tlc123 said:North Carolina
I know someone that failed to list all of their assets on their Chapter 13 filing. They failed to list items that have value and could be sold to alleviate some of their debt. Where and how can you report them?
acemagoo61 said:Unless the person has 10’s or 100’s of thousands of hidden assets why would you want to make someone’s life more miserable than it is?
Bankruptcy stays on your record for 10 years. Especially for the first few years getting a loan is difficult and loan rates are usually above 20%. If you need a car to continue going to work so you can continue to support yourself, your children, your spouse, pay taxes, mortgage, rent, etc. You will probably end up going to a buy here, pay here’s or dealers who have access to poor credit funds. These people take advantage of your credit predicament. You pay more for the vehicle, more for the loan.
No matter how much you make or don’t make, how much you own or don’t own, we all live in our own economy to scale. There is only so much one could hide without raising suspicion. Someone who did have millions may be able to hide a 100k in a Swiss account and get away with it. Someone making $20k would be lucky (very lucky) if they could hide 2k. Both will pay premiums for loans in the future. I.E. Mr. 20k very well may end up paying 20k in additional interest over the next 10 years. Mr. Millionaire may end up paying 100 of thousands in additional interest in the future, as well as loosing 100’s of thousands in assets.
Also, take two cases, both made the same income, bought a house in the same neighborhood for the same price. One has been saving aggressively for retirement and saving thousands in taxes and has 100k saved. The other saved 100k, but it is in the bank and they didn’t save any money in taxes. Worse, the second person took a $20,000 additional mortgage on their house to try to help with the unsecured debt before realizing they really needed bankruptcy, the first with the same amount of debt, kept the debt in unsecured loans. In bankruptcy the person who paid taxes will lose all their money and have to pay off the second mortgage, the person who didn’t pay taxes on 100k gets to keep the money and is discharged from the unsecured debt. Does this seem fair?
I know these examples are extreme, but they show how inequitable bankruptcy can be, and they do happen.
If someone has rich parents they can rack up debt, file bankruptcy and their parents can buy them cars and homes and that is perfectly ok.
A poor person can try to take care of an indigent parent, end up in debt doing so and lose some of the equity in their house and money in the bank.
Even banks file bankruptcy, not only do they file, they continue to pay executives (who are responsible for profitability) 100’s of thousands a year.
Bankruptcy laws are unfair, the poorer you really are, the worse your circumstances.
Only a fool would file bankruptcy if they could really pay off the debt with out really facing a hardship (hardship is an economy of scale also, at least in my opinion).
Credit card companies are lobbying for a lot stricter bankruptcy rules for unsecured debt, they are doing this based on the position that people are entering into debt they know they can’t pay with full intent of filing bankruptcy. I don’t believe most people rack up debt with the intention of filing bankruptcy. What the credit card companies are really seeking is the ability to continue to establish credit lines to customers without really evaluating the likelihood that the customer can repay the debt through solid statistical and actuarial practices. It is the banks responsibility to report credit lines to the credit bureau, their responsibility to check credit reports for open lines of credits. If after doing that they still choose to compete with other lenders by offering additional lines of credits, or fail to shut a line of credit down when they see that the customer has opened additional lines of credit that exceed what they consider a good risk, they are gambling. Anyone else who gambles and looses has no recourse. Why should banks?
In an attempt to make bigger and bigger profits, banks get more and more aggressive and if they get into trouble, well they just file bankruptcy and the executives are in no danger of loosing assets they earned from bonuses made from large profits in previous years because they made so much profit in previous years due to their aggressive credit card lending practices.
Anyways, if banks were more responsible for their lending, the only people who would be filing bankruptcy would be those who came upon a true hardship and do deserve bankruptcy relief. Instead they remain aggressive and want to continue to lend money out without being responsible for it so that they can show a high profit. If banks can’t be financially responsible, what do they expect from consumers not as financially savvy?
Truth is, if everyone played it completely, 100%, safe, who would ever dare take out a loan, you never really know what tomorrow holds. The banks would go out of business. No one would buy a car until they had cash for it. What would that do to labor and automakers? Consumer confidence is a major factor in the economy, when it is up the economy goes up, when consumer confidence is down, spending takes a dive, less goods are sold, more jobs are lost, more consumers become afraid of loosing their jobs in the future so they start buying less creating more job losses.
Being optimistic, taking a risk makes for a better economy. Holding someone to debts they can not really pay without hardship, if they can pay them at all, is bad for the economy. Think of how your mind works when you are under extreme stress; are you more or less productive? Are your decisions more or less sound?
If you’re true joy in life is to see others suffer, then you can advocate hammering people into the ground. Just don’t complain when the trickle down effect takes away your job, or your disability, or wipes out your investments. If everyone plays it completely safe, companies will fold, tax base goes down and everyone looses.
Back to the point, do you really want to make this person more miserable?
Bankruptcy laws are inequitable; do you feel it is up to you to help enforce this inequity? Or should it be up to those responsible for enforcing this inequitable process to dig up any thing perceived as not kosher?
Personally I am not hiding anything, I have nothing. If at the beginning I did things differently and had not tried to recover, pay my bills and protect my credit rating, I would have had a lot in protected assets. Does that mean I want to see this guy hammered? I don’t.
If you feel morally justified in doing this, your being judgmental, judge not least you be judged. You’re committing a sin.
Basically I feel it is you who needs something to crop up to hold your hands over the fire more than the person you wish to turn in.
Life is short, bankruptcy takes 10 years to clear and it is no picnic, have a little empathy.
acemagoo61 said:Unless the person has 10’s or 100’s of thousands of hidden assets why would you want to make someone’s life more miserable than it is?
Bankruptcy stays on your record for 10 years. Especially for the first few years getting a loan is difficult and loan rates are usually above 20%. If you need a car to continue going to work so you can continue to support yourself, your children, your spouse, pay taxes, mortgage, rent, etc. You will probably end up going to a buy here, pay here’s or dealers who have access to poor credit funds. These people take advantage of your credit predicament. You pay more for the vehicle, more for the loan.
No matter how much you make or don’t make, how much you own or don’t own, we all live in our own economy to scale. There is only so much one could hide without raising suspicion. Someone who did have millions may be able to hide a 100k in a Swiss account and get away with it. Someone making $20k would be lucky (very lucky) if they could hide 2k. Both will pay premiums for loans in the future. I.E. Mr. 20k very well may end up paying 20k in additional interest over the next 10 years. Mr. Millionaire may end up paying 100 of thousands in additional interest in the future, as well as loosing 100’s of thousands in assets.
Also, take two cases, both made the same income, bought a house in the same neighborhood for the same price. One has been saving aggressively for retirement and saving thousands in taxes and has 100k saved. The other saved 100k, but it is in the bank and they didn’t save any money in taxes. Worse, the second person took a $20,000 additional mortgage on their house to try to help with the unsecured debt before realizing they really needed bankruptcy, the first with the same amount of debt, kept the debt in unsecured loans. In bankruptcy the person who paid taxes will lose all their money and have to pay off the second mortgage, the person who didn’t pay taxes on 100k gets to keep the money and is discharged from the unsecured debt. Does this seem fair?
I know these examples are extreme, but they show how inequitable bankruptcy can be, and they do happen.
If someone has rich parents they can rack up debt, file bankruptcy and their parents can buy them cars and homes and that is perfectly ok.
A poor person can try to take care of an indigent parent, end up in debt doing so and lose some of the equity in their house and money in the bank.
Even banks file bankruptcy, not only do they file, they continue to pay executives (who are responsible for profitability) 100’s of thousands a year.
Bankruptcy laws are unfair, the poorer you really are, the worse your circumstances.
Only a fool would file bankruptcy if they could really pay off the debt with out really facing a hardship (hardship is an economy of scale also, at least in my opinion).
Credit card companies are lobbying for a lot stricter bankruptcy rules for unsecured debt, they are doing this based on the position that people are entering into debt they know they can’t pay with full intent of filing bankruptcy. I don’t believe most people rack up debt with the intention of filing bankruptcy. What the credit card companies are really seeking is the ability to continue to establish credit lines to customers without really evaluating the likelihood that the customer can repay the debt through solid statistical and actuarial practices. It is the banks responsibility to report credit lines to the credit bureau, their responsibility to check credit reports for open lines of credits. If after doing that they still choose to compete with other lenders by offering additional lines of credits, or fail to shut a line of credit down when they see that the customer has opened additional lines of credit that exceed what they consider a good risk, they are gambling. Anyone else who gambles and looses has no recourse. Why should banks?
In an attempt to make bigger and bigger profits, banks get more and more aggressive and if they get into trouble, well they just file bankruptcy and the executives are in no danger of loosing assets they earned from bonuses made from large profits in previous years because they made so much profit in previous years due to their aggressive credit card lending practices.
Anyways, if banks were more responsible for their lending, the only people who would be filing bankruptcy would be those who came upon a true hardship and do deserve bankruptcy relief. Instead they remain aggressive and want to continue to lend money out without being responsible for it so that they can show a high profit. If banks can’t be financially responsible, what do they expect from consumers not as financially savvy?
Truth is, if everyone played it completely, 100%, safe, who would ever dare take out a loan, you never really know what tomorrow holds. The banks would go out of business. No one would buy a car until they had cash for it. What would that do to labor and automakers? Consumer confidence is a major factor in the economy, when it is up the economy goes up, when consumer confidence is down, spending takes a dive, less goods are sold, more jobs are lost, more consumers become afraid of loosing their jobs in the future so they start buying less creating more job losses.
Being optimistic, taking a risk makes for a better economy. Holding someone to debts they can not really pay without hardship, if they can pay them at all, is bad for the economy. Think of how your mind works when you are under extreme stress; are you more or less productive? Are your decisions more or less sound?
If you’re true joy in life is to see others suffer, then you can advocate hammering people into the ground. Just don’t complain when the trickle down effect takes away your job, or your disability, or wipes out your investments. If everyone plays it completely safe, companies will fold, tax base goes down and everyone looses.
Back to the point, do you really want to make this person more miserable?
Bankruptcy laws are inequitable; do you feel it is up to you to help enforce this inequity? Or should it be up to those responsible for enforcing this inequitable process to dig up any thing perceived as not kosher?
Personally I am not hiding anything, I have nothing. If at the beginning I did things differently and had not tried to recover, pay my bills and protect my credit rating, I would have had a lot in protected assets. Does that mean I want to see this guy hammered? I don’t.
If you feel morally justified in doing this, your being judgmental, judge not least you be judged. You’re committing a sin.
Basically I feel it is you who needs something to crop up to hold your hands over the fire more than the person you wish to turn in.
Life is short, bankruptcy takes 10 years to clear and it is no picnic, have a little empathy.
ihatearizona said:Aha! Now we get it. Ex wife revenge. Sad isn't it.
tlc123 said:I'm just glad we have "fine upstanding" citizens like this to protect us!
cyana24 said:I'm curious. You told the OP to report this "person" to the person's trustee until you found that the OP was the STBX. Why? Regardless of OP's relationship to the "person" a possible crime was committed. Bankruptcy fraud is a felony which causes even folks like us (who have filed bankruptcy) higher rates on loans and any other credit.
tlc123 said:North Carolina
I know someone that failed to list all of their assets on their Chapter 13 filing. They failed to list items that have value and could be sold to alleviate some of their debt. Where and how can you report them?
acemagoo61 said:A police officer, someone who arrests people commiting a felony. Boy is that tempting.
I have to assume you don't have children with him or you wouldn't want him to get arrested, lose his job and not be able to pay child support.
ihatearizona said:Aha! Now we get it. Ex wife revenge. Sad isn't it.
Lady, it's time to let it go. Get on with your life now that that loser is out of it. Revenge will not help your situation. Move on and try to be happy.