Liquid assets go straight towards liabilities, real assets TEND to stay untouched, some physical assets are sold off, some aren’t, then after that little dance, the remainder of liabilities are discharged.
So yes. When you walk out of a bankruptcy, in general, your quality of life has changed very little, you are just starting over in terms of LIQUID assets.
However it was designed, it shouldn’t be allowed to be abused by rich fucks not giving up their millionaire lifestyle while continuing to rack up additional debt/judgements. You know these assholes are proponents of limiting what people can use welfare for (no steak or other “luxury” food styled arguments). Perhaps he should be limited to what a person on welfare is able to afford? You want to continue to pull in an income for “speeches” or whatever bullshit these grifters do for money? All but the bare minimum get frozen by the court until judgements are settled.
You’ll have to specify you don’t support it when describing it in a way that can be confused as a defense for it if you really want to avoid it. Saying, “nah it doesn’t work like that.” is very, very easy to take as an adversarial statement.
It doesn’t imply defense, but it can come across as a defensive posture. Poe’s Law kinda’ sucks to deal with. It’s one of many reasons good speech writers are kept around. It’s not just about having correct English or making logically correct statements.
They were being neither parodic nor sarcastic so Poe’s law really doesn’t apply.
I also disagree that they have to specify they don’t support it. The comment is a statement of fact, a readers assumptions about the stance of the writer speaks to the readers bias, not the writers.
Yes, notice how I said, “…if you want to avoid it.”
It wasn’t an appeal for making correct statements. It was an appeal to hedge communication, which is always intelligent to do with a general audience. Most people do not think like a computer. You HAVE to communicate with that in mind to effectively communicate.
Yes, it’s a problem with stupid people, but if you want stupid people to understand you, you better get used to it.
I think you are falling into the social media trap that every comment has to be a back and forth, or a disagreement. When you describe the existing system, if someone disagrees with it, it’s not a disagreement with you. When you let that go and realize you don’t need to reply, it’s a weight lifted.
Exactly. You shouldn’t come out of bankruptcy homeless, but you should absolutely be stripped of all but your smallest house and all trusts in your name.
You understand that you could sentence Guliani, the world famous Mayor of New York during 9/11 to walk naked into the Antarctic tundra and he will be scooped up and pampered even harder for it.
By Maga. By Russia. By the fascist cops who justify their blue line culture by the legitimacy of post 9/11 “support the troops, thank the first responders” horse shit we showered them with for 20 years.
He should be in a cell.
Put them in cells.
However luxurious they can make that cell (less wifi), the only thing we can do with these fascists is to confine them to a cell and an orange jumpsuit.
“Inheriting debt” as far as I am aware has never been legally validated.
At least in America, the courts are silent about it.
Like, your paychecks can’t be garnished in the name of inherited debt, but the courts also wont stop debt collectors from going after a person for inherited debt.
If the surviving family buckles under the harassment and pays, they buckle and pay. If they hold strong and wait for the collectors to move on, they don’t pay.
This isn’t in the case of something “unwanted”. You can decline to assume a debt from inheritance. You would also be giving up anything tied to it like a house or car. In the case of a dead loved one’s higher education, there’s no reason to assume the debt. You don’t get the education if you do.
I mean, it makes sense (to me at least) that spouses would inherit debt “that was their spouses”, with the possible exception of established prenuptial/last will and testament agreements creating a grey area in favor of the surviving spouse.
By default, a marriage is a merging of finances and households.
Without things like prenups and wills, a divorce is going to be a process of splitting all liabilities and assets 50/50. Similarly, without prenups and wills, the surviving spouse is going to inherit all of assets AND all liabilities (because technically they always held them in tandem with their spouse).
Now, if there was always a prenup, Hubby always had the money, Wifey was on a weekly/monthly allowance, and Hubby had a will where he left all the money to his son from another woman, leaving Wifey with nothing, Wifey didn’t get any assets, obviously she doesn’t inherit any debt.
Outside marriage, I think it should go like this:
Upon death, non-liquid assets get distributed. Timmy inherits the Pontiac GT, Harriet inherits all of the clothes, Wilfred gets all the furniture, Freddy gets the house. Any SECURED liability on the non-liquid assets stay attached. Dad had 3k left on the car loan for the Pontiac, Timmy can take over that car loan. If Freddy doesn’t want Dad’s house worth 300k dollars with 200k left on the mortgage, he has the option to liquidate the house, but the proceeds from that sale go into the liquid assets of the estate, not into Freddy’s pocket.
After non-liquid assets have been distributed/liquidated and BEFORE any liquid assets get distributed as inheritance, liability holders for the estate get to fight over what ever liquid assets are there. If the estate, after liquidation, has 400k in liquid assets, secured liability holders (the mortgage company) are going to get first stab at the money. The mortgage company recovers its 300k. Then any unsecured liability holders (Dad’s credit card he ran up to 60k dollars) get next stab at the liquid assets. They recover their 60k, that leaves 40k in liquid assets.
If the liability of the estate exceeds the liquid assets of the estate, no dollars are going to anyone in the family. Liability holders get all the money, and some of them probably get stiffed on the remainder.
In no event does unsecured liability get shuffled off on a successor of the deceased.
If there are no liquid assets left after liability has been resolved, Frankie doesn’t get the 10k Dad’s will said was bequeathed to him.
No idea how all of this actually plays out. Just my opinion on what should happen with an estate after death.
This isn’t true. In fact, I told my wife that I’d come back and haunt her if she paid a penny towards my student loans if I died.
But it doesn’t matter any more, I was able to get my student loan debt finally discharged earlier this year. All it took was sending $450 to my loan carrier every month for 20 years, and then they told me I didn’t need to send any more. Thanks Biden!
And strangely enough those kind of guy live in a million $$$ mansion or condo and spend $50’000/month on frivolities, even in bankruptcy
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean without money.
It means your liabilities exceed your assets.
Liquid assets go straight towards liabilities, real assets TEND to stay untouched, some physical assets are sold off, some aren’t, then after that little dance, the remainder of liabilities are discharged.
So yes. When you walk out of a bankruptcy, in general, your quality of life has changed very little, you are just starting over in terms of LIQUID assets.
That is what bankruptcy was designed to be.
However it was designed, it shouldn’t be allowed to be abused by rich fucks not giving up their millionaire lifestyle while continuing to rack up additional debt/judgements. You know these assholes are proponents of limiting what people can use welfare for (no steak or other “luxury” food styled arguments). Perhaps he should be limited to what a person on welfare is able to afford? You want to continue to pull in an income for “speeches” or whatever bullshit these grifters do for money? All but the bare minimum get frozen by the court until judgements are settled.
I don’t disagree with you.
Just describing the existing system.
This is becoming a running thing for me on Kbin. Describing the system and facing people who are angry about the system.
I don’t endorse it. I think it is bullshit. But it is what it is until we figure out how to make them fix it.
You’ll have to specify you don’t support it when describing it in a way that can be confused as a defense for it if you really want to avoid it. Saying, “nah it doesn’t work like that.” is very, very easy to take as an adversarial statement.
It doesn’t imply defense, but it can come across as a defensive posture. Poe’s Law kinda’ sucks to deal with. It’s one of many reasons good speech writers are kept around. It’s not just about having correct English or making logically correct statements.
They were being neither parodic nor sarcastic so Poe’s law really doesn’t apply.
I also disagree that they have to specify they don’t support it. The comment is a statement of fact, a readers assumptions about the stance of the writer speaks to the readers bias, not the writers.
Yes, notice how I said, “…if you want to avoid it.”
It wasn’t an appeal for making correct statements. It was an appeal to hedge communication, which is always intelligent to do with a general audience. Most people do not think like a computer. You HAVE to communicate with that in mind to effectively communicate.
Yes, it’s a problem with stupid people, but if you want stupid people to understand you, you better get used to it.
shoots the messenger
I think you are falling into the social media trap that every comment has to be a back and forth, or a disagreement. When you describe the existing system, if someone disagrees with it, it’s not a disagreement with you. When you let that go and realize you don’t need to reply, it’s a weight lifted.
Keep informing and more people learn.
That’s actually really good advice.
Cheers.
No it’s not.
Exactly. You shouldn’t come out of bankruptcy homeless, but you should absolutely be stripped of all but your smallest house and all trusts in your name.
Your smallest house? How about sell everything and start renting an apartment like every working person?
You understand that you could sentence Guliani, the world famous Mayor of New York during 9/11 to walk naked into the Antarctic tundra and he will be scooped up and pampered even harder for it.
By Maga. By Russia. By the fascist cops who justify their blue line culture by the legitimacy of post 9/11 “support the troops, thank the first responders” horse shit we showered them with for 20 years.
He should be in a cell.
Put them in cells.
However luxurious they can make that cell (less wifi), the only thing we can do with these fascists is to confine them to a cell and an orange jumpsuit.
Everything else is futile.
Except for student loans of course. Nothing but the sweet sweet release of death can discharge that debt.
Not even that; IIRC your family can inherit your student loan debt if you die.
“Inheriting debt” as far as I am aware has never been legally validated.
At least in America, the courts are silent about it.
Like, your paychecks can’t be garnished in the name of inherited debt, but the courts also wont stop debt collectors from going after a person for inherited debt.
If the surviving family buckles under the harassment and pays, they buckle and pay. If they hold strong and wait for the collectors to move on, they don’t pay.
It depends on the state I’ve recently learned. Some states allow inheriting debt, others don’t. Even some are in between allowing it for spouses only.
This isn’t in the case of something “unwanted”. You can decline to assume a debt from inheritance. You would also be giving up anything tied to it like a house or car. In the case of a dead loved one’s higher education, there’s no reason to assume the debt. You don’t get the education if you do.
I mean, it makes sense (to me at least) that spouses would inherit debt “that was their spouses”, with the possible exception of established prenuptial/last will and testament agreements creating a grey area in favor of the surviving spouse.
By default, a marriage is a merging of finances and households.
Without things like prenups and wills, a divorce is going to be a process of splitting all liabilities and assets 50/50. Similarly, without prenups and wills, the surviving spouse is going to inherit all of assets AND all liabilities (because technically they always held them in tandem with their spouse).
Now, if there was always a prenup, Hubby always had the money, Wifey was on a weekly/monthly allowance, and Hubby had a will where he left all the money to his son from another woman, leaving Wifey with nothing, Wifey didn’t get any assets, obviously she doesn’t inherit any debt.
Outside marriage, I think it should go like this:
Upon death, non-liquid assets get distributed. Timmy inherits the Pontiac GT, Harriet inherits all of the clothes, Wilfred gets all the furniture, Freddy gets the house. Any SECURED liability on the non-liquid assets stay attached. Dad had 3k left on the car loan for the Pontiac, Timmy can take over that car loan. If Freddy doesn’t want Dad’s house worth 300k dollars with 200k left on the mortgage, he has the option to liquidate the house, but the proceeds from that sale go into the liquid assets of the estate, not into Freddy’s pocket.
After non-liquid assets have been distributed/liquidated and BEFORE any liquid assets get distributed as inheritance, liability holders for the estate get to fight over what ever liquid assets are there. If the estate, after liquidation, has 400k in liquid assets, secured liability holders (the mortgage company) are going to get first stab at the money. The mortgage company recovers its 300k. Then any unsecured liability holders (Dad’s credit card he ran up to 60k dollars) get next stab at the liquid assets. They recover their 60k, that leaves 40k in liquid assets.
If the liability of the estate exceeds the liquid assets of the estate, no dollars are going to anyone in the family. Liability holders get all the money, and some of them probably get stiffed on the remainder.
In no event does unsecured liability get shuffled off on a successor of the deceased.
If there are no liquid assets left after liability has been resolved, Frankie doesn’t get the 10k Dad’s will said was bequeathed to him.
No idea how all of this actually plays out. Just my opinion on what should happen with an estate after death.
This isn’t true. In fact, I told my wife that I’d come back and haunt her if she paid a penny towards my student loans if I died.
But it doesn’t matter any more, I was able to get my student loan debt finally discharged earlier this year. All it took was sending $450 to my loan carrier every month for 20 years, and then they told me I didn’t need to send any more. Thanks Biden!
deleted by creator