This is ripe for a lawsuit. Not only should the statute of limitations apply to all of this debt, but confiscating independently earned money from your children is a modern version of holding one's children responsible for the sins of their parents — a defacto caste system.
There are many flaws in the US Tort system, but it at least incentivizes law firms to create class action suits to fix stuff like this article describes when private entities are the ones doing the behavior we want to change.
When it’s the government, these types of class action suits are rare, I think.
A better attempted solution would be to write to congresspeople.
Cynically, I would try to find some globocorp that could benefit from having this function privatized. At least then there would be a regulator and two different orgs to argue.
1) Statue of limitations doesn't apply to government debt (or actions). (With some rare exceptions.)
>confiscating independently earned money from your children
2) The "child" is only involved because the welfare benefits were claimed using her as a dependent or claimant. That same child's Taco Bell wages put them over the limit to qualify for benefits, but those wages were also not included on the application.
This probably falls on the mother for claiming a child that was no longer a dependent. Or purposefully excluding income in order to qualify. But it still is attached to the child. And for all we know, the child could be the one who lied about her income.
Assuming it was the mom's fault, it was shitty of the mother to do, but the child is still liable. Just as if the mom opened a credit card in the kids name and ran up debt.
Government services are suppose to help people. When States are staving for cash, how can this possibly make up the difference? Surely getting all these elderly or working poor people for a couple thousand here or there (trivial for the government and the well off or middle class; disastrous for those on fixed incomes) cannot even hope to clear the cost of the State workers and contractors hired to do the collections work and handling the bullshit appeal process (even if it is just rubber stamping things).
This is the problem: the State is turning to the enemy of the poor in the US, and if you crunched the numbers, they're probably not even earning that much off these people. It's fucked up.
>This is the problem: the State is turning to the enemy of the poor in the US, and if you crunched the numbers, they're probably not even earning that much off these people. It's fucked up.
I honestly can't see how it can even be about money when you have government agencies stripping drivers licenses and vocational certificates from people for defaulting on student loan payments. At that point, the government's taking away their ability to work and earn an income in response to them not paying a debt. How is somebody, who likely couldn't pay it before, supposed to pay anything back when you take away their ability to actually earn a wage?
The modern US government is impossible to hold accountable and it has been this way for some time. At no point in my life have I seen the government as something that will help me.
I am honestly surprised there is not more violence due to police brutality, discrimination, asset forfeiture, and now this.
Even the Statute of Limitations is gone in the US. Companies can sue you in court for debt right before the limit is up and your debt limitations has just increased 20 years. They also tack on interest. Someone I know had $4K debt that ballooned to $25K due to this tactic. The original debt is from 1997 and this person is still on the hook.
If I’m reading the article correctly and following the governments line of reasoning these cases have already seen trial and are not going to trial now. Hence no statue of limitations issues.
But I agree with you - there needs to be consideration for the debtors in light of the negligence of the collector
Does anyone know what law governs ISAs? Like why would a Lambda school be able to forcibly collect income if a student tried to vanish without paying if they found a job?
They're contracts, so generally contract law. Although such contracts would have to be careful to not run afoul of employment laws, or laws against slavery.
It seems income sharing agreements typically include clauses which mitigate their risk of becoming invalid as voluntary slavery, such as limited time, a minimum income threshold, and buyout options. They could also be structured as a debt, with a payment structure based on income. Potentially bankruptcy law would affect their interpretation also.
"And then, in December 2010, the Claims Resolution Act passed. This historic piece of legislation settled an unresolved court case in favor of 75,000 black farmers unjustly denied agricultural loans in the 1980s and 1990s. Ironically, tucked into its 801st section was a provision to increase the “collection of past-due, legally enforceable state debts”. It quietly expanded which debts could be referred to Treasury, from only those due to fraud to those resulting from unintentional errors."
How the (#$*) did Obama let that get out of the first committee reading (Warren wasn't elected yet)?
Obama (or any president) is not responsible for every line of every proposed bill that makes it through a committee reading. It's not his job. Blame the committee chair at the time.
[+] [-] teilo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prepend|6 years ago|reply
There are many flaws in the US Tort system, but it at least incentivizes law firms to create class action suits to fix stuff like this article describes when private entities are the ones doing the behavior we want to change.
When it’s the government, these types of class action suits are rare, I think.
A better attempted solution would be to write to congresspeople.
Cynically, I would try to find some globocorp that could benefit from having this function privatized. At least then there would be a regulator and two different orgs to argue.
[0] https://www.wikihow.com/Sue-the-Federal-Government
[+] [-] hurrdurr2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beerandt|6 years ago|reply
>confiscating independently earned money from your children
2) The "child" is only involved because the welfare benefits were claimed using her as a dependent or claimant. That same child's Taco Bell wages put them over the limit to qualify for benefits, but those wages were also not included on the application.
This probably falls on the mother for claiming a child that was no longer a dependent. Or purposefully excluding income in order to qualify. But it still is attached to the child. And for all we know, the child could be the one who lied about her income.
Assuming it was the mom's fault, it was shitty of the mother to do, but the child is still liable. Just as if the mom opened a credit card in the kids name and ran up debt.
[+] [-] jimbob45|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djsumdog|6 years ago|reply
This is the problem: the State is turning to the enemy of the poor in the US, and if you crunched the numbers, they're probably not even earning that much off these people. It's fucked up.
[+] [-] grawprog|6 years ago|reply
I honestly can't see how it can even be about money when you have government agencies stripping drivers licenses and vocational certificates from people for defaulting on student loan payments. At that point, the government's taking away their ability to work and earn an income in response to them not paying a debt. How is somebody, who likely couldn't pay it before, supposed to pay anything back when you take away their ability to actually earn a wage?
[+] [-] snagglegaggle|6 years ago|reply
I am honestly surprised there is not more violence due to police brutality, discrimination, asset forfeiture, and now this.
[+] [-] cryptofits|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mountain_Skies|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgwxd|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Excel_Wizard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Clubber|6 years ago|reply
It's all corrupt.
https://creditcards.usnews.com/articles/what-happens-when-yo...
[+] [-] RijilV|6 years ago|reply
But I agree with you - there needs to be consideration for the debtors in light of the negligence of the collector
[+] [-] beerandt|6 years ago|reply
They view it just the same as if you owe taxes from 20 years ago.
[+] [-] peter303|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] undefined3840|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnode|6 years ago|reply
It seems income sharing agreements typically include clauses which mitigate their risk of becoming invalid as voluntary slavery, such as limited time, a minimum income threshold, and buyout options. They could also be structured as a debt, with a payment structure based on income. Potentially bankruptcy law would affect their interpretation also.
[+] [-] austenallred|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] selimthegrim|6 years ago|reply
How the (#$*) did Obama let that get out of the first committee reading (Warren wasn't elected yet)?
[+] [-] kian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] downrightmike|6 years ago|reply