I was just thinking ... I'm looking at the stuff I had, and some stuff I want to buy. Some of the stuff I had bought was bought with some questioning (i.e. should I have bought it, or at least paid what I paid for it, etc.), and there is stuff I want to buy now that I had thought about buying back then, that if I had bought it back then, I would have the stuff, and simply would have lasted a month or two less before zeroing out my bank account (or at least zeroing out to the point of the last chance stuff to buy before BK - e.g., my home, necessary appliances, etc. - that were exempt, etc.) and stopped paying on my debts. Since even the non-exempt stuff had a very low valuation (i.e., that was necessary to pay back to the trustee to buy it back), in hindsight, it seems that it would have made a lot of sense for me to just have bought all this stuff then. (Of course, I did buy a lot of stuff in any case - some stuff quite fortuitously in hindsight, like my grand piano that ended up being exempt!)
Anyway, I know every case is different, and it might seem a bit unethical to think in this way, but the facts are that any stuff we had bought before (except for something like a home or car) we got to more or less keep without paying for it. Had we bought more stuff, we would have more stuff now.
Or I am just being incredibly cynical (or even evil!)?
Anyway, I know every case is different, and it might seem a bit unethical to think in this way, but the facts are that any stuff we had bought before (except for something like a home or car) we got to more or less keep without paying for it. Had we bought more stuff, we would have more stuff now.
Or I am just being incredibly cynical (or even evil!)?
Comment