$347,000 in student debt who can't land a job...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by AsianStew, Jul 17, 2022.

  1. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Here's what Ontario can do about child support arrears: https://www.separation.ca/help-centre/child-support/enforcing-child-support/

    That's a pretty full list and still there's $2 BILLION owed in back child support in Ontario. I have a special thing against deadbeat parents - it's the one thing nobody should EVER let go -- yet so many do. Borrow whatever - sell whatever - go without whatever - but you gotta do it. In full and on time. I speak from experience. Now, if they could cut people off in bars and at the liquor store for back child support ... :)

    I feel strongly, but not quite so strongly, about student debt - mostly I have a "thing" for those individuals who are not trying hard enough, or at all - or flatly refuse to pay at all - ever - and around here, there are far too many of those. Life should be made very difficult for these people. For as long as it takes. They've earned it.

    Maybe I'm like this because I was a debt collector for a living - or because I paid child support - in full and on time - no matter what - for a lot of years - I dunno. But I'm still firm on this stuff. I don't see that changing.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2022
  2. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    My take: If people are really trying - creditors should do what they can to help. If they aren't really trying - then their lives should be. :mad:
    BruceP likes this.
  3. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    The problem with student loan debt is that it's essentially non dischargeable in bankruptcy but available in unlimited amounts to anyone studying at an accredited institution. This is a stupid financial model. It allows schools to charge far more for their programs than ever before without any concerns over ability to repay.

    There is no other form of consumer debt that is so reckless.
    JBjunior, Rachel83az and Johann like this.
  4. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Not arguing about child support.
  5. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Although it's always struck me that hobbling someone's ability to earn income isn't a very productive response to their having trouble paying child support.
    Dustin likes this.
  6. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    As a slight aside, in Iowa they have a Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU) as part of the Department of Human Services. I assume most states have something similar. They manage payment plans, wage garnishments, and similar so that payments are automatic.

    I was unnerved to learn that if you're entitled to child support, in order to sign up for CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program, called Hawk-i) in Iowa you need to consent to CSRU to take over collection of your child support payments. I assume their rationale is that if you're receiving your full child support payments you may be less likely to need CHIP in the first place, but that also means to adjust the payments for any reason you need a court order no matter what the ex-partner's financial situation looks like. Because of that, I assume there are families not on CHIP who could really use it.
    Rachel83az and Jonathan Whatley like this.
  7. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    That underlines the need for universal health care in the US - the only developed country without it.
    SweetSecret, Dustin and Rachel83az like this.
  8. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Fear, Steve - it works. You REALLY nail one person, five or ten others, who know them, smarten up and you won't have to go after them. And delinquent people will do ANYTHING they have to do, to get restrictions lifted. The money often appears as if by magic. Maybe it's Mom, Grandpa - or the local finance company, who have a strong interest in keeping their customer working.. Don't ask. I've seen it.

    You can't care. You have to be a really nasty person to succeed at that kind of work. For thirty years - I was that guy. It's hard to shake, as you may have noticed.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2022
  9. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Child support enforcement is a bit tricky. I paid my support through the State because the law required it but also because it created an unassailable record that I had paid as ordered.

    The problem with child support where the custodial parent qualifies for public assistance is that the custodial parent, usually but not always the mother, doesn't want anything to do with the children's other parent. Sometimes there are good reasons for that but more often (in my experience) it's just stubborn rage and resentment. Well, why should the taxpayer support the non-custodial parent's children if he could pay?

    The problem from the CP's view is that, if the NCP has to pay support, he will demand visitation rights and some say over the children's upbringing. Well, yes he will and that's usually a good thing for the kids, too.

    The flip side is that the children will be the ones to suffer financially if CP refuses to assist collections efforts. Personally, I think our policy in New Mexico is about the best compromise one can hope for.

    Incidently, the U.S.S.R. also had problems collecting child support and therefore maintained an agency for the purpose. Universal health care doesn't address the whole set of issues.
  10. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I HATED doing divorce cases!
  11. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    It's like funding Ferraris and Bentleys for grocery clerks - often unemployed grocery clerks. It's done all wrong. Wrong for 1.7 trillion reasons.
    nosborne48 likes this.
  12. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    It's a great stimulus if they're unwilling, though. Lots of that going around. Many, regardless of reason for non-payment - will go to extreme lengths - quickly find resources they didn't realize they had - if confronted with this kind of situation. I can't argue against what works. And I've seen it work. Magic, sometimes. Good as the Root Doctor lady on Bourbon Street!
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2022
    nosborne48 likes this.
  13. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    That's the way here in Ontario, too. Pay to the Family Responsibility Office. It wasn't that way for everyone, in 1978, when my ex and I split. You could have a voluntary agreement and we did. Those prior agreements were allowed to stand, after payment through the Province became mandatory. At any time, before or after the new law, should there have been default, the recipient spouse could apply to the Province to collect arrears and have all future payments made directly to the Province.

    Right. Universal health care doesn't solve all the issues of divorce etc. How could it? Universal health care addresses one thing. Everybody gets care - kids with divorced parents included. The Iowa thing, that Dustin mentioned, is designed to take care of one issue. Care of kids in certain circumstances. With universal health care, you don't need the Iowa thing - or any other thing of the sort. That's all I'm saying.

    Plus -- if I needed unassailable record of payment, I had it. I kept my paid cheques. All of them. Never needed them, but I thought it prudent.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2022
  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Agreed. The situation it reminds me most of is The Great Recession. Banks were incredibly irresponsible to consumers, lending amounts far over their customers' heads. But the banks knew, because of down payments, they could repo where needed and still come out ahead. But consumers on the other end were trusting of the banks, accepting what they were told about how much they "qualified" for.

    A particularly egregious example of this was the "no doc" loan, where borrowers didn't have to provide financial information. The banks just charged a little more interest to make up for the loans that failed--again, most of which left the banks healthy anyway. It was, simply put, predatory.

    Are schools predatory in their student loan practices?
    nosborne48, Dustin and Rachel83az like this.
  15. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Can you even ask?
  16. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    We have numerous threads on that. Example after example of schools (ok - mainly for-proft) where sales drives everything and prospective students are loaded up with obligations they'll probably never meet. And schools being closed amid allegations of these practices at a mass level. And low-end accreditors allowing schools to retain accreditation, even though financial practices such as these were producing horrible default figures and bad student outcomes.

    Low-end schools will encourage financing for those who they know likely won't benefit, along with those who might. More conservative schools don't have to; they simply allow it to happen. As I see it "predatory" happens all through the system - lowest to the highest - by either commission - or omission.
    nosborne48 likes this.
  17. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Here, it's like Church and State. Child support obligations and visitation rights are not generally allowed to be linked. Not always fair. Many NCPs, who want to see their kids and who pay mandated support regularly, have their attempts to get visitation rights get stymied (at the CP's request) by their ex's lawyer. And some (not many) NCP's get visitation rights although they have been unable to pay support for some valid reason. It's nasty. I've read of CP's known to fabricate uh..."unpleasant stories" - you know, designed to keep the CP away from the kids permanently. One CP was found, at a hearing, to be lying - and a reporter (fem,) asked her why she lied. Her answer: "Well, wouldn't you say anything you had to, to support your children?"

    Like I said - it's nasty. Glad there wasn't any shred of this in my case. I'm grateful for that. I used to tell people that my ex and I had many arguments in our marriage, but there were two things we NEVER argued about:

    (1) Money - because there simply wasn't any.
    (2) The kids - because she was always right.

    True. 100%. I swear. :)
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2022
  18. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Sorry. Typo. That should be "designed to keep the NCP away from the kids.."
  19. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Oh, the law here also decoupled support with visitation. The CP just doesn't want to prod the NCP about the kids.
  20. Rachel83az

    Rachel83az Well-Known Member

    I don't think I support 100% decoupling of child support from visitation. Because if you were still married and you didn't pay for the needs of your kids, your kid gets taken away by CPS. IMO, it's a narcissistic thing to refuse to pay, yet still expect to see the kid(s).
    Johann likes this.

Share This Page