Replies

So you think it would be fair to say terminate creditors' right to say bring a 527(a) exception to discharge action after the creditors had relied on that right when they entered into billions of debt contract? Either you're being disingenuous or your sense of fairness is radically different than mine.

To answer your question about 65% of my opposition is bound up in the government changing the rules governing these pre-existing debt contracts in favor of one private party over another. If you applied the bill to only prospective debt the grotesque inequity and unfairness of the bill would be vetted. It would no longer be an issue for me.

But the bill still is stupid because it creates inefficiencies in the economy by purposely breaking the existing consumer bankruptcy system, so I would still say no but with much less energy. At least if prospective debtors knew there was not a effectively functioning bankruptcy system in place before they entered into debt contracts, it would be fair. Dumb but fair.

And I say dumb, because this country is built on entrepreneurial risk and an ineffective bankruptcy system will inhibit entrepreneurial activity. The people I deal with primarily are failed entrepreneurs who have personally guaranteed substantial business loans or leases. I want to get these people to point zero and then back on their feet as soon possible so they can be productive members of the economy again and do what they do best, create business'. This new law will prevent that.

As far regular consumers go, 70% of current Chapter 13's fail. That number will rise with all the new coerced Chapter 13 debtors, and the lawyers personal guaranty provision which give rise to more pro per filings. If you have a system with say an 80% failure rate, how can you say that system is functioning effectively? These wage earners without the recourse of a discharge are locked in an unending cycle of indebtedness which is a personal tragedy for the individual, and harmful to greater economy because that person will move from job to job to shake wage garnishments, or will simply go underground, and that person will no longer be operating at maximum productivity and that is bad for the nation.

"terminate creditors' right to say bring a 527(a) exception to discharge action after the creditors had relied on that right"

I dont speak legalese .. at least not in public.

Now, you have a point here ... But I can tell you point blank the Federal rules on options accounting negatively impacted many high-tech businesses, may indeed be responsible for a permanent lowering in the Nasdaq index and had huge financial impact on many many people.

Nothing was grandfathered. Same when real estate went through a $1 trillion correction via the 1986 tax reform and 1989 FIRRA act. Same with many tax laws.

Moreover, its not like the law is eons old. the last changes were in 1994. Bankruptcy filings doubled in the last 10 years. The economy didnt get worse, the BK Judges and rules (on a de facto basis) got looser.

This situation btw is analogous IMHO to how the immigration law has been subverted. Good lawyering on behalf of illegal aliens and hard-luck stories meet up with sympathetic judges (in the immigration case the BIA) and they tear holes right through the actual laws, with amnesty loopholes so wide it is practically impossible to deport anyone. The system has created many 'mini-amnesties' that the Congress never intended. Result: the virtual destruction of our immigration laws.

You say "70% of current Chapter 13's fail" but another way to look at it is that the debtor continue to fail to meet commitments. Sometimes that failure may be legitimate, but that certainly doesnt mean the commitment shouldnt be made. It may be that the Ch 13 filers realize they don't lose much by failing to live up to those commitments. Most BK filings are chapter 7 and will continue to be so.

"These wage earners without the recourse of a discharge are locked in an unending cycle of indebtedness"

5 years is not unending, nor is 5 years extremely different from the previous 3 year set-up. Longer in fact may be easier in some cases.

" which is a personal tragedy for the individual"

And simply stiffing the creditor is not!?!?
Oh please, as a creditor who *was* stiffed (WorldCom bonds), let me tell you the hurt is as much on the other side!
Not all creditors in BK court are mega-corps. They may be
lawyers like you (eg divorce lawyers); they may be builders,
plumbers, small business owners/partners etc.

" and harmful to greater economy because that person will move from job to job to shake wage garnishments,"

In that case repeal all deadbeat Dad laws pronto!
And for that matter, stop IRS takings as well!

" or will simply go underground,"

That's curious - those provisions only apply to folks making above the median income... the only high-wage underground jobs I know are drug dealers and whores.

" and that person will no longer be operating at maximum productivity and that is bad for the nation."

If this is such a bad thing to go through, people will act in ways to avoid the situation. Which is the point. We heard similar gnashing of teeth when welfare reform was passed,
yet that bill was a huge success that lowered child poverty. Why? Because when welfare cases were served notice that they'd have to transition to work ... lo and behold, most people did.

I suspect if you wait 10 years you'd find the main effect of this new bill was lowering the number of BK filings. The honest and hard-up people who have bills that overwhelm them and that they cannot pay will still file, and if their income isn't high they will be treated similar to current law; but the folks looking for pain-free write-offs of debt no longer get a free ride and will be dissuaded from going through the chapter 13.

last but not least, the provision to have those going through bankruptcy attend financial management classes. That is imho a positive thing.