David Kirk wrote:

If it was stealing, they would be charged with theft, not granted bankruptcy.

There is a difference and there are good reasons for having bankruptcy protection.  If you really feel that you (as a member of society) are getting less benefit from it than detriment then you should lobby your government to change the laws.  Maybe in the process you'll discover why it exists in the first place and change your mind.

Have you read the thread? The OPs position and others is that using bankruptcies to stiff the 'objects' that shouldn't need to be paid back what was agreed.  That is where Isee issues

Schlake wrote:
Lending money and charging the borrower interest.

Ok, so then you shouldn't enter into any contract where you don't have full cash for the transaction.  Fine. No house for you. no car for you

Why if Ioffer to make a large purchase for you and you agree to repay me over time for x interest shouldn't Ibe made whole on that agreement? It wasn't usury when you wanted my money, but it is when Iwanted to make a return on my investment in you?  Am i somehow your parent?

That money costs me.  I had to work for it, get people to invest it, choose helping you (at the agreed terms) rather than another investment.    Why.shouldn't my investment in time and money be compensated

More to the point, why should you get the benefit of my work, my connections, etc. And get to walk away without consequences (as the OP suggests bankruptcy should be without)?

Pinups4 wrote:
Ok, so then you shouldn't enter into any contract where you don't have full cash for the transaction.  Fine. No house for you. no car for you

No one said anything about not lending money.  Just don't turn the act of lending into an immoral act of exploitation.

Pinups4 wrote:
Why if Ioffer to make a large purchase for you and you agree to repay me over time for x interest shouldn't Ibe made whole on that agreement? It wasn't usury when you wanted my money, but it is when Iwanted to make a return on my investment in you?  Am i somehow your parent?

Being paid back makes you whole.  Charging people for the fact that you're richer than they are makes you a immoral and corrupt person.

Pinups4 wrote:
That money costs me.  I had to work for it, get people to invest it, choose helping you (at the agreed terms) rather than another investment.    Why.shouldn't my investment in time and money be compensated

Because it's wrong.  It's always been wrong, right up until about the 1950s when morally corrupt bankers had the laws changed.

Pinups4 wrote:
More to the point, why should you get the benefit of my work, my connections, etc. And get to walk away without consequences (as the OP suggests bankruptcy should be without)?

Why should you deny resources to your fellow humans beings simply because you want to oppress them?

Schlake wrote:

Pinups4 wrote:
Ok, so then you shouldn't enter into any contract where you don't have full cash for the transaction.  Fine. No house for you. no car for you

No one said anything about not lending money.  Just don't turn the act of lending into an immoral act of exploitation.

Pinups4 wrote:
Why if Ioffer to make a large purchase for you and you agree to repay me over time for x interest shouldn't Ibe made whole on that agreement? It wasn't usury when you wanted my money, but it is when Iwanted to make a return on my investment in you?  Am i somehow your parent?

Being paid back makes you whole.  Charging people for the fact that you're richer than they are makes you a immoral and corrupt person.

Pinups4 wrote:
That money costs me.  I had to work for it, get people to invest it, choose helping you (at the agreed terms) rather than another investment.    Why.shouldn't my investment in time and money be compensated

Because it's wrong.  It's always been wrong, right up until about the 1950s when morally corrupt bankers had the laws changed.


Why should you deny resources to your fellow humans beings simply because you want to oppress them?

Are you saying charging interest is immoral ?

In Balance Photography wrote:

Are you saying charging interest is immoral ?

I'm not saying it is; it simply is.  Did you not grow up in a Western civilization that burned these kinds of values into you at a young age?

In Balance Photography wrote:

Are you saying charging interest is immoral ?

I'm not just saying it's immoral, it is actually immoral.  Though, I can only really speak for Western society as exists in the lands dominated by the Catholic and Christian faiths.

Schlake wrote:

I'm not saying it is; it simply is.  Did you not grow up in a Western civilization that burned these kinds of values into you at a young age?

How is my upbringing relevant?

Schlake wrote:

I'm not just saying it's immoral, it is actually immoral.  Though, I can only really speak for Western society as exists in the lands dominated by the Catholic and Christian faiths.

Re quoting the edited version...

Ok why is it immoral? Make your case.

In Balance Photography wrote:

How is my upbringing relevant?

Maybe you came from a background of wildly different morals.  You could be African, and live your life according to the principals handed down by a giant spider who might not value the same things Westerns do.

In Balance Photography wrote:

Re quoting the edited version...

Ok why is it immoral? Make your case.

Charging people money because you have more money than them is wrong.  I already covered this.

Schlake wrote:

Charging people money because you have more money than them is wrong.  I already covered this.

What if the person I am lending to has a higher net worth but needs cash?

Schlake wrote:

Charging people money because you have more money than them is wrong.  I already covered this.

Also is renting a property wrong?

In Balance Photography wrote:

What if the person I am lending to has a higher net worth but needs cash?

If you have more money than they do, and you exploit them for being poor, then it's wrong.

In Balance Photography wrote:
If personal bankruptcy protections were eliminated, what would do instead?

Did Bush do [or try to] do just that?

1930-1 in 300 declared Bankruptcy.

2010- 1 in 10? AND THOSE WHO DO SO ONCE, OFTEN DO SO AGAIN!

Schlake wrote:

If you have more money than they do, and you exploit them for being poor, then it's wrong.

Do you mean cash or total net worth ?

What if I have ten million dollars ... But borrow a million from
Someone who has 20 million?

Schlake wrote:

I'm not saying it is; it simply is.  Did you not grow up in a Western civilization that burned these kinds of values into you at a young age?

Since none of your argument is logical or factual, there is no response that will convince you

Interest has been paid throughout history. It is legal, ethical, and the only way a lending institution (car dealer/ mortage co/bank/lanlord) CAN LIVE TO LEND ANOTHER DAY.

In the 50s or so, there was a change in law for salt lake city that allowed the card companies to charge higher rates if based in salt lake...but that's it

My grandmother had a mortgage in 1922.  Us feds took out loans to fight ww1.  U have any facts for your opinion?

Schlake wrote:

Maybe you came from a background of wildly different morals.  You could be African, and live your life according to the principals handed down by a giant spider who might not value the same things Westerns do.

How is my upbringing relevant to your argument ? I would think it would be irrelevant?

Pinups4 wrote:

Have you read the thread? The OPs position and others is that using bankruptcies to stiff the 'objects' that shouldn't need to be paid back what was agreed.  That is where Isee issues

yes, I did read the thread - thanks for asking.

Any mechanism can and will be abused.  However, that doesn't mean that its net effect is negative.  Bankruptcy serves to benefit society.  If you feel that the abuse of it outweighs the benefits then lobby your government to remove it so that it can no longer be abused.

I am not condoning abuse of bankruptcy - just arguing that its net contribution even after considering the abuse is still positive.  I could be wrong.

In Balance Photography wrote:
How is my upbringing relevant to your argument ? I would think it would be irrelevant?

For certain Christian faiths it was (still is??) considered immoral to lend money for interest.  In my limited understanding of history and religion, this is (at least in part) how the Jewish community came to be known for lending money because in their faith it was not considered immoral to charge interest for loans so the Christians who needed money borrowed from the Jews since they could not borrow from other Christians (or more accurately other Christians were not sufficiently motivated to lend them money because they could not charge interest when do so). 

So, in effect your upbringing may very well have much to do with what you believe to be immoral.

ETA:  I am not well educated in the matters of history or religion so I apologize in advance if my summary above serves to distort or offend.

SAND DIAL wrote:

Did Bush do [or try to] do just that?

1930-1 in 300 declared Bankruptcy.

2010- 1 in 10? AND THOSE WHO DO SO ONCE, OFTEN DO SO AGAIN!

Where did you get those numbers ? My numbers show 1.5m filed in 2010. Not sure what that is 1 in ten of...

David Kirk wrote:

For certain Christian faiths it was (still is??) considered immoral to lend money for interest.  In my limited understanding of history and religion, this is (at least in part) how the Jewish community came to be known for lending money because in their faith it was not considered immoral to charge interest for loans so the Christians who needed money borrowed from the Jews since they could not borrow from other Christians (or more accurately other Christians were not sufficiently motivated to lend them money because they could not charge interest when do so). 

So, in effect your upbringing may very well have much to do with what you believe to be immoral.

ETA:  I am not well educated in the matters of history or religion so I apologize in advance if my summary above serves to distort or offend.

I have not stated anything about what fI believe or don't believe to be immoral. I simply asked what that poster believed.

My beliefs should not affect his argument anyways.

SAND DIAL wrote:
... AND THOSE WHO DO SO ONCE, OFTEN DO SO AGAIN!

Did the lender not know their history?

In Balance Photography wrote:

I have not stated anything about what fI believe or don't believe to be immoral. I simply asked what that poster believed.

My beliefs should not affect his argument anyways.

Agreed that your beliefs should not affect his, but you asked him "why" he felt it was immoral and I *think* his response was effectively "because of my beliefs which are based on my upbringing/religion, but perhaps you have a different set of beliefs".

David Kirk wrote:

yes, I did read the thread - thanks for asking.

Any mechanism can and will be abused.  However, that doesn't mean that its net effect is negative.  Bankruptcy serves to benefit society.  If you feel that the abuse of it outweighs the benefits then lobby your government to remove it so that it can no longer be abused.

I am not condoning abuse of bankruptcy - just arguing that its net contribution even after considering the abuse is still positive.  I could be wrong.

I agree. Never said or insinuated the bankruptcy system was immoral or incorrect.  Could be improved, but what couldn't?

David Kirk wrote:
Agreed that your beliefs should not affect his, but you asked him "why" he felt it was immoral and I *think* his response was effectively "because of my beliefs which are based on my upbringing/religion, but perhaps you have a different set of beliefs".

Yeah I wasn't seeing that. The whole western thing threw me off - despite a catholic upbringing lending money with interest was never brought up as immoral. I was actually expecting an argument stemming from Islamic banking principles.

sospix wrote:
If more people played Monopoly as children, than played Call of Duty, perhaps the idea of managing personal finances would be an easier sell  .  .  .  lenders, and their advertising plays on the hope that the majority of the buying public won't read the fine print, and realize that the "low" monthly payment they're getting, means they'll be paying forever on the object of their desire, and by financing it the way they have, end up paying two to three times what the actual value is  .  .  .  pretty much the basis for the housing collapse, and current credit mess  .  .  .  then, of course, the bankruptcy attorneys are more than happy to extricate the hapless buying public from their untenable situation, for a fee  .  .  .  obviously that's not how everyone gets stuck in that situation, catastrophic health concerns, employment (or sudden lack of), the elder generations plight when pensions are depleted or done away with, all contribute to the plethora of bankruptcies  .  .  .  saying it's a viable, fair option is simplistic  .  .  .  viable, yes  .  .  .  does it "stain" the person who chose that route, yes  .  .  .  fair, who's to say, fair to the person getting out from under, possibly  .  .  .  fair to the lenders, they bear some of the blame for allowing it to happen  .  .  .  fair to the general public, most likely not, it's costing each one of us every time someone goes under  .  .  .  maybe we should issue everyone their $1550 in Monopoly money, and start the game over  .  .  . 

SOS

Interesting.  Funny.

Or maybe adults need to read what they sign, follow through on commitments (from money to babies and more) and only in EXTREME circumstances use lifelines like bankruptcy

Stop looking for rewind and reset buttons on life.  Choices and mistakes have consequences.

Freedom and success come with risk.

Schlake wrote:
Being paid back makes you whole.  Charging people for the fact that you're richer than they are makes you a immoral and corrupt person.

Being paid back AT THE RATE AND PACE WE AGREED TO makes me whole.

Following through on your signed promise (or verbal, if I were stupid enough to lend on a verbal) makes you an honest and forthright adult.

Trying to stiff me on the agreement that I get interest (which, for all you know, is the money that let's me pay my attorneys, staff, have a home and put food on the table) is the IMMORAL and CORRUPT part.  Which is why fraud is a crime.  And why I win these cases in court 100% of the time.

Example
I loan $100 to you at 5%.  Means I get 105.

$1 goes to the attorney for the docs and the signing process
$1 to the person who takes the payments
$3 to my taxes...federal, state, local
$1 if Iam lucky let's my little avatar savannah keep her home, bike, food, and clothes.

That's if you pay on time and Idont have court or other costs.

Yep.  Giving me back the hundred really makes me 95% whole.  Thanks for that.  Savannah thanks you too

Alec Dealty wrote:
Borrowing money from someone and not paying it back is bad. It is stealing and a violation of trust.

Robert Lynch wrote:
Only if you borrowed the money with no intent to pay it back.

Silly argument. Intentions can't be seen or measured or determined. Actions can be.

Alec Dealty wrote:
The excuses for why you did it are irrelevant. The fact that the other party that you borrowed money from is rich or is making a profit or whatever are even more irrelevant from an ethical point of view.

Robert Lynch wrote:
Losing your job in a bad economy isn't an "excuse".  Becoming chronically ill and having your health insurance cancelled isn't an "excuse".  Having to care for sick family isn't an "excuse".

Yes, they are certainly excuses. If you borrowed money you didn't pay it back, you have unjustly enriched yourself, no matter what the reason is.

Robert Lynch wrote:
Bankruptcy exists to allow people who have gotten into untenable financial situations to wipe the slate clean and start fresh instead of being saddled forever with debts that can't reasonably be paid, but I suspect you'd rather bankruptcy be eliminated and the debtor prisons be reopened.

No, I'd rather that it be more difficult to protect assets in bankruptcy, and that people felt ashamed and obligated to repay the debts they incurred. It is called personal responsibility. You should look into it.

In Balance Photography wrote:

Also is renting a property wrong?

I personally think it often is wrong, but human history and human society don't back me up on that one.

David Kirk wrote:

For certain Christian faiths it was (still is??) considered immoral to lend money for interest.  In my limited understanding of history and religion, this is (at least in part) how the Jewish community came to be known for lending money because in their faith it was not considered immoral to charge interest for loans so the Christians who needed money borrowed from the Jews since they could not borrow from other Christians (or more accurately other Christians were not sufficiently motivated to lend them money because they could not charge interest when do so). 

So, in effect your upbringing may very well have much to do with what you believe to be immoral.

ETA:  I am not well educated in the matters of history or religion so I apologize in advance if my summary above serves to distort or offend.

I think it is better to say Abrahamic.  So Christians and Muslims.  I believe the Hindu feel the same way though.  Between those three you have quite a lot of people.

David Kirk wrote:

Agreed that your beliefs should not affect his, but you asked him "why" he felt it was immoral and I *think* his response was effectively "because of my beliefs which are based on my upbringing/religion, but perhaps you have a different set of beliefs".

I thought my response was that is wrong to charge people money for being poorer than you are.

Schlake wrote:

I personally think it often is wrong, but human history and human society don't back me up on that one.

why is it wrong to provide housing to those who can't afford to buy one on their own? (outright, since apparently loaning people money is a sin too)

Pinups4 wrote:

Being paid back AT THE RATE AND PACE WE AGREED TO makes me whole.

Following through on your signed promise (or verbal, if I were stupid enough to lend on a verbal) makes you an honest and forthright adult.

Trying to stiff me on the agreement that I get interest (which, for all you know, is the money that let's me pay my attorneys, staff, have a home and put food on the table) is the IMMORAL and CORRUPT part.  Which is why fraud is a crime.  And why I win these cases in court 100% of the time.

Example
I loan $100 to you at 5%.  Means I get 105.

$1 goes to the attorney for the docs and the signing process
$1 to the person who takes the payments
$3 to my taxes...federal, state, local
$1 if Iam lucky let's my little avatar savannah keep her home, bike, food, and clothes.

That's if you pay on time and Idont have court or other costs.

Yep.  Giving me back the hundred really makes me 95% whole.  Thanks for that.  Savannah thanks you too

Taking money from people  just because they are poor and desperate enough to pay you to exploit them doesn't make you whole.  Getting paid back makes you whole.

Schlake wrote:

I think it is better to say Abrahamic.  So Christians and Muslims.  I believe the Hindu feel the same way though.  Between those three you have quite a lot of people.

but nearly every country has banking, and the world economic system depends on credit and loans. hell, even governments depend on cash flow devices known as bonds, otherwise known as loans, percentage interest based evil devices.

Schlake wrote:

I thought my response was that is wrong to charge people money for being poorer than you are.

You're not. You're allowing them to buy something they can't afford at this moment from their own savings.

they agree to pay a fee for that service.

Interesting side note;  Is it immoral for a bank to give you interest for the money you deposit?

Pinups4 wrote:

why is it wrong to provide housing to those who can't afford to buy one on their own? (outright, since apparently loaning people money is a sin too)

Usury is wrong, not loaning money.  Stop trying to change the argument.

People need a place to live, you are right.  A place to live is a necessity.  But taking away all the places for people to live and forcing them to pay is basically slavery or serfitude. It's wrong.