Why is it irrelevant that the credit card companies charged this man extra to help cover this situation?
The credit card companies did not lend this woman’s husband out of the goodness of their hearts. They did so with the intent of earning a profit. In order to do so they took a risk.
Essentially they gambled and lost. Why should they be allowed to gamble without the possibility of incurring loss? Especially as part of the price of the gamble is built into the debt.
Members of my immediate family make stupid financial decisions all the time. I feel no obligation (nor should I) to reimburse any company dumb enough to lend money under those circumstances. If Bank of America ever calls me again over my idiot BIL’s debts I swear I’ll either get an apology in writing or move all my money from my B of A account.
OK, I don’t know how many different ways I can say this.
I don’t give a damn about what the law says.
I maintain that the Husband used his credit card in support of the family, and therefore that wife has a moral obligation to pay the debt. I don’t care what is in the contract - this is about doing the right thing.
I don’t like this “every man for himself” attitude - that somehow the people who don’t default on their loans are the chumps. I was taught that if you borrow money, you pay it back. Period.
Why are you letting the credit card company off the hook morally? Do you think that a company should be able to have it both ways? First they charge extra for a risk. Then they state that if they actually incur the damned risk they’re charging for they shouldn’t be on the hook for said risk.
How is that moral? Why should the wife reimburse the company for a risk they voluntarily took on and charged her husband to cover?
sigh
As I said before, this has nothing to do with the credit card company.
Would you feel differently about this if the money was owed to a friend? A relative?
Of course.
The entire issue is the fact that he was married.
If he is single when he dies, in most casesI don’t think it’s reasonable for another party to feel morally obligated to cover his debts.
There are certainly situations where that may be less clear-cut. For example, a single child living at home, using his credit card to provide for his parents.
It doesn’t fucking matter - If he used the credit card to buy time with crack whores that left him extra cash to spend on his family. That is what’s called fungibility.
BTW, beowulff, does this include identify theft – or if someone gets a hold of your credit card and racks up a bunch of charges? After all, it’s your MORAL obligation to pay them off!
Oh, it was a classic. Someone was in a situation where her husband could get Medicare to help with his numerous health problems if he was destitute, which he would be if the asker divorced him, even though she loved him and (I gather) they’d continue living as if married. The divorce would simply be to satisfy a governmental means test. Staying together (legally) would eventually bankrupt them.
mattmorgan64 took great umbrage. He was dogpiled in much the same way wulff is now, with his repeated claims that the asker was immoral and everyone who sympathized was equally immoral.
Oh, I remember that one. What an asshole. (The guy who pitted them, that is. The situation struck me as being a horrible example of just how fucked up our health care system is. I hope things are working out for said couple.)
Topic? beowulff is a turdwaffle.
so by your reasoning, she should pay for his crack whoring around, instead of a new winter coat for the kid… because it’s morally ethical, with the added bonus that she’ll sleep better at night. Brilliant.
I agree with the majority. If the CC company was to expect the widow to be responsible for the debt, then they shouldn’t have been charging whatever rate they were on the account, because presumably this rate included a few extra points to cover this risk.
However I am not getting the outrage for beowulffs position, what he is essentially saying is if everyone behaved as he wished, all the cc companies would charge less interest because their risk was lower.
Of course I don’t believe that for a second. They will charge what they can get away with…
It’s not outrage. It’s a complete lack of comprehension as to how any human adult can be so monumentally stupid.
If everyone cleared their own plates at expensive restaurants, the food would be cheaper because they wouldn’t have to hire so many bus boys. Does that mean I have a moral obligation to clean up my table every time I go to Emeril’s? Not bloody likely.