Trump Regime to Banks: It's OK to steal virus relief checks

While the administration is clearly responsible for this implementation, why the **** did Congress give Treasury any option when it came to making a rule against anyone garnishing this payment? They should have known that the trumpscum would offer a bonus to collection agencies if they had the chance. They are almost certainly best friends with people who buy up debt for pennies on the dollar so that they can harass and threaten debtors.
 
theprestige said:
You know garnishment to pay off debts is not stealing, right?

Maybe it's bad policy for these payments to be in-scope for garnishment, but it's certainly not stealing. Why lie about it, instead of discussing the real problem honestly?
Click to expand...

Maybe?
 
Resume said:
Maybe?
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe. I haven't given the question a lot of thought yet, so I don't have a considered opinion one way or the other.

My default position is that debts should be paid, and that garnishment is therefore justified in principle. But I don't know a lot about the details of how garnishment is implemented, and what kinds of regulatory safeguards prevent over-garnishing that puts the debtor's income below subsistence level. So... Maybe.

But I definitely think the closest thing to thievery in this story is the people borrowing money and then not paying it back as agreed. Garnishment is essentially a system for people to recover stolen goods.
 
Resume said:
No ****.
Click to expand...
Hey, it takes a lot of thinking to figure out that money intended to provide [extremely limited] relief to people who - through absolutely no fault of their own - may not have enough money to buy food should be exempted from any potential garnishment.
 
Babbylonian said:
Hey, it takes a lot of thinking to figure out that money intended to provide [extremely limited] relief to people who - through absolutely no fault of their own - may not have enough money to buy food should be exempted from any potential garnishment.
Click to expand...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-wages-are-garnished-rights-33050.html

Garnishment is by court order, and there are typically limits in place to prevent over-garnishment.

If judges are already competent to decide appropriate garnishment levels for low-income debtors, then they're already competent to decide whether it's appropriate to garnish this income, on a case by case basis. And therefore, there is no problem here.
 
Resume said:
I liked it better when you hadn't given it much thought.
Click to expand...
That seems unnecessarily personal and rude. I'm explaining where I'm at in my thought process about this, and why, and you're just giving me knee-jerk abuse in response. Why *not* actually discuss the issue?

Is the system of having judges decide what is a reasonable garnishment to make creditors whole without over-burdening debtors a good system, or a bad system?

Do you think we can trust judges to do this job well with other forms of income, but not with this particular form of income?
 
theprestige said:
That seems unnecessarily personal and rude. I'm explaining where I'm at in my thought process about this, and why, and you're just giving me knee-jerk abuse in response. Why *not* actually discuss the issue?
Click to expand...
I apologize for hurting your feelings.
Is the system of having judges decide what is a reasonable garnishment to make creditors whole without over-burdening debtors a good system, or a bad system?

Do you think we can trust judges to do this job well with other forms of income, but not with this particular form of income?
Click to expand...

At the bare minimum, these one time payments should be handled like regular social security with strict parameters as what type of debt qualifies for garnishment i.e., tax, child support, student loans, etc. In a perfect world, this rather piddling amount should be totally exempt, in my opinion.
 
Resume said:
I apologize for hurting your feelings.
Click to expand...
I forgive you.

Is there something about this topic or the way I approached it, that prompted you to react with such hostility in the first place?

At the bare minimum, these one time payments should be handled like regular social security with strict parameters as what type of debt qualifies for garnishment i.e., tax, child support, student loans, etc. In a perfect world, this rather piddling amount should be totally exempt, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason to believe this income isn't subject to the same rules as other garnishments?

Is there any reason not to let judges make exemptions for this piddling amount on a case by case basis, the same way we already trust them to do with every other piddling amount in a garnishment case that reaches their bench?
 
theprestige said:
I forgive you.

Is there something about this topic or the way I approached it, that prompted you to react with such hostility in the first place?
Click to expand...
I think you are overly sensitive; is there something about this subject that makes you so?

Is there any reason to believe this income isn't subject to the same rules as other garnishments?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a one-time disbursment to help Americans through a medical crisis, not to help debt collectors. Trust me, there will be plenty of debt for them to collect when this is all said and done.

Is there any reason not to let judges make exemptions for this piddling amount on a case by case basis, the same way we already trust them to do with every other piddling amount in a garnishment case that reaches their bench?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a one-time disbursement to help Americans get through a medical crisis, not to help debt collectors. Trust me, there will be plenty of debt for them to collect when this is all said and done.

As stated above, these disbursements should be subject to the same garnishments restrictions as social security at the very minumum.
 
Last edited:
So a person ends up with the same money they had on hand plus lower debt. They still get a benefit. It is win-win.
 
Bass looks up at the rubber frog and thinks "Who you crappin'?"
 
Resume said:
I think you are overly sensitive; is there something about this subject that makes you so?


Yes, it is a one-time disbursment to help Americans through a medical crisis, not to help debt collectors. Trust me, there will be plenty of debt for them to collect when this is all said and done.


Yes, it is a one-time disbursement to help Americans get through a medical crisis, not to help debt collectors. Trust me, there will be plenty of debt for them to collect when this is all said and done.

As stated above, these disbursements should be subject to the same garnishments restrictions as social security at the very minumum.
Click to expand...

I agree. The financial straits people find themselves in right now is not through their own fault or lack of responsibility. This stimulus money should not be seized due to a garnishment order.
 
Stacyhs said:
I agree. The financial straits people find themselves in right now is not through their own fault or lack of responsibility. This stimulus money should not be seized due to a garnishment order.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty straightforward to me. But there will always be people who think that those who find themselves needing government support to feed and shelter themselves are undeserving.
 
lionking said:
It seems pretty straightforward to me. But there will always be people who think that those who find themselves needing government support to feed and shelter themselves are undeserving.
Click to expand...

They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop looking for a handout, the lazy sods.
 
theprestige said:
You know garnishment to pay off debts is not stealing, right?
Click to expand...

Hilarious coincidence - I posted elsewhere this morning that the plan is garnishment by default, and therefore quite reprehensible.

Without a court order, garnishing someone's wages is exactly the same as stealing. You're taking their money from them. Whether it's physically in their wallet or sitting in a bank makes no difference, morally.
 
The Atheist said:
Hilarious coincidence - I posted elsewhere this morning that the plan is garnishment by default, and therefore quite reprehensible.

Without a court order, garnishing someone's wages is exactly the same as stealing. You're taking their money from them. Whether it's physically in their wallet or sitting in a bank makes no difference, morally.
Click to expand...

Aren’t these garnishments the result of a court decision.

This whole problem is probably the cause of the bill being written too quickly.
I do believe the intent of the bill was to get the money into the hands of people not creditors.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Aren’t these garnishments the result of a court decision.

This whole problem is probably the cause of the bill being written too quickly.
I do believe the intent of the bill was to get the money into the hands of people not creditors.
Click to expand...

Yes, a court has to order the garnishment.
 
theprestige said:
That seems unnecessarily personal and rude. I'm explaining where I'm at in my thought process about this, and why, and you're just giving me knee-jerk abuse in response. Why *not* actually discuss the issue?

Is the system of having judges decide what is a reasonable garnishment to make creditors whole without over-burdening debtors a good system, or a bad system?

Do you think we can trust judges to do this job well with other forms of income, but not with this particular form of income?
Click to expand...

Who gets to keep the money while the process is happening? How long does it take?

Provided the benificiary gets to keep and spend the money while the judge is judging, then you're bang on. If not, then you're miles off.
 
Resume said:
As stated above, these disbursements should be subject to the same garnishments restrictions as social security at the very minumum.
Click to expand...

With this, I agree. As long as that's the case, I don't see the problem. Or rather, I don't see how having this on the table for garnishment is any more problematic than having SS payments on the table for garnishment.

And it's certainly not stealing (nor is it Babbylonian's debt collection fantasy).
 
The Atheist said:
Hilarious coincidence - I posted elsewhere this morning that the plan is garnishment by default, and therefore quite reprehensible.

Without a court order, garnishing someone's wages is exactly the same as stealing. You're taking their money from them. Whether it's physically in their wallet or sitting in a bank makes no difference, morally.
Click to expand...

Banks don't transfer money from your account to a creditor's on the creditor's say-so. Without a court order, the garnishment doesn't happen. That's the point.
 
theprestige said:
With this, I agree. As long as that's the case, I don't see the problem. Or rather, I don't see how having this on the table for garnishment is any more problematic than having SS payments on the table for garnishment.

And it's certainly not stealing (nor is it Babbylonian's debt collection fantasy).
Click to expand...
I wish the bill had protections written in to prevent any garnishment.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, they do.
Click to expand...
I was responding to your reply to Babbylonian that debt collection was not garnishment; in some instances it is exactly that.
Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
In certain circumstances, like this one, yes,
Do you have a problem with debt repayment in general? Or just a problem with people who are owed a debt actually trying to get paid?
Click to expand...
See above.
 
While subjecting the stimulus payments to existing garnishment isn't theft by any reasonable definition of the word, I think a solid argument could be made that they should be exempt. Unlike even SS payments, the stimulus is being done in response to a drastic and unique change in our society. Huge numbers of people are suddenly without income for the moment, and some will have to find new employment when possible. It isn't the normal course of operations where the economy ebbs and flows, some fields benefiting and others taking it in the shorts. Governments are intentionally closing things down and putting the economy 'on pause' to a great degree to try and cope with a global health crisis.

I don't know where I stand on garnishments from child support issues. First instinct is to say it should be exempt from those as well, but it's complicated. On the whole, thought, I feel it ought to be exempt. The $1,200 isn't lottery winnings, an inheritance from a long lost relative, or a wad of cash found behind the couch. It's the government trying to keep people afloat and get them through a difficult situation it created out of necessity.
 
3point14 said:
Who gets to keep the money while the process is happening? How long does it take?

Provided the benificiary gets to keep and spend the money while the judge is judging, then you're bang on. If not, then you're miles off.
Click to expand...

Who's the beneficiary? The debtor?

The bank won't transfer the money to the creditor until the court orders it (or the debtor themselves orders it). Of course the beneficiary keeps the money while the judge is judging.

---

How did you imagine wage garnishment works? The creditor contacts the debtor's employer, says they're owed the money, and the employer just starts sending their employee's paychecks straight to the creditor? And then the employee has to petition the courts to review this arrangement and maybe claw back some of the paycheck for the employee?
 
theprestige said:
Who's the beneficiary? The debtor?

The bank won't transfer the money to the creditor until the court orders it (or the debtor themselves orders it). Of course the beneficiary keeps the money while the judge is judging.

---

How did you imagine wage garnishment works?
Click to expand...

Depends which country you're in. Over here, under some circumstances, it's just taken at source. I think wage garnishment works in a subtly different way depending on which country one is in.


The creditor contacts the debtor's employer, says they're owed the money, and the employer just starts sending their employee's paychecks straight to the creditor? And then the employee has to petition the courts to review this arrangement and maybe claw back some of the paycheck for the employee?
Click to expand...


Like I say, depends where you are. I thought it was pretty obvious by the form of my question that I didn't know how it works. That's why I asked how it works...
 
Resume said:
I wish the bill had protections written in to prevent any garnishment.
Click to expand...

I understand the concern, but I think that is mostly a feel-good solution, rather than an actual problem that needs solving. I think the existing system, requiring judicial review and a court order in each case, is already providing the necessary protection to debtors. The way I see it, income that falls under that protection is protected.

Putting additional protections in the bill would be gilding the lily. Or it would be raising serious concerns about the existing system and whether we should actually entrust judges with this kind of decision.

Do you have serious concerns about the protections under the existing system? I've asked this a few different ways, a few different times, but I don't think you've given your answer yet.

If we can't trust judges to order garnishment while protecting the debtor, then hell yes this bill should have exempted the payments from that system. Because that system would be broken. Is that your position? The existing garnishment system is broken?

If the system isn't broken, then I see no reason (other than feel-good) why this income shouldn't simply be part of that system.
 
3point14 said:
Depends which country you're in. Over here, under some circumstances, it's just taken at source.
Click to expand...
Not on the creditor's authority, though. Right? Even over there, a creditor can't just tell your employer to forward part of your pay directly to them, without your permission or a court order. Right?

I think wage garnishment works in a subtly different way depending on which country one is in.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it does. But this thread is about a specific point of US policy, in the context of overall US policy.

Like I say, depends where you are. I thought it was pretty obvious by the form of my question that I didn't know how it works. That's why I asked how it works...
Click to expand...
How does it work where you are? Do creditors have the authority to take your pay directly from your employer, without your authorization, and without a court order?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom