Going To Prison Over Debt.

[Trotsky]

If you have the ability to pay it back, they can legally seize that. So if you can legally seize assets for a civil judgement, then what need is there to arrest someone?

For deterrence and to prevent immense transactional costs of conducting asset seizure, for which there are rightfully extensive safeguards, of small debts in matters such as child support. Also, lapsed child support, for instance, is an injury inflicted against society as well as against the child.

When it comes to payment of civil debts, deterrence has a place, since it mostly comes down to rational balancing.

 

[VivaRevolution]

For deterrence and to prevent immense transactional costs of conducting asset seizure, for which there are rightfully extensive safeguards, of small debts in matters such as child support. Also, lapsed child support, for instance, is an injury inflicted against society as well as against the child.

When it comes to payment of civil debts, deterrence has a place, since it mostly comes down to rational balancing.

Child support is the best example to prove my point. Most of us know someone who has their check garnered by the state, to ensure the judgement is met.

Are we talking about some person who doesn't have a job, but has assets to pay a judgement?

 

[Trotsky]

Child support is the best example to prove my point. Most of us know someone who has their check garnered by the state, to ensure the judgement is met.

Are we talking about some person who doesn't have a job, but has assets to pay a judgement?

Your point is already considered in my post.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Your point is already considered in my post.

I just don't get it. For me, if they have the assets, seize them legally. That is where justice for the plaintiff lies. Arresting someone costs the state money, and it is something that can easily become a very slippery slope.

We seem to be in a debtor/creditor stand off since 2007, and I am weary of any tool the politically connected creditor class can use, especially the tool of state power.

 

[Trotsky]

I just don't get it. For me, if they have the assets, seize them legally. That is where justice for the plaintiff lies. Arresting someone costs the state money, and it is something that can easily become a very slippery slope.

We seem to be in a debtor/creditor stand off since 2007, and I am weary of any tool the politically connected creditor class can use, especially the tool of state power.

I'm advocating for the same libertarian position as you are (generally), but you're completely ignoring the state's interest in deterrence and in criminally punishing crimes against society. Your position is actually one very favored by pure capitalists, that insist that capital and interest can solve all societal ills. I think there's a limit to that logic.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

When you live in a society that is built on debt, no you s houldnt go to prison for debt, unless its tax evasion or child support.

 

[AtomicPanther]

In your example, did she go to jail for failure to pay debt, or failure to show up in court. Big difference.

 

[Andy Capp]

Texas why am I not surprised. The for profit prison industrial complex is some big Government Republicans can get behind and more and more people are going to jail for debt from parking tickets to student loans. OFC it effects communities of color most and poor people who can't pay anything. They are useless to Republicans so why not make 50K a year off them in jail?

They even put children in unable to make income
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/poor-children-are-being-put-in-debtors-prison-for-kids/

That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard of; and legal in 41 fucking states? WTF. With stuff like that going on, and for-profit prisons and civil forfeiture, Trump has no business labeling any other country a shithole.

Fuckin family values eh?

 

[VivaRevolution]

ok. so which people get to not pay off their loans? if you tell the public that you don't necessarily have to pay off your loan, why wouldn't everyone do that? if everyone knows that, no one would ever choose to pay off their loan. it's like insurance. insurance works because you pay a monthly fee in the chance that you have a medical crisis, and can take money from the majority pot to pay it off. if everyone decides to take out their lump sum all at once, there is none left for those who truly do have a medical crisis.

First damage to credit.

Second, because if you have any source of income, they can garnish your income, which means the money with be directly removed from your employers payroll check, or from your bank account. They can seize your home, your car, any property you have.

This discussion is really about people that have no ability for the creditor to seize assets, because they have none.

I don't think we should put people in jail for not having money.

There is no need to punish someone who is so poor they have nothing to seize, and no income to garnish. Their life sucks enough already.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Do you believe a kid/person should be able to get a student loan and as soon as they get their degree declare bankruptcy?

It would amount to theft via deception creditors should be able to put a lien on a % of future earnings until the debt is paid.

What about a businessman who declares bankruptcy repeatedly?

 

[InternetHero]

Texas why am I not surprised. The for profit prison industrial complex is some big Government Republicans can get behind and more and more people are going to jail for debt from parking tickets to student loans. OFC it effects communities of color most and poor people who can't pay anything. They are useless to Republicans so why not make 50K a year off them in jail?

They even put children in unable to make income
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/poor-children-are-being-put-in-debtors-prison-for-kids/

I don't disagree, and yet if you are middle class and blow your nose in the wrong direction in California there will also be a fine, or fines.

Privatizing bureaucracy just makes it more efficient, but also more ruthless.

The main problem though from a bureaucratic standpoint is over incentivizing authorities private or public to prey on citizens to pay debts.

Whether a small town officer looking to nail as many out of towner's as possible to pay for a new town bingo hall, or the city planner for a large metropolis that wants to narrow the roads for a tax or energy scheme.

 

[irish_thug]

No. But I am ok with indentured servitude.

 

[Shoemaker]

It depends on how narrowly or broadly you are defining it.

Should you be imprisoned because you cannot afford to pay an electricity or cable bill? No, that's a debtor prison.

Should you be jailed because you refuse to make payments on a civil judgment, despite being able to? Yes, that's contempt of court.

Of course, it's a less clear line between those two instances in reality.

I always thought it was ridiculous that gyms could send people to collections. You pay for access up front, not after you've consumed the service. If you don't pay, they can just refuse service. IMO in these types of relationships, the parts of a contract which stipulate what happens in the event of non-payment should be unenforceable*, and the only act the offended party could take it simply denying access to the offender. No business needs to recoup losses that it didn't actually incur.



*

Spoiler

Similar to intellectual property clauses in employment contracts for California. People like to rag on California's laws, and sometimes for good reason, but we got that one correct. What I invent on my time with my personal equipment is mine. My company can put whatever language they want in my employment contract regarding first-right-of-refusal on anything I invent, and it will be unenforceable in court because the State correctly identified that it's bullshit. If I use company equipment, do it on company time, or incoroporate any knowledge directly gained by my employment, that's a different story.

 

[ineverpost]

Giving someone debt is a risk that comes with the reward of interest. If I invest in a company and they go under or do a shitty job, does that mean they owe me my money back? No. It is understood at the start that a loan carries risk for both parties.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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?

That story is a little vague - chick could have been picked up on a show cause as she skipped her court date - which is a tad different than saying she was arrested for not paying the debt.

As for being done away with - I don't support deadbeat parents, but skip your child support and see where you end up.

 

[FrankensteinMMA]

there shouldnt even be debt.

loans amd all that are retarded. if you are stupid enough to loan out money without certainty the person will pay back then you are a moron.

loan companies are sketchy. credit is a scam. too many people not being able to be productive because they are in jail over nom violent crimes.

and now because they have a criminal record...they are on the tax payers dime via welfare because they cant get hired.

 

[Shoemaker]

there shouldnt even be debt.

loans amd all that are retarded. if you are stupid enough to loan out money without certainty the person will pay back then you are a moron.

loan companies are sketchy. credit is a scam. too many people not being able to be productive because they are in jail over nom violent crimes.

and now because they have a criminal record...they are on the tax payers dime via welfare because they cant get hired.

How would most people be able to buy a home without getting a loan? Start a business? People use credit irresponsibly, and in some cases banks take advantage of that - but the principal behind credit is sound. You can save up for a home at 20 and be able to purchase in your 40s (keep in mind you have to pay rent this entire time which will amount to as much or more than mortgage interest on a comparably priced home), or you can mortgage in your 20s and own your own home.

 

[Karasu-Hanta]

What about a businessman who declares bankruptcy repeatedly?

Same creditors should be able to seize assets and take % of future earnings, unfortunately some investors don't do their research and end up getting tumbled.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Same creditors should be able to seize assets and take % of future earnings, unfortunately some investors don't do their research and end up getting tumbled.

Something tells me Trump wouldn' t like this idea

 

[Karasu-Hanta]

Something tells me Trump wouldn' t like this idea

Probably not neither would plenty of other people.