Schlake wrote:

That is what interest is.

Schlake wrote:
That is what interest is.

$20,000 loan. 

$500 legal fee to draft the agreement
$200 in research of title, etc. on the boat
$1000 in fee to manager for collections
$500 in other misc. expenses

means when I get my $20,000 back in 10 years, not only have I lost the money for a decade, but I'm actually only getting $17,800 of my money back - the rest was spent

not only doesn't it feed my daughter or pay my bills, it leaves me OUT money for THEIR luxury item.

how is that fair?

Why don't i get to eat or pay my bills when I help someone else get what they WANT and they AGREE to TAKE MY MONEY at an agreed and reasonable rate.

I AM BEING EXPLOITED

Pinups4 wrote:

Schlake wrote:

Pinups4 wrote:
so in your belief they should borrow 20,000 from me for 10 years and I should at the end of that get $20,000 back?  No interest or it's exploitation?

That is what interest is.

$20,000 loan. 

$500 legal fee to draft the agreement
$200 in research of title, etc. on the boat
$1000 in fee to manager for collections
$500 in other misc. expenses

means when I get my $20,000 back in 10 years, not only have I lost the money for a decade, but I'm actually only getting $17,800 of my money back - the rest was spent

not only doesn't it feed my daughter or pay my bills, it leaves me OUT money for THEIR luxury item.

how is that fair?

Why don't i get to eat or pay my bills when I help someone else get what they WANT and they AGREE to TAKE MY MONEY at an agreed and reasonable rate.

Anyone who spends $2200 to loan someone else money is either very generous or an idiot.  If those costs are real, then have the borrower pay them.  There is nothing wrong or immoral about that.   Personally, I only see about $200 of actual costs there though, and even that one includes a suspicious "etc." in it.

Schlake wrote:
Anyone who spends $2200 to loan someone else money is either very generous or an idiot.  If those costs are real, then have the borrower pay them.  There is nothing wrong or immoral about that.   Personally, I only see about $200 of actual costs there though, and even that one includes a suspicious "etc." in it.

why don't Iget to have a lawyer?  Have a person collect the payments? Pay myself so Ican keep a home for my daughter?   

Who are you to choose how many people Ican employ to help someone else buy luxury

As an aside...what business are you in?  Photography seems to be a hobby...what pays your bills?

Pinups4 wrote:
why don't Iget to have a lawyer?  Have a person collect the payments? Pay myself so Ican keep a home for my daughter?   

Who are you to choose how many people Ican employ to help someone else buy luxury

As an aside...what business are you in?  Photography seems to be a hobby...what pays your bills?

Well, if you want to have a lawyer, that's up to you.  But paying someone $500 to write down a simple loan is obviously absurd.  Aren't you a person, can't you collect payments?  If you don't want to, sure, you can hire someone, but don't charge the person borrowing money for your laziness.  You can pay yourself if you want.  You can even take money from the person borrowing money if you want.  There is nothing wrong with charging a simple fee for lending.  And maybe I'm just a potential borrower pointing out how absurd and abusive your fees are?

Didn't you see my recent thread: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=880823

Schlake wrote:

Well, if you want to have a lawyer, that's up to you.  But paying someone $500 to write down a simple loan is obviously absurd.  Aren't you a person, can't you collect payments?  If you don't want to, sure, you can hire someone, but don't charge the person borrowing money for your laziness.  You can pay yourself if you want.  You can even take money from the person borrowing money if you want.  There is nothing wrong with charging a simple fee for lending.  And maybe I'm just a potential borrower pointing out how absurd and abusive your fees are?

Didn't you see my recent thread: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=880823

Yes I saw that piece of....thought

I also saw you ignored my question about how you make money.  Afraid?

So you are ok with a simple fee for lending.  Whatever fee the parties agree to?

Pinups4 wrote:
Yes I saw that piece of....thought


I also saw you ignored my question about how you make money.  Afraid?

Right now I'm still living off the last of my savings from when I had a job.  Unemployment ran out a long time ago.  I had been a programmer doing weapon effects simulations for the U.S. Navy, but during the Bush administration my project was cancelled.

So you are ok with a simple fee for lending.  Whatever fee the parties agree to?

Sure.  Though it shouldn't be an abusive or exploitative fee.  Something reasonable.

Schlake wrote:

Right now I'm still living off the last of my savings from when I had a job.  Unemployment ran out a long time ago.  I had been a programmer doing weapon effects simulations for the U.S. Navy, but during the Bush administration my project was cancelled.

Sure.  Though it shouldn't be an abusive or exploitative fee.  Something reasonable.

And who employed you or were you a freelancer? PM me Imay need a programmer.

Who decides what's exploitative?  The parties involved?  Does the amount Icould make putting my money in another investment (so the loan to our boating friend is at least equal) a factor?

and for the record, I have had those "simple homespun loan agreements ignored, beat in court when the other side  finds an attorney is cheaper than paying me back

I have found that having a 3rd party collector avoids many "aww man, i need more time!  Had to buy gas for the boat and my dog ran away with my girlfriend, and I have alimony due...my  collector can dispassionately say "just doing my job man, pay or see us in court".

Pinups4 wrote:
And who employed you or were you a freelancer? PM me Imay need a programmer.

I worked for a defense contractor as a salaried employee.  I'm not really comfortable, given the nature of what I did, in naming them.   As for you needing a programmer, I'm probably not your man for the simple fact that our software was specced out in the 1980s before fancy things like C++ and Windows.  GUI design and non-UNIX programming are both mysteries to me and would require quite a bit of learning.  Also, I doubt your programming needs involve realistic simulations of fires, explosions, or projectiles.

Who decides what's exploitative?  The parties involved?  Does the amount Icould make putting my money in another investment (so the loan to our boating friend is at least equal) a factor?

I'm not sure we have a legitimate authority on that.  I know I'd view anything above 10% as shocking, and even above 5% as suspicious.

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
Because you've ripped people off by not repaying your debts.

This!!!

I knew a guy that had really good credit once, spent lots and lots of money on credit cards knowing he could never pay it back, and then declared bankrupcy so he never had to. He was young then and only had to deal with the backrupcy laws of the 80's which were generous. His credit is now good again.

Schlake wrote:

Pinups4 wrote:
And who employed you or were you a freelancer? PM me Imay need a programmer.

I worked for a defense contractor as a salaried employee.  I'm not really comfortable, given the nature of what I did, in naming them.   As for you needing a programmer, I'm probably not your man for the simple fact that our software was specced out in the 1980s before fancy things like C++ and Windows.  GUI design and non-UNIX programming are both mysteries to me and would require quite a bit of learning.  Also, I doubt your programming needs involve realistic simulations of fires, explosions, or projectiles.


I'm not sure we have a legitimate authority on that.  I know I'd view anything above 10% as shocking, and even above 5% as suspicious.

So for all your bluster....you'd have to eat your words now.  The loan I got screwed on was 3.5%. 

Not exploitative.  Actually low.  Guess I can raise my rates now!

Schlake wrote:

Ok, lets say you get a job.  At your job, you produce $100 worth of left handed ear umbrellas per hour.  If your compensation isn't worth $100 per hour then you are being exploited.  The money you earned is being taken and kept by someone or something else who didn't earn that money.  Your labor is being exploited for gain by someone or something else.

Perhaps, given your beliefs as well as your apparent inability to find other employment, you should consider joining a monastery.

Mike Kelcher wrote:
A number of people have "weighed in" on what a bankruptcy does to your credit. Many of the responses caused me to raise an eyebrow. I'm a licensed Realtor in Minnesota. In my experience, a bankruptcy isn't as bad as many people think.

If a person files for bankruptcy, and has, on top of that, a foreclosure, they can get a home loan at normal interest rates in 3 years. What happens during that 3 years, (their income, credit and payment history) is looked at closely by lenders...but if it's clean they have no problem issuing a new loan...

For smaller loans, I hear they like to get you hooked on credit again after bankruptcy.  You're free of the old debts, so things are not as tight for you.  The lenders know you can't declare bankruptcy again any time soon.

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
Because you've ripped people off by not repaying your debts.

AND you did not get in on a government big business bailout   that is why it is a joke,,,  everyone in the US should file for it... dont see the goverment helping anyone eat, pay bills for the average person,,  BUT it gives billions so the car companies don't have to file for it,,, but i guess that is not ripping people off that's a bailout,,,, must be different and the same but better paperwork.....

Mike Kelcher wrote:
A number of people have "weighed in" on what a bankruptcy does to your credit. Many of the responses caused me to raise an eyebrow. I'm a licensed Realtor in Minnesota. In my experience, a bankruptcy isn't as bad as many people think.

If a person files for bankruptcy, and has, on top of that, a foreclosure, they can get a home loan at normal interest rates in 3 years. What happens during that 3 years, (their income, credit and payment history) is looked at closely by lenders...but if it's clean they have no problem issuing a new loan.

Here's an example that I was personally involved in. I listed a home for a couple who were going through a divorce. They purchased the home from a bank who obtained it through a foreclosure, a little over three years earlier. They paid about $170,000 for the home they bought from the bank. They both just wanted to sell it quick. I felt it was worth more, but they both wanted it listed at $199,900...to sell it quickly. 

One day I got a call from someone who saw my sign out front. They asked about the price and I told them it was listed at $199,900. The caller was amazed and said, "Really??"  I said, "Yes, really. That home is only a bit over 6 years old, and when new, it sold for $305,000".  The caller said, "I know we had it built and that was the price...we lost it in a foreclosure about three years ago."  They wanted to see it again and I was less than enthusiastic about showing them the home, since I felt it was a waste of my time, but I did.  They wanted to make an offer. I was concerned about their ability to qualify. It turned out to be "no problem at all". What's interesting is that the last day they lived in that home, they owed a mortgage of $282,000 at an interest rate of 7.25% and payments around $2000 a month. Three years later, they bought the same home again for $180,000 and interest rate of 4.25% on 30 year fixed mortgage and payments under $900 a month. They got a $0 down USDA rural housing mortgage, but they also could have gotten an FHA loan if they put around $6,000 down.

Had they not lost this home in a foreclosure and continued to make their $2000+ monthly payments for those three years, they'd still have a mortgage balance much larger that what they currently have. It turns out that they came out waaaaay ahead even though they had some adversity 3 years earlier.

So, in my experience, it hurts your ability to buy a home for three years...which might turn out to be not be as bad as making all your payments on time.

I would never recommend doing this on purpose. That's the "fairness" thing comes into play. Lenders and businesses must make a profit to exist. When they lose money, all of their other customers pay more. So essentially, the debt is absorbed by the rest of society....and that's not right. However, in some situations, people do need debt relief to get a new start.

The people in my example who lost and re-purchased their home, were very nice, honest, hard-working, people. They got into financial trouble when one of them was involved in a life-threatening accident that left one of them unable to work for over a year. Once that person recovered and went back to work, all was well again. The bankruptcy took away their debt, the foreclosure took their home and they had to rent for 3+ years, but in the end, they are able to be productive citizens of society and not scheming scumbags at all. It felt pretty good to help get these folks back into the home they lost. They had thought they'd never be able to live in a home that nice again.

For those not familiar with Minnesota real estate prices, this 2005 home was a 3000+ finished sq', modified two-story, with 4-bedrooms, 4-bathrooms, a huge kitchen, formal dining room, an attached 3-car garage, a detached 40x60 heated and insulated pole barn, on 5 acres half of which was wooded. In some places that home would be triple the price, and in others half the price. It depends on where it is.

Thanks for this example, my main point was that bankruptcy can be used just as strategically as refinancing

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

Thanks for this example, my main point was that bankruptcy can be used just as strategically as refinancing

well,  you can. If your credit doesn't matter and you don't mind making yourself look like a bad risk

And if you see no downside to screwing over the people and companies who trusted you with loans and other forms of credit.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
Thanks for this example, my main point was that bankruptcy can be used just as strategically as refinancing

Bankruptcy is what happens when negotiations between the debtor and all the creditors breaks down.

This breakdown can happen for a lot of reasons. All it takes is one creditor to not be reasonable, or for the debtor to not be reasonable (or for substantial distrust to exist).

Fergy wrote:

Wow, thats a whole load of shit right there.

Do you realize how many people filed for bankruptcy and foreclosure the last few years due to the economy?  My husband lost his job hence we had no money to pay anything with.  How does that make us incapable of managing finances?  I know quite a few people it happened to.

That's very unfortunate, however part of financial planning is the ability to keep things in check even in the event of a major loss.

It's kind of like rear ending someone who slammed on the brakes in front of you. If you hit them it's your fault because you didn't plan for disaster.

3 years ago my wife and I made about the same amount of money. She suddenly lost her job. That's a 50% loss to the household income. We survived, why, because we follow guidelines. If you're monthly bills cost more than 50% of your household income, you're living beyond your means. I know that sounds harsh and everyone is going to say ohh bla bla bla who can live on half their income but the fat of the matter is a lot of people can.

Same with cars, if you can't afford to pay off a car in 3 years, then you simply can't afford that car, period

So the bottom line is, the people who were are affected by the economy, loosing jobs, loosing houses etc was simply a result of poor planning and living beyond their means. Just because a bank says they'll lend you $x, doesn't mean you can afford to borrow that much and that's how people got into upside down mortgages.

In Balance Photography wrote:

Bankruptcy is what happens when negotiations between the debtor and all the creditors breaks down.

This breakdown can happen for a lot of reasons. All it takes is one creditor to not be reasonable, or for the debtor to not be reasonable (or for substantial distrust to exist).

hmm, this sounds more like default to me. Default being an isolated event between one debtor and creditor and bankruptcy affecting all creditors

but surely I agree, semantics aside, one default could lead to bankruptcy

Steve Franco Media wrote:

well,  you can. If your credit doesn't matter and you don't mind making yourself look like a bad risk

And if you see no downside to screwing over the people and companies who trusted you with loans and other forms of credit.

I think this is a good perspective on things, I don't really see much in the way of business integrity amongst industries, but maybe it is different in other parts of the country

I think anyone assuming the existence of business integrity is going to get screwed for playing with an ineffective set of rules

just from observation

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

hmm, this sounds more like default to me. Default being an isolated event between one debtor and creditor and bankruptcy affecting all creditors

but surely I agree, semantics aside, one default could lead to bankruptcy

I agree with this.  Default is one debt going bad.  Bankruptcy screws them all

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

I think this is a good perspective on things, I don't really see much in the way of business integrity amongst industries, but maybe it is different in other parts of the country

I think anyone assuming the existence of business integrity is going to get screwed for playing with an ineffective set of rules

just from observation

I find most companies operate with integrity, even mine

Integrity meaning honest, following law and their policies and their contracts.  To expect them to 'bend' with every customer's personal needs and wishes....is expecting too much

For me, if Idont treat all tenants the same (which means filing eviction proceedings by the 5th as stated in my lease) I can be sued for discrimination or unfair business practice

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

I think this is a good perspective on things, I don't really see much in the way of business integrity amongst industries, but maybe it is different in other parts of the country

I think anyone assuming the existence of business integrity is going to get screwed for playing with an ineffective set of rules

just from observation

I find most companies operate with integrity, even mine

Integrity meaning honest, following law and their policies and their contracts.  To expect them to 'bend' with every customer's personal needs and wishes....is expecting too much

For me, if Idont treat all tenants the same (which means filing eviction proceedings by the 5th as stated in my lease) I can be sued for discrimination or unfair business practice

Steve Franco Media wrote:

I agree with this.  Default is one debt going bad.  Bankruptcy screws them all

My point is that the court does not need to get involved if the debtor and creditors can come to agreement.

In Balance Photography wrote:

My point is that the court does not need to get involved if the debtor and creditors can come to agreement.

true.  but then it wouldn't be bankruptcy.  It's  much better when parties can agree...I try to tell my deadbeat tenants this.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
That's very unfortunate, however part of financial planning is the ability to keep things in check even in the event of a major loss.

It's kind of like rear ending someone who slammed on the brakes in front of you. If you hit them it's your fault because you didn't plan for disaster.

3 years ago my wife and I made about the same amount of money. She suddenly lost her job. That's a 50% loss to the household income. We survived, why, because we follow guidelines. If you're monthly bills cost more than 50% of your household income, you're living beyond your means. I know that sounds harsh and everyone is going to say ohh bla bla bla who can live on half their income but the fat of the matter is a lot of people can.

Same with cars, if you can't afford to pay off a car in 3 years, then you simply can't afford that car, period

So the bottom line is, the people who were are affected by the economy, loosing jobs, loosing houses etc was simply a result of poor planning and living beyond their means. Just because a bank says they'll lend you $x, doesn't mean you can afford to borrow that much and that's how people got into upside down mortgages.

So the bottom line is you and everyone else is living beyond your means,, because at anytime after your wife losted her job and something happened that  you couldn't work, you effective get 0ed out. So what happens???? cant afford NOTHING. Sell off what you have but then you cant spend any of it because that would be bad planning. Some is bad planning given,, but the Yfactor of life takes the best planners and the ones with/without money.....

E H wrote:
So the bottom line is you and everyone else is living beyond your means,, because at anytime after your wife losted her job and something happened that  you couldn't work, you effective get 0ed out. So what happens???? cant afford NOTHING. Sell off what you have but then you cant spend any of it because that would be bad planning. Some is bad planning given,, but the Yfactor of life takes the best planners and the ones with/without money.....

I'm just saying that most people who found themselves in a bad way when the economy went south, brought it on themselves by over extending because the banks let them. Then they tried to blame the banks for lending them the money they asked to borrow.

People live like nothing bad will ever happen. They live in the moment always expecting things to be better in a year or two, never planning that they're get worse.

Some people do have extraneous circumstances caused by an unforeseen chain of events, however, I still think bankruptcy is not the answer. Most American have become accustomed to having disposable income and what should be luxury item readily available to them.

All I'm  saying is I've been evicted from apartments, I've lived out of my car. Times have been good and times have been pretty bad but never have I considered bankruptcy, why, because I prefer to take ownership of my debts. Responsibility. Anything else is an excuse.

On a side note you should always have enough money in the bank or set aside to cover 6 months worth of living expenses for that exact reason. If you don't you're living in a jeopardy situation

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:

I'm just saying that most people who found themselves in a bad way when the economy went south, brought it on themselves by over extending because the banks let them. Then they tried to blame the banks for lending them the money they asked to borrow.

People live like nothing bad will ever happen. They live in the moment always expecting things to be better in a year or two, never planning that they're get worse.

Some people do have extraneous circumstances caused by an unforeseen chain of events, however, I still think bankruptcy is not the answer. Most American have become accustomed to having disposable income and what should be luxury item readily available to them.

All I'm  saying is I've been evicted from apartments, I've lived out of my car. Times have been good and times have been pretty bad but never have I considered bankruptcy, why, because I prefer to take ownership of my debts. Responsibility. Anything else is an excuse.

On a side note you should always have enough money in the bank or set aside to cover 6 months worth of living expenses for that exact reason. If you don't you're living in a jeopardy situation

You should have 2 years to cover living expenses,,, and I know people who have done that,,,  and the Yfactor hits and ground zero...
  Sometimes you don't have control when life bodyslams you to the ground,,, BUT the bank will insure all their loans,,,and will charge you service charges to hold your money in a savings account,,, and charge you to take and use your money,,, give you 1-3% interest for holding and using your money after the service charges to lend it out to make more money at a higher rate...
  I have never filed,,, but I can see why people get tired of fighting with the crackhead(banks) that have nothing to lose...  Honest business has become suck out every last cent(well the penny is gone here in Canada so now the price has gone up to 5 cents)....

Farenell Photography wrote:
Its stealing if you don't intend to pay it back AT THE TIME the loan was being made. Sometimes shit happens that is completely beyond anything 1 person can directly control.

Uhm, no. It is your duty as a borrower to not over leverage yourself and to have a contingency plan in the event the world does not turn out to be as rosy as you might have fantasized when you borrowed money from someone.

I don't know why our culture has gone so far away from understanding and placing importance on personal responsibility. It makes me sad.

Robert Lynch wrote:

Unjustly?  No matter what the reason?  What a spectacularly ridiculous thing to say.

Like it or not, being hungry does not entitle you to steal food from a restaurant.

The world is so unfair! Now, grow up and take responsibility for yourself and your actions.

Alec Dealty wrote:

Uhm, no. It is your duty as a borrower to not over leverage yourself and to have a contingency plan in the event the world does not turn out to be as rosy as you might have fantasized when you borrowed money from someone.

I don't know why our culture has gone so far away from understanding and placing importance on personal responsibility. It makes me sad.

Because all crime is caused by disease, parents or genetics....it's not our fault(like drinking too much or picking up a crack pipe...sorry, if you don't do crack once you don't get addicted.  It starts w a choice).

there's always a program to file for benefits or an organization like ACLU who will take our case against the oppressive fundamentalists who want to limit our ability to choose things which are personally or socially stupid (ACLU does alot of good too...but some shit is just absurd)

we can always take comfort that the issue is "common" or "normal" since the goal is to be better than the worst not to be the best

concepts like personal responsibility, saving not spending, treating others with respect, caring about community, and following laws and respecting the Constitution...those pesky issues are of a bygone era.  Forget any belief in anything beyond what we can touch (like God, the future, or respect) because that would simply slow down our self pleasing.

Oh...and of course, being born in America means you can do nothing, contribute little, take much because, well....you deserve it, you're AMERICAN!  (which once meant innovator, self starting, strong, respectful and honest...)

Schlake wrote:
If you are borrowing money from a person, and that person is a usurer, then I think it is not wrong.  The usurer is morally corrupt and using a position of power to take advantage of someone in need.

Nice try. You can live just fine without borrowing money. It's the greedy borrower who wanted something they could not afford that is at fault.

Alec Dealty wrote:

Nice try. You can live just fine without borrowing money. It's the greedy borrower who wanted something they could not afford that is at fault.

What's your point? Bankruptcy should be eliminated?

In Balance Photography wrote:

What's your point? Bankruptcy should be eliminated?

Not mine.  My point is it should be In Balance.  If you need bankruptcy, you should suffer long term consequences like your creditors, their insurers, the other companies and taxpayers who fund those insurers do.

Steve Franco Media wrote:

Not mine.  My point is it should be In Balance.  If you need bankruptcy, you should suffer long term consequences like your creditors, their insurers, the other companies and taxpayers who fund those insurers do.

How do we measure whether the system has the appropriate long term consequences for personal bankruptcy? What is the outcome that we want?

In Balance Photography wrote:

How do we measure whether the system has the appropriate long term consequences for personal bankruptcy? What is the outcome that we want?

Don't really know, beyond making people make it a last resort.  The OP was that it shouldn't be "bad" and the consequences be lifted.  This I disagree with.  7 years of credit and loan issues sounds like a balance for something few people do on purpose...

but on purpose or not, if you crash your car you gotta pay.  This follows the same logic

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
Because you've ripped people off by not repaying your debts.

Exactly. And those of us who do work hard to pay our bills, and live within our means have to pay more for things to compensate for others who don't feel they have to because they made bad decisions.

Steve Franco Media wrote:

The OP was that it shouldn't be "bad" and the consequences be lifted.

you've said this several times but I never mentioned that. I mentioned real outcomes of bankruptcy

I really don't know where you got that from

In Balance Photography wrote:

What's your point? Bankruptcy should be eliminated?

Follow the conversation and ye shall be enlightened.