Personal Finance

Debt forgiveness is real

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 4th, 2015 4:07 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
1947 posts
1361 upvotes
Montreal
KMKM wrote:
Feb 4th, 2015 9:37 am
The problem with your analogy is that by definition these people don't have toys or a credit rating to lose. Also, the program is directed at the poorest of their citizens, they don't have a 'modest' salary, and obviously can't live within their means.
If they had debts, it's because someone lent them money (banks in this case it seems). This means they certainly had some form of income and credit rating.

And as for toys, this applies to the USA but is worth keeping in mind:
"In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. ... two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. ... an Xbox or a PlayStation.... microwave. ...clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker." [source]


It doesn't mean that I want those things taken away from them, but it does mean that even poor people are not destitute (at least in North America).

There are plenty of poor people who play by the rules and live within their means. They share housing accommodations with friends or family. They sacrifice and scrimp and save to afford a better education and better job. To wipe out the debts of those who chose not to do this is a slap in the face to those who played by the rules. And it sends a terrible message to them.
Deal Addict
Mar 8, 2013
2325 posts
1080 upvotes
I visited Croatia last year and I think I understand the rationale. It's a country with a small population (and getting smaller) who have been through a terrible war and a long recession. Young people are leaving the country to find work because there are few large employers in the country. That makes it difficult for the aging an underemployed population that remains. I didn't see any sense of 'entitlement'. It doesn't make sense everywhere, but I wouldn't argue with this one-time plan.
Deal Addict
Jan 14, 2011
1151 posts
338 upvotes
FrancisBacon wrote:
Feb 4th, 2015 12:20 pm
If they had debts, it's because someone lent them money (banks in this case it seems). This means they certainly had some form of income and credit rating.

And as for toys, this applies to the USA but is worth keeping in mind:
"In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. ... two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. ... an Xbox or a PlayStation.... microwave. ...clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker." [source]


It doesn't mean that I want those things taken away from them, but it does mean that even poor people are not destitute (at least in North America).

There are plenty of poor people who play by the rules and live within their means. They share housing accommodations with friends or family. They sacrifice and scrimp and save to afford a better education and better job. To wipe out the debts of those who chose not to do this is a slap in the face to those who played by the rules. And it sends a terrible message to them.
Lol, your source, The Heritage Foundation. Well of course Conservatives think poor people have it good, duh! And it's clear to see where you and others politics lie who think this is a bad idea. Try reading some libral sources about the state of poverty in America.

And banks lending to poor people isn't proof they had an income and credit rating, they're plenty of banks and lending institutions that will lend by falsifying the status of a borrower for short term gain at the cost of a future collapse where who gets to pay for it? Right, the poor and middle class.
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Apr 23, 2009
5153 posts
679 upvotes
South of Ottawa
FrancisBacon wrote:
Feb 4th, 2015 12:20 pm
If they had debts, it's because someone lent them money (banks in this case it seems). This means they certainly had some form of income and credit rating.

And as for toys, this applies to the USA but is worth keeping in mind:
"In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. ... two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. ... an Xbox or a PlayStation.... microwave. ...clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker." [source]


It doesn't mean that I want those things taken away from them, but it does mean that even poor people are not destitute (at least in North America).

There are plenty of poor people who play by the rules and live within their means. They share housing accommodations with friends or family. They sacrifice and scrimp and save to afford a better education and better job. To wipe out the debts of those who chose not to do this is a slap in the face to those who played by the rules. And it sends a terrible message to them.
KMKM wrote:
Feb 4th, 2015 1:37 pm
Lol, your source, The Heritage Foundation. Well of course Conservatives think poor people have it good, duh! And it's clear to see where you and others politics lie who think this is a bad idea. Try reading some libral sources about the state of poverty in America.

And banks lending to poor people isn't proof they had an income and credit rating, they're plenty of banks and lending institutions that will lend by falsifying the status of a borrower for short term gain at the cost of a future collapse where who gets to pay for it? Right, the poor and middle class.
I was just going to post that. A link and quote to a right wing think tank is pretty lol. I've seen absolute poverty in the U.S and it's very far from what is described in your link. The assumption is that a program like this would be available to that demographic, not employed individuals with the capacity for alternate means of resolution.

I don't know what the average poor Croation is, but I can assume they are far and away nothing like poverty that we see here. One thing that I don't believe is mentioned is the health benefits that will naturally flow from the initiative. I can't even imagine the kind of stress involved with someone living with that kind of sword over their head long term.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
30369 posts
2486 upvotes
Winnipeg
so how is this different from bankruptcy?
Deal Addict
May 12, 2014
1947 posts
1361 upvotes
Montreal
KMKM wrote:
Feb 4th, 2015 1:37 pm
Lol, your source, The Heritage Foundation. ... they're plenty of banks and lending institutions that will lend by falsifying the status of a borrower for short term gain at the cost of a future collapse where who gets to pay for it? Right, the poor and middle class.
It's just the first link I found, and anyway they're just quoting the "2005 U.S. Department of Energy, Residential Energy Expenditure Survey" (but I guess you didn't bother to look at their sources). Anyway, I remain open to hearing your reasoned counter arguments unless the only thing you can do is cast aspersions based on who did the research.

As for banks falsifying loan docs, that only occurs when the government bails out the losers. That's wrong too. I'm incensed that so many large companies were bailed out.

Top