Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2010, 11:05 PM
 
768 posts, read 1,085,405 times
Reputation: 343

Advertisements

When corporations want to increase profits they often lay workers off. They also enjoy a legally sanctioned concession from the State called limited liability. All I am suggesting is that individuals facing financial hardship do what the corporations do and give themselves limited liability. Default on unsecured debt and increase your standard of living.



YouTube - Give Youself Limited Liability
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2010, 05:05 AM
 
20,793 posts, read 61,147,762 times
Reputation: 10693
And any lawyer 5 minutes out of school will be able to see through that smoke screen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 08:16 AM
 
768 posts, read 1,085,405 times
Reputation: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
And any lawyer 5 minutes out of school will be able to see through that smoke screen.

Think outside the box. I never said it was "legal" Try to think right and wrong instead of legal and illegal. I know it's hard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Right where I want to be.
4,507 posts, read 9,038,208 times
Reputation: 3360
Employers obligation to employees is conditional but an employees obligation to employer is conditional as well. Are you suggesting that employers are morally obligated to give you employment?


You fail to adequately explain what employer vs employee obligations have to do with debtor vs. creditor obligations??? They are completely independent of each other.
Now, if your employer issues you a CC for which you are liable, but use for company expenses...then they fire you and do not reimburse expenses then I think you have a moral standing but in your presented scenario....no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 10:01 AM
 
768 posts, read 1,085,405 times
Reputation: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
Employers obligation to employees is conditional but an employees obligation to employer is conditional as well. Are you suggesting that employers are morally obligated to give you employment?


You fail to adequately explain what employer vs employee obligations have to do with debtor vs. creditor obligations??? They are completely independent of each other.
Now, if your employer issues you a CC for which you are liable, but use for company expenses...then they fire you and do not reimburse expenses then I think you have a moral standing but in your presented scenario....no.


You are correct, some clarification is in order here on my part. I did not mean to imply that your employer (former employer) and your creditor are one in the same, although I'm sure that scenario does arise from time to time. What I meant to do was explain how businesses in general which would include your employer and also your creditor (unless your creditor is a friend or relative) operate on the principle that profits are the most important goal of business and that cutting expenses (which often means cutting or eliminating salaries) is a method businesses often employ to reach the goal of increasing profits. And they do this regardless of the detrimental effects it may have on the lives of their employees. Now many would argue that this is just how business works and I wouldn't argue with that. My point is that people must recognize that they have similar options at their disposal such as defaulting on unsecured debt.

You correctly pointed out that your employer isn't your creditor and implied, if I understand correctly, that to default your creditor is not fair because your creditor isn't your employer. Agreed. But the employee who lost his or her job due to downsizing may not have been the direct cause of his or her employer losing profits either, but they were left go just the same. So they must pass their misfortune along as it were. Not out of cruelty, but necessity. Is this a fair scenario? No, I never claimed it was. But it is in fact part of the debris that comes with the economic system of capitalism when profits are the highest goal.

I hope that clarifies my position and thank you for pointing this out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 10:14 AM
 
68 posts, read 243,058 times
Reputation: 20
I only agree to "default" on unsecured debt if a REAL Hardship is present,forget the "Moral" issues, if you cannot pay your debt including to friends and family, what else can you do but to "default". Forget the fact that businesses do this everyday, simply put if you cannot pay your creditors; there s simply just no other way!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Right where I want to be.
4,507 posts, read 9,038,208 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn View Post
You are correct, some clarification is in order here on my part. I did not mean to imply that your employer (former employer) and your creditor are one in the same, although I'm sure that scenario does arise from time to time. What I meant to do was explain how businesses in general which would include your employer and also your creditor (unless your creditor is a friend or relative) operate on the principle that profits are the most important goal of business and that cutting expenses (which often means cutting or eliminating salaries) is a method businesses often employ to reach the goal of increasing profits. And they do this regardless of the detrimental effects it may have on the lives of their employees. Now many would argue that this is just how business works and I wouldn't argue with that. My point is that people must recognize that they have similar options at their disposal such as defaulting on unsecured debt.

You correctly pointed out that your employer isn't your creditor and implied, if I understand correctly, that to default your creditor is not fair because your creditor isn't your employer. Agreed. But the employee who lost his or her job due to downsizing may not have been the direct cause of his or her employer losing profits either, but they were left go just the same. So they must pass their misfortune along as it were. Not out of cruelty, but necessity. Is this a fair scenario? No, I never claimed it was. But it is in fact part of the debris that comes with the economic system of capitalism when profits are the highest goal.

I hope that clarifies my position and thank you for pointing this out.
I think you are unnecessarily muddying the waters between company/employer profit and personal debt/obligations.

Companies don't exist without profit. If they increase profits by laying off workers then those workers are a net loss to the company, not providing enough service/profit to justify their expense, they are not 'earning their keep'....why should they be kept?

I fail to see how you are linking this to consumer debt (I also don't understand why you specifically exclude mortgage and car loan...do they have some protected moral status in your view?).

When someone incurs debt there is the option to default and that is known to both the borrower or the lender. If one has a high likelihood of default, they may find it difficult to secure credit. Still, both parties know what they are getting into and the agreement is not made on a moral basis.

In the case of true hardship anyone can default on a debt, foreclose, or declare bankruptcy (except in the case of student loans). One should always provide for basic necessities before paying creditors and do their best to pay what they owe. Sometimes their 'best' still falls short and results in default. However, to default simply to increase one's standard of living is not moral, IMO.


If you want to give people financial advice instead of trying to morally justify default on debt why not start with..... Live within/below your means and learn to be content. If you can do that, consumer debt hindering your standard of living will likely never be an issue you will have to deal with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 01:22 PM
 
768 posts, read 1,085,405 times
Reputation: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
I think you are unnecessarily muddying the waters between company/employer profit and personal debt/obligations.
I am not muddying the waters. I attempting to clear the water by applying the same standard to individuals as corporations enjoy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
Companies don't exist without profit. If they increase profits by laying off workers then those workers are a net loss to the company, not providing enough service/profit to justify their expense, they are not 'earning their keep'....why should they be kept?
No disagreement there. But people cannot exist without basic necessities such as food, water, housing, etc. If repaying debt is keeping them from securing these necessities, something has to give and it won't be the necessities. Same standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
I fail to see how you are linking this to consumer debt (I also don't understand why you specifically exclude mortgage and car loan...do they have some protected moral status in your view?).
I'm not sure what you are failing to see. And if you view my video again you will see that I don't apply morality to debt repayment but in fact vociferously argue against it. I encourage people to pay their mortgage and car payments for pragmatic reasons only. You default on a credit card debt your out nothing. You default on a mortgage or car loan and you are homeless and without wheels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
When someone incurs debt there is the option to default and that is known to both the borrower or the lender. If one has a high likelihood of default, they may find it difficult to secure credit. Still, both parties know what they are getting into and the agreement is not made on a moral basis.
No argument from me on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
In the case of true hardship anyone can default on a debt, foreclose, or declare bankruptcy (except in the case of student loans). One should always provide for basic necessities before paying creditors and do their best to pay what they owe. Sometimes their 'best' still falls short and results in default. However, to default simply to increase one's standard of living is not moral, IMO.
But laying off workers to increase profits is not immoral? Wow, your morality seems skewed IMO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
If you want to give people financial advice instead of trying to morally justify default on debt why not start with......
You are missing my point again. I am not trying to morally justify default. I thought I made it clear that morality has nothing to do with it. It is simply a business decision just like the ones that corporations make all the time.




Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank View Post
Live within/below your means and learn to be content.
Does that apply to corporations? Should they also be content with their profits and not try to increase them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,595,381 times
Reputation: 18502
You start off wrong from the very beginning and, from what I can tell, you never look back.

Corporations do not have limited liability. A corporation has complete liability for its financial obligations. It is inaccurate to say that a corporation's obligation to its employees is conditional: the corporation is liable to all of its employees for the debt that it incurs by having them work. What you seem to be talking about is the fact that the corporation can choose to terminate its employees, but that doesn't change the fact that the corporation retains liability for all the services that have already been rendered.

The limitation of liability that is the essence of the corporate structure is that the owners of a corporation, the shareholders, have limited liability. This is very different from the idea that the corporation itself has limited liability for its debts.

What a corporation does have is the ability to not pay all of its debts if the debts exceed the value of the assets of the corporation: the corporation can file bankruptcy or go out of business. In the case of bankruptcy the debts can be discharged and the assets liquidated for the benefit of the corporation's creditors; if the corporation just ceases to operate the debts aren't extinguished but, as a practical matter, the creditors might have no way to collect.

The option of bankruptcy to extinguish debts is, of course, also available to individuals.

Finally, in Post #3 you say that you never said anything about legality. This is just wrong. Liability is a legal concept. An individual can stop paying his/her bills, but an individual doesn't have the ability to extinguish his/her liability for debts, except as I discussed above.

Your video is an excellent example of a situation in which anyone who listened to it and believed it is actually stupider after watching it than they were before they saw it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2010, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Right where I want to be.
4,507 posts, read 9,038,208 times
Reputation: 3360
+1 to jackmccullough...well stated post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn View Post
I am not muddying the waters. I attempting to clear the water by applying the same standard to individuals as corporations enjoy.
You are trying to apply the same standards...??? You aren't even talking about the same things.

Quote:
No disagreement there. But people cannot exist without basic necessities such as food, water, housing, etc. If repaying debt is keeping them from securing these necessities, something has to give and it won't be the necessities. Same standard.
I agree that necessities come first...as stated in my post.

Quote:
I'm not sure what you are failing to see. And if you view my video again you will see that I don't apply morality to debt repayment but in fact vociferously argue against it. I encourage people to pay their mortgage and car payments for pragmatic reasons only. You default on a credit card debt your out nothing. You default on a mortgage or car loan and you are homeless and without wheels.
See below.

Quote:
But laying off workers to increase profits is not immoral? Wow, your morality seems skewed IMO.
I thought you weren't applying moral standards here?

laying off workers that do not contribute to the productivity of the business is not immoral. A business is not a charity. Why should any company keep more employees than it needs, for any reason....to cull dead weight, to meet a lesser demand, to downsize/consolidate, just to keep afloat, to preserve profit or assets...

Quote:
You are missing my point again. I am not trying to morally justify default. I thought I made it clear that morality has nothing to do with it. It is simply a business decision just like the ones that corporations make all the time.
Well which is it? You say you want to apply the same standards (although I think you are comparing apples and oranges) and that morality has nothing to do with defaulting on debt....yet you above suggest that laying off employees to increase profits is immoral. Sounds to me like you are the one with different standards. Are you applying morals to one situation (employer) and not the other (debtor)?

Quote:
Does that apply to corporations? Should they also be content with their profits and not try to increase them?
I'm having a difficult time getting your apples and oranges on the same scale so I don't know if I can answer this adequately.

First, when I say be content I do not mean to be stagnant. Contentment is a state of mind more so than the state of your checkbook or accounting ledger. I do not see contentment as a hindrance to continued growth, increase or improvement.

Regarding living within means, I think a corporation can grow without leveraging itself and risking default just as individuals can increase their standard of living without leveraging themselves. It's a slower process, probably resulting in smaller business model and no guarantee that cut backs won't have to be made as necessary. To an individual that might mean selling a car, canceling the cable/cell phone, postponing or canceling a vacation when times get tough. For a company that might mean times of downsizing and laying off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:15 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top