- Joined
- Sep 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,718
- Reaction score
- 0
Absolutely. Hopefully people who don’t pay their school loans go to prison. Disgusting people
Here's how I look at it. Private lenders charge interest and factor in risk. They take the chance of not getting paid back in order to earn a profit. If that chance doesn't pay off then it's simply a failed business venture. Too bad so sad.
Absolutely. Hopefully people who don’t pay their school loans go to prison. Disgusting people
Interesting, yet confusing.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-courts-jailing-thousands-over-171957508.html
For example:
So was going to prison over debt outlawed or did they just outlaw prisons devoted to debtors? Why the need for a new law?
I like this thread, would just say the ability to force repayment impacts that risk. Make it easy for people to not pay and the cost of borrowing goes up for everyone. Those that pay end up paying for those that don’t.
Of course that little nugget of libertarian wisdom ignores how debt can be used in reality to entrap people into slavery. It’s the prefect example of why theory does not work with reality. Without the ability to go bankrupt and discharge your debts as well as regulation over predatory pricing, you would get people getting dupped into being slaves.
All to say, people not paying is not just part of the risk, you need recourse to keep borrowing costs reasonable. You also need boundaries and regulations to stop financial assholes from ruining lives. Again there is a balance to be achieved.
Thanks. I think if the government is gonna get involved then it should be to the extent of garnishments. Unless the private lenders are gonna reimburse the people for incarcerations costs they can fuck off with the prison approach. Court costs are already enough bill to foot.
The idea of prison is disgusting.
Really obvious here.
I’ve posted these beliefs before. I proposed labor camps for people to pay off their loans.
Only when it's defying a court order in a situation where the person can actually pay. So, only indirectly imo. The hit to your credit is already punishment enough in most cases.
In principle I agree with this. Philosophically though, I subscribe to the "If it's good for the cub, it should be good for the lion' perspective.
If you want to send a person to prison for not paying child support or whatnot, fine- but you should then also be willing to send corporate presidents and officers, as well as public servants with financial authority, to lengthy prison terms as well for not paying debts than are orders of magnitude more than the average Joe.
One significant corporate bankruptcy or LBO can loot hundreds of millions from hundreds of thousands of people.
According to Sherdog legend, this is the career change that made @Revolver rich.Apples to Oranges
And a legend was born...According to Sherdog legend, this is the career change that made @Revolver rich.
Investors know their investment in a company is a risk along with investors.
Incriminating bad business ventures could several limit the economy.
Not taking care of your kid is straight up child abuse.
Now garnishment should be the first recourse but if a guy is making money in a way where you can't garnish it and he's not taking care of his kids...
Apples to Oranges
Nah. Debt is debt. A company and their representatives should have no more, or less, recourse to avoid a debt than a person. And failures to pay should be dealt with no more or less severely.
In many ways there is parity now. Companies can declare bankruptcy. So can people.
If you want to deal with people more harshly, do the same with companies as well.