rhythmless
Starter
So you're ok with "poor people" making you pay more to borrow money, but not "rich people?"
Did anybody catch the story about Kevin Martin's house in the Bee the other day?
So you're ok with "poor people" making you pay more to borrow money, but not "rich people?"
Did I say that? What I said is I have a problem with people who actually have the means to settle their debt escaping it through provisions set up to protect those less fortunate. I was raised in a wealthy family and taught that doing the right thing is more important than coming out ahead by any means necessary. "Poor" people, those who are underwater on their mortgages, lost their jobs and want to stay in their homes but can't and are finding themselves forcibly removed, evicted and foreclosed upon are not in the same boat as Kevin Martin. Many of those people were victims of swindlers who convinced them that they could afford to borrow more than they could but ultimately everyone is responsible for their actions and they are severely reaping those repercussions. Most will never own homes again.
Kevin Martin is not in that class of person.
rhythmless
Starter
No, you neve rsaid that, hence the "?" at the end of the question. It was slightly implied, if you go back and reread your own post. I asked a question to clarify, which you did.
My POV is that this isn't debt, this is the bank making an investment with a contract. You are still upholding the contract if you default. I don't see it as a moral issue to default because the bank understands and you understand. Ultimately, it's only two parties involved and one contract in between them. If both parties are still abiding by that contract, either in default or repayment, I don't see why it's any of our business. I have no sympathy for rich people who bought as investments and lost their shirts, or "poor" people who bought more house than they could afford. The job loss is a separate matter entirely, which is sad, but a fact of life. Most people will get laid off at one point or another in their lives. The key is to have enough money set aside and the lack of pride to do what it takes to secure finances for yourself and family, whether it be two lower paying jobs, etc. It's doable, but I see and hear a lot of people thinking they are entitled to a standard of wage after they have been layed off. You are entitled to market pay, no more, no less.
But I digress... I just cannot say Kmart is a dirtbag b/c he has money to complete a bad investment, or that a poorer person is morally correct when they do the same thing. Bad investments are bad investments, whether you are rich or poor. You think the wealthy stay that way by throwing money down the drain?
Well see that's where you and I differ because I don't view defaulting as something akin to exercising an option on your contract, it is a flat out breach of contract. That the contract specifies provisions of recourse to the agrieved party is only natural. And the issue I have here is that Kevin isn't breaching the contract because he ran out of options but merely because he finds it in his own financial best interest, regardless of the cost to anyone else. For all but a very few select people there are actually severe consequences to what he is doing.