|
|
|
pril 6, 2005
Sweeping New Bankruptcy Law To Make Life Harder for Debtors
After 8 Years, Legislation Finally Nears Passage;
No Limits on Card Giants
A Day Trader's Bills Come Due
By MICHAEL SCHROEDER and SUEIN HWANG
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
After eight years of trying, Congress next week is expected to pass
legislation aimed at a growing problem: Encouraged by mass mailings
from the credit-card industry, more and more consumers are taking on
more debt than they can handle and ending up in bankruptcy court.
The law, crafted with industry help and backed by President Bush, takes
the firm view that this is the borrower's problem, not the industry's.
The bill would swing the legal pendulum on this long-running issue in
favor of creditors.
Credit-card companies, banks and their allies say the legislation, the
biggest change to U.S. bankruptcy law since 1978, is an overdue
correction to a system that is biased in favor of borrowers and too
often protects deadbeats. Opponents condemn the bill as an overreaction
that will inflict pain on consumers overwhelmed by debt that they can't
pay because of health problems or layoffs.
The new law would require debtors to receive credit counseling and
would put up other hurdles to make filing for bankruptcy more
difficult. It would make it harder for consumers to wipe out
credit-card bills and other loans that aren't secured by a house or
other asset. And it would require the bankruptcy court to apply strict
tests to be sure people with the means to do so repay some of their
debts.
The legislation could have big repercussions for consumers, creditors
and the economy. Will thousands of debt-laden families pay back more of
the money they owe? Or will the extra burden push more of them into
poverty? Will banks, credit-card companies and others lend more readily
because they're more likely to get paid back? Or will people borrow and
spend less, depressing the economy?
The law would make things tougher for consumers like Crystal Herndon, a
single mom in Hayward, Calif., who makes $15 an hour handling accounts
for a janitorial firm. When she got sick with pneumonia in late 2003,
she missed six weeks of work and ran up more than $5,000 in medical
bills. Soon, she was falling behind on her car payments and owed
various creditors about $15,808. "I was head over heels in bills. I
wanted to pay them off, but I knew I couldn't," she says.
In February 2004, Ms. Herndon filed for bankruptcy protection, winning
a court-approved plan to wipe out some debts and pay back others. The
court knocked several thousand dollars off her car loan and slashed the
interest rate to 10% from 18.6%. Her monthly payment dropped by nearly
$100 to $275.
Under the bill that passed the Senate in March and is expected to clear
the House of Representatives next week, a bankruptcy judge wouldn't be
allowed to lower car payments for debtors like Ms. Herndon.
The success of the bankruptcy legislation, which came close to being
passed several times over the past eight years, would be a major
victory for the Bush administration's economic and political agenda. In
February, the president signed a landmark class-action law that makes
it easier for corporate defendants to move cases to federal court.
Meanwhile, however, the administration's efforts to rein in lawsuits on
asbestos claims and medical malpractice are facing big battles.
The bankruptcy legislation also is consistent with President Bush's
emphasis on personal responsibility -- a view embodied in his approach
to Social Security, health insurance and home ownership. By fostering
what he calls an "ownership" society, in which people take more risks
but potentially enjoy greater rewards, Mr. Bush believes that he can
transform individual behavior and Americans' relationship with
government.
The long battle over the bankruptcy bill coincides with a surge in
borrowing by American families. Lenders, particularly companies
pitching credit cards and home-equity loans, have given credit to many
who wouldn't have qualified a generation or two ago. Americans
currently owe $2.12 trillion, not counting their mortgages, 110% more
than they did a decade ago, the Federal Reserve Board says. Their
financial assets have risen 94% in the same period and their incomes
have gone up by 65%.
In 2001, the typical credit-card holder had five cards and a balance of
$1,900, according to a Fed survey. About 83% of college undergraduates
had credit cards in 2001, up from 67% just three years earlier,
according to a survey by Nellie Mae Corp., a student-loan company.
As credit spread, more families sought to unload their debts in
bankruptcy court. Last year, 1.59 million people filed for personal
bankruptcy, up from 780,000 a decade earlier. At least $40 billion in
debt is wiped out annually through personal bankruptcy, according to an
industry-sponsored study in 1998 by the WEFA Group, now part of Global
Insight, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm.
More than 70% of the filings fall under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy
code. The provision allows consumers to erase credit-card, medical and
many other debts -- but not alimony, child support, student loans or
most taxes -- after certain assets such as savings are liquidated to
benefit creditors. If people want to hold onto their homes and cars,
they file under Chapter 13, in which the court approves a
debt-repayment plan. In some cases, judges require filers who have
enough income and assets to file under Chapter 13.
Chapter 13 debtors paid creditors $4.2 billion in 2003. Chapter 7
filers turned over $1.5 billion in assets disbursed to creditors,
according to the U.S. Office of Bankruptcy Trustees.
All sides expect the bill to reduce the number of bankruptcy filings
because filing will be more costly and more of a hassle. Most experts
expect it to push thousands of debtors, particularly those with
above-average incomes, into Chapter 13 plans instead of Chapter 7 --
forcing them to repay more debts. A key change in the new law is that
it would block from Chapter 7 debtors with incomes above their state's
median and with the means to pay some debts.
The legislation includes a raft of other provisions backed by
creditors. People filing for bankruptcy would be required to undergo
credit counseling at their expense six months before filing. Debtors
would have to repay the full amount of loans on cars purchased within
30 months of filing. That's the provision that would snare those like
Ms. Herndon. Filers would, for the first time, have to document income
with pay stubs and tax returns.
Consumer groups are unhappy that the legislation does little to hold
the financial-services industry responsible for the easy access to
credit they have been offering consumers. Democrats sought
unsuccessfully to have the bill put limits on marketing to students
under age 18 and cap some credit-card interest rates.
The bill also clamps down on repeat filers. No one, for instance, would
be allowed to file a Chapter 13 petition more than once every two
years, the first such limit.
That would affect people like James and Angela Lawrence of Glen St.
Mary, Fla., who have filed for Chapter 13 in each of the past three
years. The last filing, in February, showed debt of about $85,000,
including the outstanding balance on an $11,000 loan to buy furniture
|
| |
| |
Consumer groups are unhappy that the legislation does little to hold
the financial-services industry responsible for the easy access to
credit they have been offering consumers. Democrats sought
unsuccessfully to have the bill put limits on marketing to students
under age 18 and cap some credit-card interest rates.
Blah, blah, blah, blah....
Instead of wasting all this time and effort to protect the subset of people
who *chose of their own free will* to take on debt they can't afford, why
haven't these consumer groups and Demmies been pushing to protect the rest
of us who *choose to use debt responsibly but have to watch our backs every
day anyway because of identity-theft aiders and abettors like Choicepoint
and lenders who ignore fraud alerts.*
Credit report freezes like the kind that California has should be available
and free for all consumers at the national level. You wanna solve the
problem of "too easy credit" - this move will kick the credit industry in
the nuts far harder any defeating this bankruptcy law would and it'll
protect a far larger and far more deserving class of people. And it'll even
reduce the need for bankruptcy too.
|
| |
| |
You should see the amount of pre-approved credit card offers my 18 year old
receives. This with an income of $3000.00 annually..
Blah, blah, blah, blah....
Instead of wasting all this time and effort to protect the subset of
people
who *chose of their own free will* to take on debt they can't afford, why
haven't these consumer groups and Demmies been pushing to protect the rest
of us who *choose to use debt responsibly but have to watch our backs
every
day anyway because of identity-theft aiders and abettors like Choicepoint
and lenders who ignore fraud alerts.*
Credit report freezes like the kind that California has should be
available
and free for all consumers at the national level. You wanna solve the
problem of "too easy credit" - this move will kick the credit industry in
the nuts far harder any defeating this bankruptcy law would and it'll
protect a far larger and far more deserving class of people. And it'll
even
reduce the need for bankruptcy too.
|
| |
| |
From what I've heard, the new laws aren't nearly strong enough.
Apparently the scumbags who declare bankruptcy won't have to lose any
of their IRA, 401K, or Social Security benefits. This is terrible.
This gives people more incentive to declare bankruptcy because they can
keep their enormous compounded tax-free retirement accounts.
One form of karma might occur from the above law: if an individual
invested in crooked companies such as Kmart, Conseco, and Worldcom,
lost it all when those corrupt companies declared bankruptcy, then the
individual declares bankruptcy, he/she has nothing to preserve in the
retirement account because the companies did the same thing he/she did.
The best bankruptcy law: no individual or business should be allowed to
declare bankruptcy. If you can't pay your debts, all your assets
should be liquidated.
The only legit reason to declare bankruptcy I can think of is if an
individual is forced to undergo medical treatment and the hospital
overcharges and/or the insurance unfairly denies the claim.
|
| |
| |
On 6 Apr 2005 06:53:44 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
The law would make things tougher for consumers like Crystal Herndon, a
single mom in Hayward, Calif., who makes $15 an hour handling accounts
for a janitorial firm. When she got sick with pneumonia in late 2003,
she missed six weeks of work and ran up more than $5,000 in medical
bills. Soon, she was falling behind on her car payments and owed
various creditors about $15,808. "I was head over heels in bills. I
wanted to pay them off, but I knew I couldn't," she says.
Why do people believe they can't afford health insurance, but CAN
afford to run up $15,000 in credit card and other debt?
Crystal is not an innocent victim here - she is 100% responsible for
her predicament. She CHOSE not to take health insurance; why should
she be able to just walk away leaving her critors holding the bag for
her irresponsible behavior?
The court knocked several thousand dollars off her car loan and slashed the
interest rate to 10% from 18.6%. Her monthly payment dropped by nearly
$100 to $275.
Under the bill that passed the Senate in March and is expected to clear
the House of Representatives next week, a bankruptcy judge wouldn't be
allowed to lower car payments for debtors like Ms. Herndon.
Nor should they. In what way is that lender responsible for Crystal's
fiscal irresponsibility? Why are THEY being punished??
The bankruptcy legislation also is consistent with President Bush's
emphasis on personal responsibility
And mine.
--
When are you people going to wake up to the fact that rebates are a SCAM?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:36:16 GMT, "nicehuman" <nicehuman@verizon.net>
wrote:
You should see the amount of pre-approved credit card offers my 18 year old
receives. This with an income of $3000.00 annually..
Credit card banks are like tobacco companies and drug pushers - they
want to get the kids hooked as young as possible so they can maximize
their profits over the child's lifetime.
--
When are you people going to wake up to the fact that rebates are a SCAM?
|
| |
| |
If I used all the credit I've been given via cards, I'd owe about $120K
on an RNs salary.
To be fair, a lot of people use credit cards as a last resort for daily
needs when they are buried with medical bills/unemployment/etc. So they
look like they've been out buying diamond underwear or something because
they go bankrupt with credit cards.
On the other hand, I personally know several people who simply lived
high off credit and couldn't pay it. No medical problems, no job loss.
Just immature greedy living. And that bothers me a great deal. One guy
spent and spent and declared bankruptcy (was being supported by
significant other, not married) and *framed* the bankruptcy certificate
and hung it up. A disgrace.
Ilene B
|
| |
| |
SpammersDie wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, blah....
Instead of wasting all this time and effort to protect the subset of people
who *chose of their own free will* to take on debt they can't afford, why
haven't these consumer groups and Demmies been pushing to protect the rest
of us who *choose to use debt responsibly but have to watch our backs every
day anyway because of identity-theft aiders and abettors like Choicepoint
and lenders who ignore fraud alerts.*
So people afflicted with catastrophic illness chose to get into debt?
Does the same apply to those in the military called up for active duty?
How about victims if identity theft?
Democrats tried to exempt these groups but the GOP refused.
Credit report freezes like the kind that California has should be available
and free for all consumers at the national level. You wanna solve the
problem of "too easy credit" - this move will kick the credit industry in
the nuts far harder any defeating this bankruptcy law would and it'll
protect a far larger and far more deserving class of people. And it'll even
reduce the need for bankruptcy too.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:29:22 GMT, "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
Instead of wasting all this time and effort to protect the subset of people
who *chose of their own free will* to take on debt they can't afford,
Which is why 50% of bankruptcies come from medical catastrophes and
still more from layoffs, etc.
|
| |
| |
Scott en Aztln wrote:
Why do people believe they can't afford health insurance, but CAN
afford to run up $15,000 in credit card and other debt?
Maybe they ran up that debt to pay for their health care.
Crystal is not an innocent victim here - she is 100% responsible for
her predicament. She CHOSE not to take health insurance; why should
she be able to just walk away leaving her critors holding the bag for
her irresponsible behavior?
Nor should they. In what way is that lender responsible for Crystal's
fiscal irresponsibility? Why are THEY being punished??
And mine.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
Note that the law ignores corporate bankruptcy which allows the heads
of companies to start new ventures before the ink is dry of the filing
for their old company.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
Speaking of corporate bankruptcies, why are employees at the end of
the line when creditors are paid?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:43:32 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:> Speaking of corporate bankruptcies, why are employees at the end of
:>the line when creditors are paid?
1. They are not at the end.
2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:42:00 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:> Note that the law ignores corporate bankruptcy which allows the heads
:>of companies to start new ventures before the ink is dry of the filing
:>for their old company.
If someone is willing to finance them, why not?
How many tries did it take Edison to be successful?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:58:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt?
Only because the law chooses, either way.
|
| |
| |
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:43:32 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:> Speaking of corporate bankruptcies, why are employees at the end of
:>the line when creditors are paid?
1. They are not at the end.
2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt?
Having been in this situation I can assure you that employees rarely
get anything. Why isn't sweat equity given the same value as secured debt?
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:42:00 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:> Note that the law ignores corporate bankruptcy which allows the heads
:>of companies to start new ventures before the ink is dry of the filing
:>for their old company.
If someone is willing to finance them, why not?
How about if they use their own money to start a new venture?
How many tries did it take Edison to be successful?
Did Edison stiff his creditors.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
SpammersDie wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, blah....
Instead of wasting all this time and effort to protect the subset of people
who *chose of their own free will* to take on debt they can't afford, why
haven't these consumer groups and Demmies been pushing to protect the rest
of us who *choose to use debt responsibly but have to watch our backs every
day anyway because of identity-theft aiders and abettors like Choicepoint
and lenders who ignore fraud alerts.*
Don't like bankruptcy? I assume you're equally in favor of abolishing
corporations. A corporation is a legal contrivance which shields
investors from any personal liability for a business that loses money.
The fact is, people sometimes go under, leaving companies holding the
bag. But that's already built into credit rates. That's why this lady
had an 18.6% car loan, whereas you probably do not. It's why credit
card companies can charge hefty 20%+ interest (to certain customers),
and payday-loan places can charge 650% APR to really desperate people.
There's no free lunch. Companies that want a risk-free 20% or 650%
annual return on their money have another thing coming.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:28:41 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:
:>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:43:32 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:>> :> Speaking of corporate bankruptcies, why are employees at the end of
:>> :>the line when creditors are paid?
:>> 1. They are not at the end.
:>> 2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt?
:> Having been in this situation I can assure you that employees rarely
:>get anything. Why isn't sweat equity given the same value as secured debt?
Because it isn't secured.
The lender protected himself by securing the property. Without that security
there would not have been a loan and there would not have been a business or
jobs.
The employee, should he be concerned, can negotiate with the employer to
secure some unencumbered property as security for his wages. And walk away if
the employer will not agree.
Following your rules, if the company purchased a property with a mortgage and
went bankrupt, the bank (and thus it shareholders - many of whom are widows
and orphans) would lose their money as the property would be granted to the
employees.
Do you really think that is right or just?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:14:54 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:58:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt?
:>Only because the law chooses, either way.
It is proper to pay those that have secured their debt first.
They would not have made the loan without the security.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:29:34 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:
:>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:42:00 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:>> :> Note that the law ignores corporate bankruptcy which allows the heads
:>> :>of companies to start new ventures before the ink is dry of the filing
:>> :>for their old company.
:>> If someone is willing to finance them, why not?
:> How about if they use their own money to start a new venture?
Why not?
The corporate structure was clear to the employees and lenders. If they feel
that there was malfeasance they can go to court to pierce the corporate veil.
:>> How many tries did it take Edison to be successful?
:> Did Edison stiff his creditors.
Not a clue.
But they are creditors of the corporation, not of the officers.
If they feel there was dirty doings they can sue the officers.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
|
| |
| |
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:29:34 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:
:>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:42:00 GMT George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
:>> :> Note that the law ignores corporate bankruptcy which allows the heads
:>> :>of companies to start new ventures before the ink is dry of the filing
:>> :>for their old company.
:>> If someone is willing to finance them, why not?
:> How about if they use their own money to start a new venture?
Why not?
The corporate structure was clear to the employees and lenders. If they feel
that there was malfeasance they can go to court to pierce the corporate veil.
:>> How many tries did it take Edison to be successful?
:> Did Edison stiff his creditors.
Not a clue.
But they are creditors of the corporation, not of the officers.
If they feel there was dirty doings they can sue the officers.
Yes, one standard for workers, another for companies and CEOs.
GM is trying to get out of its pension obligations. Bet they won't
include Roger Smith in the group that gets less money.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:09:39 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:14:54 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote: :>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:58:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen :><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote: :>>2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt? :>Only because the law chooses, either way. It is proper to pay those that have secured their debt first. They would not have made the loan without the security.
just seek better rates for the risk. It's a simple public policy
choice. That you take the status quo as a god given absolute is
naive.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:25:22 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:09:39 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:14:54 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
:>>:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:58:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
:>>:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>:>>2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt?
:>>:>Only because the law chooses, either way.
:>>It is proper to pay those that have secured their debt first.
:>>They would not have made the loan without the security.
:>If the law required employees be paid first, the secured lenders would
:>just seek better rates for the risk.
They would no longer be secured lenders.
The definition of a secured lender is one that has property backing the loan.
:> It's a simple public policy
:>choice.
The corporation could not take secured loans.
I wonder how they will be able to finance property.
Instead of 5% interest they would be looking at 20+%.
Instead of 20% down they would be looking at 70+% down.
:> That you take the status quo as a god given absolute is
:>naive.
That you don't recognize that making it hard for businesses to open, requiring
a much more up front money, causes less jobs - is quite clear.
I guess you are of the type that will always be working for someone else.
Try thinking hard and look at it from the owner/investors point of view. Make
it too expensive to open a business and they won't open it. Or they will open
it overseas.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
|
| |
| |
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:25:22 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote: :>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:09:39 +0300, Binyamin Dissen :><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote: :>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:14:54 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote: :>>:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:58:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen :>>:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote: :>>:>>2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt? :>>:>Only because the law chooses, either way. :>>It is proper to pay those that have secured their debt first. :>>They would not have made the loan without the security. :>If the law required employees be paid first, the secured lenders would :>just seek better rates for the risk. They would no longer be secured lenders. The definition of a secured lender is one that has property backing the loan. :> It's a simple public policy :>choice. The corporation could not take secured loans. I wonder how they will be able to finance property. Instead of 5% interest they would be looking at 20+%. Instead of 20% down they would be looking at 70+% down. :> That you take the status quo as a god given absolute is :>naive. That you don't recognize that making it hard for businesses to open, requiring a much more up front money, causes less jobs - is quite clear. I guess you are of the type that will always be working for someone else. Try thinking hard and look at it from the owner/investors point of view. Make it too expensive to open a business and they won't open it. Or they will open it overseas.
annoying necessity.
Look at the groups that the GOP refuses to exempt from the new law:
People whose medical expenses are overwhelming
Those called up for active duty
Victims of ID theft.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:51:10 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:25:22 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote: :>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:09:39 +0300, Binyamin Dissen :><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote: :>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:14:54 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote: :>>:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:58:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen :>>:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote: :>>:>>2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt? :>>:>Only because the law chooses, either way. :>>It is proper to pay those that have secured their debt first. :>>They would not have made the loan without the security. :>If the law required employees be paid first, the secured lenders would :>just seek better rates for the risk. They would no longer be secured lenders. The definition of a secured lender is one that has property backing the loan. :> It's a simple public policy :>choice. The corporation could not take secured loans. I wonder how they will be able to finance property. Instead of 5% interest they would be looking at 20+%. Instead of 20% down they would be looking at 70+% down.
:> That you take the status quo as a god given absolute is
:>naive.
That you don't recognize that making it hard for businesses to open, requiring
a much more up front money, causes less jobs - is quite clear.
I guess you are of the type that will always be working for someone else.
What pointless nastiness.
Try thinking hard and look at it from the owner/investors point of view. Make
it too expensive to open a business and they won't open it. Or they will open
it overseas.
Policy choices are policy choices. Plain and simple.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:57:47 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:51:10 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:25:22 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
:>>:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:09:39 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
:>>:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>:>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:14:54 -0700 retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
:>>:>>:>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:58:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
:>>:>>:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>:>>:>>2. Why should they have priority over those with secured debt?
:>>:>>:>Only because the law chooses, either way.
:>>:>>It is proper to pay those that have secured their debt first.
:>>:>>They would not have made the loan without the security.
:>>:>If the law required employees be paid first, the secured lenders would
:>>:>just seek better rates for the risk.
:>>They would no longer be secured lenders.
:>>The definition of a secured lender is one that has property backing the loan.
:>>:> It's a simple public policy
:>>:>choice.
:>>The corporation could not take secured loans.
:>>I wonder how they will be able to finance property.
:>>Instead of 5% interest they would be looking at 20+%.
:>>Instead of 20% down they would be looking at 70+% down.
:>You're full of assumptions.
Is it that difficult for you to understand that unsecured loans have a higher
rate than secured loans?
Is it that difficult for you to understand that one will get a much larger
secured loan than an unsecured loan?
Which assumption of mine do you fail to comprehend?
:>>:> That you take the status quo as a god given absolute is
:>>:>naive.
:>>That you don't recognize that making it hard for businesses to open, requiring
:>>a much more up front money, causes less jobs - is quite clear.
:>>I guess you are of the type that will always be working for someone else.
:>What pointless nastiness.
Not nastiness. Reality.
If you never were a business owner (and never entertained the possibility of
being one), you would not realize the risks that the owner takes.
The more money and the more risk that you require them to put in the business,
the less likely they are willing to open it. They can always put their money
in a mix of bonds and stock index funds and make a much safer return.
:>>Try thinking hard and look at it from the owner/investors point of view. Make
:>>it too expensive to open a business and they won't open it. Or they will open
:>>it overseas.
:>Policy choices are policy choices. Plain and simple.
Exactly.
Do you feel that the best way to protect the worker is to make sure that there
are less jobs?
Especially with high unemployment?
Sort of like killing the chicken to make it chicken soup for its' cold?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
|
| |
| |
Binyamin Dissen wrote
Having been in this situation I can assure you that employees rarely get
anything.
You cant assure anyone of anything, you will never
ever see more than a pathetically inadequate sample.
And they clearly got their wages before it went bust anyway.
Why isn't sweat equity given the same value as secured debt?
Because no one would be stupid enough to
lend money in that situation at reasonable rates.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:11:38 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>I wonder how they will be able to finance property.
:>>Instead of 5% interest they would be looking at 20+%.
:>>Instead of 20% down they would be looking at 70+% down.
:>You're full of assumptions.
Is it that difficult for you to understand that unsecured loans have a higher
rate than secured loans?
I have no problem understanding that at all, I'm merely commenting on
the way you pull such extreme numbers out of your butt with such
authority. From 5% to 20%. Given low default rates etc. it could more
likely be 7%. But then that wouldn't make your point as well would it?
|
| |
| |
SpammersDie wrote:
Don't like bankruptcy?
He didnt say that, just that it shouldnt be easy to weasel out of what you owe.
I assume you're equally in favor of abolishing corporations.
Stupid assumptions.
A corporation is a legal contrivance which shields investors from any personal
liability for a business that loses money.
Its much more complicated than that.
The fact is, people sometimes go under, leaving companies holding the bag.
But that's already built into credit rates.
And if its harder to weasel out of what you owe, those that dont
do that wont have to pay for those who do in their credit rates.
That's why this lady had an 18.6% car loan, whereas you probably do not. It's
why credit card companies can charge hefty 20%+ interest (to certain
customers), and payday-loan places can charge 650% APR to really desperate
people.
There's no free lunch. Companies that want a risk-free 20% or 650% annual
return on their money have another thing coming.
No one said anything about risk free.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:11:38 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>That you don't recognize that making it hard for businesses to open, requiring
:>>a much more up front money, causes less jobs - is quite clear.
:>>I guess you are of the type that will always be working for someone else.
:>What pointless nastiness.
Not nastiness. Reality.
I've run a number of very successful businesses. You're just
condescending and nasty by nature with people who seek to point out
you base a lot of your beliefs on assumptions.
If you never were a business owner (and never entertained the possibility of
being one), you would not realize the risks that the owner takes.
The more money and the more risk that you require them to put in the business,
the less likely they are willing to open it. They can always put their money
in a mix of bonds and stock index funds and make a much safer return.
Except when they can't.
|
| |
| |
| |
