Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money?
TaskmasterJack Send a noteboard - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM
Cause they can go after as many of their customers as they want.
Or did I wander into a conversation where I misunderstood the context?
Or did I wander into a conversation where I misunderstood the context?
This message last edited by TaskmasterJack on 15/10/2010 at 09:42:59 PM
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral?
12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM
- 1375 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street -
12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM
- 875 Views
Of course it's immoral.
12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM
- 844 Views
But does one sided morality work?
12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM
- 965 Views
You asked about the morality of walking away when the borrower still has the ability to pay.
12/10/2010 07:31:10 PM
- 767 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM*
12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM
- 388 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM*
12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM
- 330 Views
If banks can not behave in moral manner why should people be expected to behave in moral manner?
12/10/2010 08:07:56 PM
- 837 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others.
12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM
- 745 Views
Because it's their moral obligation. Morality is not a trade, you act morally because it is right
12/10/2010 08:47:41 PM
- 932 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you?
12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM
- 789 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM
- 785 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM
- 1283 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system
15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM
- 986 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM*
12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM
- 407 Views
Which is why contracts have to be pages and pages long and combed over by bloodsucking lawyers.
12/10/2010 06:39:18 PM
- 823 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them.
12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM
- 680 Views
Hrm.
12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM
- 889 Views
did you take a personal oath in front of god and your loved ones to pay the loan back? *NM*
12/10/2010 08:09:07 PM
- 396 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM*
12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM
- 410 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM*
12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM
- 383 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract.
12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM
- 948 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM*
12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
- 407 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach.
12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM
- 920 Views
You didn't mention the third party
12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM
- 706 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society
12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM
- 851 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective?
12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM
- 857 Views
Sure, you could do that.
13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM
- 859 Views
The problem is that you're buying something today and paying for it for the next 15/30/50 years.
13/10/2010 03:04:26 PM
- 741 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not.
13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM
- 807 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way
13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM
- 808 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though?
13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM
- 802 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM*
13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM
- 382 Views
I agree, what do you think is different?
13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM
- 833 Views
The difference is that the bank owns the house. Whereas when I buy stuff, it's mine. *NM*
19/10/2010 07:05:34 PM
- 365 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations.
13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM
- 764 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway.
13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM
- 893 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay.
13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM
- 781 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank?
13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM
- 835 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do.
13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM
- 794 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage.
13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM
- 812 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here.
13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM
- 828 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM*
13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM
- 440 Views
You can garnish their wages.
13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM
- 790 Views
With parsley?
13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM
- 878 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM*
13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM
- 432 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM*
14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM
- 507 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM*
14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM
- 357 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM*
14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM
- 378 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies.
14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM
- 776 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money?
14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM
- 822 Views
I am currently in that situation...
14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM
- 908 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes.
14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM
- 858 Views
it is easy for me and others to be glib when it is just a theory *NM*
14/10/2010 08:19:16 PM
- 379 Views
If you have the ability to pay, I would consider it yet another immoral act in an immoral industry.
14/10/2010 07:49:38 AM
- 833 Views