Moral Dis-equivalency between debtor and creditor

[OhioFiler]

Not OK.

I believe the Koran forbids charging interest. It does allow chopping off your wife's head if you think she dishonored your name in anyway.

[2Bshinyandnew]

The interesting thing to note is that this moral dis-equivalency is a recent phenomenon. Even going back to the turn of the century, people would often buy items from their local market on credit (the creditors was the store). If the buyer hit a rough patch (bad year for crops), the store would still extend credit or otherwise "help" the person out until they got back on their feet.

Indeed. And the creditor who uses strong arm tactics to make the debtor pay is nothing more than a loan-shark.

Historically, in rough times, creditors/debtors, Farmers/customers alike worked together. Is technology and advancements in communication any reason to lose that morality? Maybe it is the lack of human interaction, that enables a big company to hike up the interest rate of a credit card holder who is late, or missed a payment or has too much debt to the point that the debtor is unable to pay. However; no matter how hard you try, that fine print does not buy the creditor morality.

That lovely fine print that is so often referenced on the forum is the equivalent of legal loan sharking...and we let it happen! When we say "it was in the fine print" and "no one made you use your card" the point about moral dis-equivalency is being totally missed.

It's the lack of community, people caring about people. Knowing that by helping someone else that ultimately you are helping yourself and helping is the right thing to do. BOA isn't concerned about doing the right thing and they will point you to that lovely fine print and hold themselves out as being legally "right", which they are. It's that loss of community, so shortsighted.

The Framers of the Constitution saw that being able to have your debts forgiven was so important, it was specifically outlined in the U.S. Constitution! Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."

It's not about blame, or irresponsibility. Comparing a "speeding vehicle that gets into the accident (the car didn't do it itself)" to a "debtor utilizes the credit card to get himself/herself in trouble (the credit card didn't go to the store by itself)" is not comparing apples to apples. Debt and its management affects us all, whether we are the creditor or debtor. I think the state we find ourselves may be due to capitalism without morals, and when that happens a very few people get extremely wealthy, and they find more ways to (legally) acquire more wealth to the detriment of the majority (middle class). It spins out of control and the ones who blame the debtor for being careless, irresponsible, even greedy are missing the boat.

It's exactly how HHM describes it, moral dis-equivalency.

[Flowers]

I see what the OP is saying.
Interesting topic.

[goingout]

They're scum. The way they entice you into running up more and more and more debt that they know you will most likely be paying off for the rest of your life. They know you most likely will not file bankruptcy. They do it because they can and because it makes them lots and lots of money. Morals do not factor into it at all. There needs to be some regulation of this industry to protect consumers.

[fltoo]

The interesting thing to note is that this moral dis-equivalency is a recent phenomenon. Even going back to the turn of the century, people would often buy items from their local market on credit (the creditors was the store). If the buyer hit a rough patch (bad year for crops), the store would still extend credit or otherwise "help" the person out until they got back on their feet.
---------------------------------
HHM, you are so right. But, you have to admit the creditor (general store) did not want anyone going without food or clothing for their families. If the farmer wanted a new surrey with fringe on top to take the family on Sunday trips, I doubt the store would give him this on credit.

[JRScott]

I think we should indeed HHM, in fact during the BK change in 2005 I tried to get NCs Senators and Representatives to hold creditors more accountable but was unable to do so

[PoorGrammyinBK7]

For example, allowing ridiculously high interest rates to be charged (usury) if a debtor is a little late on a payment. There certainly are laws that should and must be changed. The creditors can practically get away with murder in today's world. I wonder how many people have been driven to bankruptcy because of something like that?

[goingout]

One point or spin on this is that just as a driver controls the speeding vehicle that gets into the accident (the car didn't do it itself), the debtor utilizes the credit card to get himself/herself in trouble (the credit card didn't go to the store by itself). There are two sides to the coin on this one and while I agree with HHM's posting, a credit card is a responsibility and can be carelessly used by some who then blame the creditor for putting it into their hands.

It's kind of like they sell you this really nice sportscar to drive. So, you get the car and are driving down the highway, knowing speeding can be dangerous, but it's so much fun to drive and the whole time the salesman is in the drivers seat saying "faster, faster, you know you wanna". All of a sudden you realise you are going over the speed limit and the car turns out to be defective and somehow becomes impossible to control. You wreck. When it's all said on done the salesman turns to you and asks "why did you drive the car so irrisponsibily?" and "didn't you read the fine print under the floormat which states the car will be uncontrollable over 55 mph?".

[BKstory]

Our dis-equivalency is that debtors tend to think of money and debt on moral terms, while the creditors think in terms of business only. When you pay your credit card bill in full every month, they make no money, and you are insignificant to them. Charge up to your maximum limit, and they will offer you a higher limit, as you are now providing them with profit. Fall behind, and they can raise your rates and levy late fees on you, to try to extract the most profit out of you before you file bankruptcy or negotiate a full payment.

Now, as a debtor, think like a business person instead. If you are spending more than you earn, you are of course, running a bad business, and you should cut expenses and/or make more income. Should you find that neither of those is possible, you follow the proper course, and file bankruptcy, just like many businesses do.

But debtors are typically NOT business people, and do not think that way. My point to both moral debtors in trouble and those that criticize them for being in debt, is that bankruptcy is a normal business decision in such situations. It takes strength to get past your moral convictions to actually consider filing.

Critics of personal bankruptcies seem to ignore all the mega-corporations filing bankruptcy for essential the same reasons - too little income for too many expenses. Why blame small time debtors when the CEOs with MBAs from Ivy League schools get into the same trouble? That is a moral dis-equivalency too.

Sorry, I am starting to rant. I blog about my situation in My Bankruptcy Story. I am presently near the end of a Chapter 7 discharge.

[justbroke]

At the current time, I am disinclined to acquiesce to any dis-equivalency. I want my bailout!

[wonkettegirl]

I believe the Koran forbids charging interest. It does allow chopping off your wife's head if you think she dishonored your name in anyway.

And the Bible condones stoning your child for disobedience; what is your point? Let's just stop trashing other people's religions, okay?

[HHM]

And the Bible condones stoning your child for disobedience; what is your point? Let's just stop trashing other people's religions, okay?

Ahh, the Good-ol'e days.

[OhioFiler]

And the Bible condones stoning your child for disobedience; what is your point? Let's just stop trashing other people's religions, okay?

Sure...who's religion did I trash? Facts are now trash? If the bible indicates stoning children is fine I don't see that as you trashing a religion when you post it. I may disagree with the concept but I'm not angry you wrote it.

My point was answering a question. Islam is opposed to charging interest but allows other behaviors many of us would find offensive. Just ask that poor woman in Buffalo who's hubby just chopped her head off because she filed for divorce not because she took out a car loan.

Political correctness will destroy this country as it is currently destroying much of Europe. I prefer the truth whether it hurts or not.

[fltoo]

At the current time, I am disinclined to acquiesce to any dis-equivalency. I want my bailout!

I am inclined to acquiesce to follow through with my threat of smacking you in the head JB.

[justbroke]

I am inclined to acquiesce to follow through with my threat of smacking you in the head JB.

Your wouldn't be the first. The line forms to the rear.