Dear beowulff: re your remarks in the Life Insurance thread in GQ

[The_Hamster_King]

@beowulff

I hate that some any people try to get rich by gaming the system.

Not paying a debt that you are not legally required to pay is “gaming the system”? :rolleyes:

There’s absolutely a scam going on here. The CC company is trying to scam a widow. You’re going on about her “moral obligation” to settle a debt. What about the corporation’s “moral obligation” to behave decently and not trick people into paying money they don’t owe?

[beowulff]

@mhendo

@The_Hamster_King

Quoting **beowulff **from the linked thread:The CC company deserves only what the wife legally and contractually owes. The CC company will certainly make no effort to do what is “morally right” for the widow and she’d be a fool to extend such consideration unilaterally.

Yeah, it always amazes me the way that some people have no problem with companies acting as rational, self-interested economic entities, but won’t extend the same consideration to individuals.

Much the same set of attitudes is common regarding home buyers who choose to default on an underwater mortgage and hand the keys over to the bank. When companies make rational business decisions like this, they’re just doing their duty, but when people do it, they are apparently being morally irresponsible.

Well, I’d certainly hope that an individual would have better morals than a company…

[Dante]

@beowulff

@Contrapuntal

Well, they never possessed it in the first place, so I really don’t see how they could repossess it. But the only rights they have are the ones spelled out in the contract, and if it says the debt is unsecured it is unsecured. They have no right to the property.

Once again, that’s not what I asked.
Do YOU think that the CC company should be able to sell items purchased on credit in order to cover bad debt?

Let me help you out there.

[Dante]

@beowulff

Well, I’d certainly hope that an individual would have better morals than a company…

Why?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@The_Hamster_King

@beowulff

I hate that some any people try to get rich by gaming the system.

Not paying a debt that you are not legally required to pay is “gaming the system”? :rolleyes:

No, no, no. The husband is gaming the system by dying. He’s a Noldo, you see, one of the last Elves who did not return to the Blessed Lands after the RingWar, and he knows that he’ll just have to spend a little tiime in the halls of Mando before he’s re-incarnated.

Makes as much sense as beowulff’s argument, anyway.

There’s absolutely a scam going on here. The CC company is trying to scam a widow. You’re going on about her “moral obligation” to settle a debt. What about the corporation’s “moral obligation” to behave decently and not trick people into paying money they don’t owe?

We’re going to need you to rephrase this with more profanity, please.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Dante

@beowulff

Well, I’d certainly hope that an individual would have better morals than a company…

Why?

To make it easier for the company to cheat them, of course. It’s like how burglars prefer really strong gun control laws, so that if they accidentally break into a house in which people are present, it is easier to rape the womenfolk.

[Contrapuntal]

@beowulff

@Contrapuntal

Well, they never possessed it in the first place, so I really don’t see how they could repossess it. But the only rights they have are the ones spelled out in the contract, and if it says the debt is unsecured it is unsecured. They have no right to the property.

Once again, that’s not what I asked.
Do YOU think that the CC company should be able to sell items purchased on credit in order to cover bad debt?

Buddy, you’re thick as a brick. I’ve said no at least twice now, but let me make it real clear. IF THEY SIGNED A CONTRACT SAYING THEY WOULDN’T, THEN THEY SHOULDN’T. Got it? Why is that so hard to understand?

Should I be able to get my money back from the CC company if the item purchased on credit is defective? No? Then why is it in play if my debt is bad?

[llcoolbj77]

@beowulff

@llcoolbj77

beowulff -
You argued in the original thread that she had a “moral” if not legal obligation to pay. Because your state is a community property state, do you use that guidance as a way of forming your moralistic beliefs about debt dispersal in this type of instance?

I’m just SO sick of the fucking “lottery mentality” of this country. I hate that some any people try to get rich by gaming the system. It’s what got us into the huge financial hole we’re in now. People (and that includes couples if they are married) should make an all-out effort to pay their damn bills, and not over-extend themselves. I hate how so many people think that it’s OK to walk away from obligations, leaving the rest of us to pay for their largess.

The only people “gaming” in these situations is the CC Company. They actually have an entire department of people called actuaries whose job it is to use statistical analysis to game the system… i.e., extending credit at an interest rate high enough that will cover their losses and to ensure profit. That is what credit is, what insurance is…

I guess some people might “game” the system by racking up debt, and hoping they die before they have to pay… but that seems like a pretty stupid game, since you can’t take it with you. Unless of course, as Skald mentioned, he is a Noldo. Makes sense then.

[The_Hamster_King]

@beowulff

Well, I’d certainly hope that an individual would have better morals than a company…

So would I … in their interactions with other individuals.

But corporations are not moral actors and therefore deserve no consideration in return.

[Oakminster]

@beowulff

@Contrapuntal

Well, they never possessed it in the first place, so I really don’t see how they could repossess it. But the only rights they have are the ones spelled out in the contract, and if it says the debt is unsecured it is unsecured. They have no right to the property.

Once again, that’s not what I asked.
Do YOU think that the CC company should be able to sell items purchased on credit in order to cover bad debt?

No. I strongly doubt the CC company has a properly perfected security interest in any goods or services purchased on the card. If they did not properly perfect their security interest, it doesn’t exist, and the debt is therefore unsecured.

[muldoonthief]

@beowulff

@mhendo

Yeah, it always amazes me the way that some people have no problem with companies acting as rational, self-interested economic entities, but won’t extend the same consideration to individuals.

Much the same set of attitudes is common regarding home buyers who choose to default on an underwater mortgage and hand the keys over to the bank. When companies make rational business decisions like this, they’re just doing their duty, but when people do it, they are apparently being morally irresponsible.

Well, I’d certainly hope that an individual would have better morals than a company…

That kind of attitude is far more damaging to this country than penniless widows following the law, you worthless shitbrained idiot.

[Wheelz]

@beowulff

I’m just SO sick of the fucking “lottery mentality” of this country. I hate that some any people try to get rich by gaming the system.

What the fuck??

You really think a young widow with a 6-year-old kid is trying to “get rich by gaming the system” by not paying money that she doesn’t have toward a debt that she doesn’t legally owe?

You really believe - as you stated in the other thread - that fucking dying constitutes “welshing” on one’s debts?

I repeat: What the fuck??

[Caffeine.addict]

@Oakminster

@beowulff

Once again, that’s not what I asked.
Do YOU think that the CC company should be able to sell items purchased on credit in order to cover bad debt?

No. I strongly doubt the CC company has a properly perfected security interest in any goods or services purchased on the card. If they did not properly perfect their security interest, it doesn’t exist, and the debt is therefore unsecured.

Damn you for giving me a flashback to my Secured Transactions class.

Additionally, depending on local law, she may be able to file for a family allowance and exempt some of the decedent’s property for being sold to pay debts.

[beowulff]

@Wheelz

@beowulff

I’m just SO sick of the fucking “lottery mentality” of this country. I hate that some any people try to get rich by gaming the system.

What the fuck??

You really think a young widow with a 6-year-old kid is trying to “get rich by gaming the system” by not paying money that she doesn’t have toward a debt that she doesn’t legally owe?

You really believe - as you stated in the other thread - that fucking dying constitutes “welshing” on one’s debts?

I repeat: What the fuck??

Man, you people…
I’m not arguing the specifics of this case. As far as the original thread goes, If she doesn’t pay back a dime, fine.

However, I am just astounded by the attitude around here that it’s morally OK to renege on your families’ debt.

If a husband (I’m not implying the OP in this case) knew he was going to die, and then went and charged up all his credit cards on trips, meals and household items (for use by the family), do all you folks think that it is morally OK for the wife to make no attempt to pay for it after he dies?

[beowulff]

@The_Hamster_King

@beowulff

Well, I’d certainly hope that an individual would have better morals than a company…

So would I … in their interactions with other individuals.

But corporations are not moral actors and therefore deserve no consideration in return.

Bullshit.
That’s the same as saying that “everyone steals” therefore it’s OK if I steal, too.

Morals are not (or should not) be transactional. They are there (at least in part) to protect the individual from himself.

[purplehorseshoe]

[QUOTE=beowulff;12974390…I am just astounded by the attitude around here that it’s morally OK to renege on your families’ debt.

If a husband (I’m not implying the OP in this case) knew he was going to die, and then went and charged up all his credit cards on trips, meals and household items (for use by the family), do all you folks think that it is morally OK for the wife to make no attempt to pay for it after he dies?[/QUOTE]

No. Why should she? She didn’t ring up the debt. He did.

[muldoonthief]

@beowulff

Man, you people…
I’m not arguing the specifics of this case. As far as the original thread goes, If she doesn’t pay back a dime, fine.

Actually, what you said in the original thread was:

@beowulff in the GQ now GD thread

His wife may not have to pay her deceased husbands CC debt, but it’s certainly true that you and I will.
I don’t really see why everyone is rushing to attack the credit card companies, when the husband basically welshed on his debt. The ethical thing to do would be for the wife to make any effort to pay off the debt, rather than expect all the rest of us to pay it for her.

So a few hours ago you certainly weren’t “fine” with her not paying a dime.

[Dante]

@beowulff

If a husband (I’m not implying the OP in this case) knew he was going to die, and then went and charged up all his credit cards on trips, meals and household items (for use by the family), do all you folks think that it is morally OK for the wife to make no attempt to pay for it after he dies?

Your going to give yourself a hernia moving those goalposts around.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Dante

@beowulff

If a husband (I’m not implying the OP in this case) knew he was going to die, and then went and charged up all his credit cards on trips, meals and household items (for use by the family), do all you folks think that it is morally OK for the wife to make no attempt to pay for it after he dies?

Your going to give yourself a hernia moving those goalposts around.

In any case it’s irrelevant. The wife did not enter into the agreement; the husband did.

[Dante]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

@Dante

Your going to give yourself a hernia moving those goalposts around.

In any case it’s irrelevant. The wife did not enter into the agreement; the husband did.

True.

[hijack]In a situation such as beowulff described, would a CC company have any legal recourse if a terminal patient racked up a significant amount of debt prior to dying in a non community property state? I’m thinking they wouldn’t be happy writing off six figure debts.[/hijack]