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2016, 07:15 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2016 01:05 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(08-07-2016 10:21 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 09:02 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  The people who provided the services, the professors and the school entered into the contract with the student with the understanding that they would educate for a fee, not for free. They met their end of the bargain didn’t they? They too have bills to pay. Why shouldn’t they be properly compensated as agreed? Huh

We both know that the educational institutions have been paid in full. That is the entire point of a student loan. The debtholder in question is the State of New Jersey and its financial backers.

Financial backers = people
State collects money from taxpayers like me and you to pay the teachers and institutions to provide the service.

(08-07-2016 10:21 PM)‘Paleophyte Wrote:  Everything that you say here is true, but it is not the whole truth. The article in the OP is about a rather specific instance of one agency that seems to have gone to extremes that others have not. Most creditors will write off this sort of debt. Spending the next 8 years rubbing salt in a grieving mother's wounds with a monthly bill is precisely the sort of behaviour that generates the sort of negative PR that a wise company avoids. You’ll note that the federal agencies wrote off their loans.

Attempt at collecting monies owed =/= “rubbing salt in a grieving mother's wounds"

(08-07-2016 10:21 PM)‘Paleophyte’ Wrote:  What makes this interesting is that it highlights how the legal fictions that are corporate entities allow us to divorce our money and power from our sensibilities and responsibilities. Consider:

- If you were an individual with a ~$2 Billion loan program would you even hesitate to write off a small minority of those loans for compassionate reasons? Your ROI will drop slightly but you will still make a handsome sum and you will not end up in the poor house and you will not increase the agony of a number of people who are already suffering greatly.

- Yet if you are an investor in this ~$2 Billion loan program apparently you demand the highest possible return regardless of the human cost. Most likely you do this at several steps removed through a variety of funds and investment tools, only ever vaguely aware of how your money is being used and more fully focused on how much of a return you are getting on your buck.

You would most likely object to this behavior if you were aware of it. Consequently, steps are taken to help ensure that your conscience is rarely troubled. If it were you might take your money elsewhere.

What makes this particular case especially loathesome is that the agency in question is state run. In principle, the state is supposed to serve its constituents first and foremost. Yet it is the power of the state that is being wielded against the constituents for the benefit of the investors. Granted, the state as a whole will pay a lower rate to the investors because of their excessively diligent collections policies but one is left wondering exactly how much of a benefit was realized by the state as a whole and at what cost to the individuals. This particular instance sounds a great deal more like the state is much more eager to help the investors.

Investors = people

Painting the people who have bankrolled the loan in a negative light is usually a ploy to depict them as being in the wrong (I’m not saying you are doing this, but it does come across as “investors vs grieving woman” vs “investors vs person unwilling to repay loan”).

The State, representing the people of the State, is trying to collect monies owed the people who put their hard-earned money into the State coffers. While the State is a collective of individuals and loans the money out as a single entity, it is still made up of all the people who pay into it. It is not a charitable institution. State pensions, Trusts and the like rely on the return of the money they loan out to remain solvent.

Over the years the term “investor” has taken on a negative connotation, this is unfortunate since it is the pooling of money provided by investors that bankrolls nearly every aspect of our society both public and private, including monies paid in as taxes to governing agencies such as States and nations.

*edit for spelling

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
10-07-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(09-07-2016 11:49 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(09-07-2016 06:06 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  This isn't about the money, it's about the suffering.
That's not the impression I got from reading the article. She says it's "unfair" that she has to pay back the loan, but it really isn't. It sounds to me like she thinks that she's entitled to shirk the responsibility of holding up her end of the contract she co-signed.

The common definition of fairness is that everybody plays by the same rules. Both the federal and most state loan agencies write these losses off. New Jersey does not. Those are different rules for different people, by definition unfair.

You can argue that she knew what she was getting into, true enough, but what's the choice? You don't get to pick the state that you borrow from.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
10-07-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(10-07-2016 07:15 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Attempt at collecting monies owed =/= “rubbing salt in a grieving mother's wounds"

Would you do it? Would you make those calls in person and tell the mother whose kid has been murdered or the cancer patient that they signed the loan so they owe the money? If you wouldn't do this as an individual then why would you allow it to be done in your name?

Given the size of a state-run operation like this the losses of writing off a few compassionate cases is negligible. Especially compared to the waste in other, much larger loans that the state will have.

Quote:Painting the people who have bankrolled the loan in a negative light is usually a ploy to depict them as being in the wrong (I’m not saying you are doing this, but it does come across as “investors vs grieving woman” vs “investors vs person unwilling to repay loan”).

Actually, it's grieving woman/cancer victim vs State of NJ. The latter is using the investors as an excuse. The losses involved are vanishingly small on the scale of a state-run operation. The state is simply using an overly agressive collections strategy to try and justify lower rates from the investors.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(10-07-2016 11:42 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(10-07-2016 07:15 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Attempt at collecting monies owed =/= “rubbing salt in a grieving mother's wounds"

Would you do it? Would you make those calls in person and tell the mother whose kid has been murdered or the cancer patient that they signed the loan so they owe the money? If you wouldn't do this as an individual then why would you allow it to be done in your name?

Given the size of a state-run operation like this the losses of writing off a few compassionate cases is negligible. Especially compared to the waste in other, much larger loans that the state will have.

Quote:Painting the people who have bankrolled the loan in a negative light is usually a ploy to depict them as being in the wrong (I’m not saying you are doing this, but it does come across as “investors vs grieving woman” vs “investors vs person unwilling to repay loan”).

Actually, it's grieving woman/cancer victim vs State of NJ. The latter is using the investors as an excuse. The losses involved are vanishingly small on the scale of a state-run operation. The state is simply using an overly agressive collections strategy to try and justify lower rates from the investors.

The question I pose to you is, why only excuse this one person’s loan? Why not 10, or 10,000, or 1,000,000? Do other borrowers not have hardships as well? Should they not recieve the same lenient treatment? Where do you draw the line?

My contention in this matter is that when a borrower agrees to take the money from a lender, be they a private individual or a corporation with thousands of investors or a State, the principles do not change. The loan is made with the explicit understanding that the borrower will pay it back, when the contract is unilaterally broken, as in this case by the person in the OP, it isn’t the lender who is the bad guy here.

Her story is heartbreaking to be sure, in the end however, she freely cosigned for the loan. Crying foul because the lender wants the loan repaid is nonsensical.

I personally have forgiven debt, but that’s entirely my call and no one else was affected by me not collecting monies that were rightfully mine. But if you and I formed a partnership, PeleoCircle LLC, and pooled our investments along with other people’s money to make loans it would not be right for one of us to fail to perform our duties in collecting a loan because it affects others as well. We have a fiduciary responsibility to the other folks who invested with us to carry out our duties. In this case the State is doing just that.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
10-07-2016, 01:34 PM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
This is what I found troubling about the article.

"In 2010, the agency filed less than 100 suits against borrowers and their families. Last year, it filed more than 1,600."

I think that needs an explanation.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(10-07-2016 11:26 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The common definition of fairness is that everybody plays by the same rules. Both the federal and most state loan agencies write these losses off. New Jersey does not. Those are different rules for different people, by definition unfair.

You can argue that she knew what she was getting into, true enough, but what's the choice? You don't get to pick the state that you borrow from.
Well, the choice is not to take out a loan. There are plenty of people who managed to get through college without one by spending much more time on their degrees (e.g. 6 years instead of 4 so they can work on the side).

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2016, 07:23 AM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(11-07-2016 07:09 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(10-07-2016 11:26 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The common definition of fairness is that everybody plays by the same rules. Both the federal and most state loan agencies write these losses off. New Jersey does not. Those are different rules for different people, by definition unfair.

You can argue that she knew what she was getting into, true enough, but what's the choice? You don't get to pick the state that you borrow from.
Well, the choice is not to take out a loan. There are plenty of people who managed to get through college without one by spending much more time on their degrees (e.g. 6 years instead of 4 so they can work on the side).

Good point. This is exactly how I paid for my college degree. It took me until I was 25 yo before I finished my four year degree because I worked either full time or part time to pay for it.

Everyone has a choice, and this person certainly didn’t take out the loan at the point of a gun.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2016, 05:43 PM
RE: Dead Man's Debts
(10-07-2016 01:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  This is what I found troubling about the article.

"In 2010, the agency filed less than 100 suits against borrowers and their families. Last year, it filed more than 1,600."

I think that needs an explanation.

Chris Christie became Govenor of NJ in 2010. As the article states, he has some fascinating powers with respect to the student loans board despite protestations to the contrary. Perhaps he should do the explaining.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: