[SpicyLemonZest]

It's not surprising when you think about it, but it's still an important problem to think about. It has the potential to cause some problems if state courts become seen as a vehicle for debt collectors more than an authority for righting wrongs.

[JamesBarney]

I think we all agree you should be able to collect on a debt. (if you can't it's not a debt)

And I imagine most of us agree collection should be pursuant to due process.

I don't really see any other options.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I actually don't agree. Many debts in the US are effectively non-collectible, because all the property from which they could be collected is exempted. (This is especially true in Texas, where wages can't be garnished for most debts.)

[JamesBarney]

I just meant a debt that is inherently non-collectible (and thus does not need to go to court) is not a debt.

For instance determining whether or not a house is a homestead and whether or not the debt is therefor effectively non-collectible or not is something that requires a court.

[eli_gottlieb]

> I think we all agree you should be able to collect on a debt. (if you can't it's not a debt)

Nah, not really. Depends on the debt, honestly.

[JamesBarney]

In what since is a debt that I am unable to try pursue or collect on a debt?

Maybe a concrete example would help.

[eli_gottlieb]

I just don't agree that you ought to be able to legally go after anyone for more than the principal on things like "consumer" debt.

[ApolloFortyNine]

They generally settle for way less than the principle, credit card debt for one is sold for cents on the dollar (4 to 7 according to this source, though I've heard lower). [1]

I really dislike how when debt collection gets talked about, the debt collectors are the evil ones. Never mind the person who signed a contract to pay x interest in return for y money and didn't pay it back.

[1] https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/debt/how-overdue-c...

[eli_gottlieb]

>I really dislike how when debt collection gets talked about, the debt collectors are the evil ones. Never mind the person who signed a contract to pay x interest in return for y money and didn't pay it back.

Those are usually pretty predatory contracts. Consumer credit isn't like my mortgage, where someone reviewed my past five or more years of finances and decided my income and assets actually justified the loan. Hell, my mortgage has a much lower interest rate than most consumer credit (eg: car loans, credit cards, etc.).

Those high interest rates are rationalized as reflecting the risk of default on the debt. Ok. So if someone is going to default, you charge the next sucker more interest, because I don't see why you should be made whole off garnishing someone's paycheck when you choose to make predatory loans to risky borrowers.

De facto, the whole thing is just privatized taxation with extra steps: the "borrower" pays a monthly tax to the "creditor" for the privilege of existing while poor, and in exchange, they are kept, deliberately, in perpetual debt.

The only loans that the government should help you collect on are those designed to be paid off in full in the first place.

[rayiner]

Not paying a debt is a "wrong" and enforcing contractual obligations is one of the core functions of courts.