I was hoping for a moral distinction, not a legal description. I view taking something and not paying as theft.
IMO, the moral distinctions are along the nature of:
1) This penalty is almost exclusively assessed those too poor or unsophisticated to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection again creditors, while individuals with often far greater indebtedness avoid such sanctions via bankruptcy protection.
2) This difference is even more pronounced in the case of business bankruptcy; for example you can build tens or hundreds of substandard homes which incurs costs in the tens of thousands of dollars each to repair, but if you are doing business as an LLC or Corp., yon can legally walk away from financial responsibility.
It’s this sort of disproportionate application of the law which decreases public confidence it’s reasonableness.
IMO, the moral distinctions are along the nature of:
1) This penalty is almost exclusively assessed those too poor or unsophisticated to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection again creditors, while individuals with often far greater indebtedness avoid such sanctions via bankruptcy protection.
2) This difference is even more pronounced in the case of business bankruptcy; for example you can build tens or hundreds of substandard homes which incurs costs in the tens of thousands of dollars each to repair, but if you are doing business as an LLC or Corp., yon can legally walk away from financial responsibility.
It’s this sort of disproportionate application of the law which decreases public confidence it’s reasonableness.