Why can't student loans be dismissed through bankrupcy

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
They don't get to take your house back. That falls under Homestead exemption.

Bankruptcy is a net economic plus. Lenders can suffer losses which individuals cannot. Individuals over a population would eventually drag down lenders earnings. A strict moral code regarding debt would create a less dynamic economy and stifle growth. One of those times when greater good goes against common sense homespun values, but there it is.
 
1. They often cannot take your residence. It's often literally the only thing that cannot be taken and a major motivator for an individual to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy in the first place. (depends on how much equity you have in it)

2. Attacking bankruptcy provisions on a moral ground is utterly naive. It's not nearly that simple. If we saw it as a hard line than it effectively becomes debtor prisons for a not-insignificant number of Americans. Also, I think a lot of people on SDN have zero idea of how finance or credit markets work. Lenders, and later investors in the resulting securitized debt, have default risk priced in. It's to be expected in finance almost like a natural law is in the sciences.
Hey, I said I was likely naive. I'm OK with that. I get that risk is, to a certain extent, to be expected, but in the above scenario, I wouldn't expect the creditors to get back their investment anyway. Those two statements are not opposed, per se.

I don't understand why prisons would have to be implemented...just take their crap.

Finally, why the hell would they NOT take their homes? That's preposterous! So I can get a ridiculous loan, buy a home, and then declare bankruptcy and keep it? That is utterly ubsurd. I don't know why everyone in this damn country considers home ownership so sacred. Tax benefits, bankruptcy exemptions, etc...home ownership is neither a right nor a necessity, why is it given such special treatment?
 
Do you know what it's like to go through a bankruptcy? Have you ever grown up around financially irresponsible people or had serious financial problems in your life? I'm talking significant financial decisions. Do you know how life-crushingly altering a bankruptcy can be? How the precipitating events leading to claiming it can change your life? It's not as "easy" as it sounds and it's not like people are buying up homes and saying "Welp! I can't pay! Thanks for the house!" It doesn't work like that.

There is not just one "type" of bankruptcy. Someone posted earlier that there are several different ones you can claim. It may seem "preposterous" to you at face value, but these protections are put in place for a reason. Having a big group of your population indebted to others and unable to be productive economically is bad for EVERYONE in the country, not just the indebted and lender. You don't WANT to have people homeless, without cars, without food, or any way out of their predicament. This goes all the way back to Ancient Roman history.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Do you know what it's like to go through a bankruptcy? Have you ever grown up around financially irresponsible people or had serious financial problems in your life? I'm talking significant financial decisions. Do you know how life-crushingly altering a bankruptcy can be? How the precipitating events leading to claiming it can change your life? It's not as "easy" as it sounds and it's not like people are buying up homes and saying "Welp! I can't pay! Thanks for the house!" It doesn't work like that.

There is not just one "type" of bankruptcy. Someone posted earlier that there are several different ones you can claim. It may seem "preposterous" to you at face value, but these protections are put in place for a reason. Having a big group of your population indebted to others and unable to be productive economically is bad for EVERYONE in the country, not just the indebted and lender. You don't WANT to have people homeless, without cars, without food, or any way out of their predicament. This goes all the way back to Ancient Roman history.
Yeah, I have lived with people with serious financial problems.
Hey, I included rent, food money, and childcare. Have them keep all of their stuff, too...it's not really relevant. All non-student loan debt discharged, and even those with interest and payment deferred. They'll be left with an apartment, childcare, food, and whatever people fill their apartments with. How is that 'no way out'? It's what most people have to begin with.

If you can't pay for your car and your house, why should you get to keep them? I'm not advocating we throw them in prison or make them live on the streets, just that they don't get to keep the big stuff which they clearly cannot afford.
 
It's generally a good idea to have at least a passing understanding of something before declaring it crazy.
I've been looking it up and trying to gain a better understanding. Care to help me out a bit, or are you just going to continue beating me over the head with what I already know that I don't know?
 
Hey, I said I was likely naive. I'm OK with that. I get that risk is, to a certain extent, to be expected, but in the above scenario, I wouldn't expect the creditors to get back their investment anyway. Those two statements are not opposed, per se.

I don't understand why prisons would have to be implemented...just take their crap.

Finally, why the hell would they NOT take their homes? That's preposterous! So I can get a ridiculous loan, buy a home, and then declare bankruptcy and keep it? That is utterly ubsurd. I don't know why everyone in this damn country considers home ownership so sacred. Tax benefits, bankruptcy exemptions, etc...home ownership is neither a right nor a necessity, why is it given such special treatment?

-fair enough

-I meant "effectively" debtor prisons (families left financially incapacitated with nothing and no shelter -> high likelihood of chronic poverty, crime, health problems, etc. -> a welfare cycle is born, etc.)

-Not quite 🙂
First promoting homeownership in this country has been a national pastime and you're right it's unusual compared to other countries. Pretty much ever since President Hoover's "a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage" idea, Americans have made homeownership an important life milestone. It was a major criticism for the housing collapse of '08: all the laws, regulation and incentives trying to make as many Americans homeowners as possible. The public reasons were what economists called externalities: homeownership has been tied with all kinds of things: safe neighborhoods (people take a vested interest), children with higher self-esteem, low teenage pregnancy, education, etc- just all kinds of things that supposedly tie in and lead to more stable families. The more cynical reason is that the US mortgage market became the largest, most complex, most innovative, and in many areas most profitable market for selling credit in the world. (I highly recommend the first quarter or so of this book for a history of the US mortgage market and homeownserhip policies: amazon)

Anycase though, back to your criticism: the provisions in bankruptcy (both 7 and 13) are not as great as all that. The idea of letting you "keep" your home doesn't mean a free house. Basically, almost everything will be sold to pay creditors whatever "cents on the dollar" they can get for what you owe them. Then you have a fresh start and still have a roof over your head. With the rest of your debts cancelled you can then (hopefully) afford to resume your mortgage payments. If not you may go into foreclosure which is an entirely different thing.
 
-fair enough

-I meant "effectively" debtor prisons (families left financially incapacitated with nothing and no shelter -> high likelihood of chronic poverty, crime, health problems, etc. -> a welfare cycle is born, etc.)
Right, I think we should definitely avoid that. I just think we could do so without acting like homes are sacred. They're possessions like anything else.

-Not quite 🙂
First promoting homeownership in this country has been a national pastime and you're right it's unusual compared to other countries. Pretty much ever since President Hoover's "a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage" idea, Americans have made homeownership an important life milestone. It was a major criticism for the housing collapse of '08: all the laws, regulation and incentives trying to make as many Americans homeowners as possible. The public reasons were what economists called externalities: homeownership has been tied with all kinds of things: safe neighborhoods (people take a vested interest), children with higher self-esteem, low teenage pregnancy, education, etc- just all kinds of things that supposedly tie in and lead to more stable families. The more cynical reason is that the US mortgage market became the largest, most complex, most innovative, and in many areas most profitable market for selling credit in the world. (I highly recommend the first quarter or so of this book for a history of the US mortgage market and homeownserhip policies: amazon)
Ah. See, I find the whole push for home ownership a deeply problematic and inappropriate form of social engineering to begin with. I do not own a home and never plan to, despite the ridiculous pressure to do so from the government. I understand that my perspective may change someday, depending on who I end up with and where, but it actually bothers me that homeowners are given boons - just another example of some 'ideal' social values being imposed by what should be an impartial body. In many ways, it parallels my objections to the way marriage is handled in this country.
Anycase though, back to your criticism: the provisions in bankruptcy (both 7 and 13) are not as great as all that. The idea of letting you "keep" your home doesn't mean a free house. Basically, almost everything will be sold to pay creditors whatever "cents on the dollar" they can get for what you owe them. Then you have a fresh start and still have a roof over your head. With the rest of your debts cancelled you can then (hopefully) afford to resume your mortgage payments. If not you may go into foreclosure which is an entirely different thing.
I'm glad it's not that bad, but it still bothers me.
Anyway, thanks for explaining!
 
I've been looking it up and trying to gain a better understanding. Care to help me out a bit, or are you just going to continue beating me over the head with what I already know that I don't know?

I also find it unbecoming when one cops an attitude after receiving a polite, valid criticism.

My suggestion is to chill out, lose the attitude, and question and understand before judging and getting defensive.
 
I don't get what is really going on with question OP..

I guess it's the fact that the student loan debt has only the fact that you succeed and are effectively employable in your particular field. The onus, ultimately is on you.

Most people still need a domicile. It's a bit of a pain to get a home, even if you come in with a great amount down. I mean you are sweating it through and though. I didn't find it to be a total breeze, but we went private and made sure our personal attorney was on top of everything and at the settlement table with us. Most people don't want to default on their loans--b.c they generally have family responsibilities.

Now, when it comes to student loans, you are often talking kids. I mean you would be surprised how kids will flip their majors, and generally will not be as serious about school as they need to be. Look at the non-trads and the fact that there is the need to overcome a less than stellar college performance from earlier years. When you put the total numbers together for this large amount of unsecured debt, well, the answer becomes obvious.

What everyone should be pissed about is that the federal gov't is in control of this and in part is subsidizing ACA through student loans. Also, that universities are insane with their need to continually raise tuition and not put some reasonable controls on the increases.
 
Finally, why the hell would they NOT take their homes? That's preposterous! So I can get a ridiculous loan, buy a home, and then declare bankruptcy and keep it? That is utterly ubsurd. I don't know why everyone in this damn country considers home ownership so sacred.

No, you can't. Your house and your car (assuming you owe money on them to a bank) are examples of secured loans. The creditor retains rights in the collateral. There are essentially two basic parts to secured debt. The note and the lien. Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharges your obligation to pay under the note, but it does not impair the lien. So you can't just buy a million dollar house with minimal money down and then declare bankruptcy and keep the house free and clear. The bank still retains its lien. If you file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are behind on your mortgage or car payments, you are going to lose your house and/or your car. You must be current on your secured obligations if you intend to retain them through a Chapter 7. You continue making payments on them as usual through the bankruptcy process. In my state you can choose to reaffirm your mortgage (which makes you liable under the note again) or continue to make payments without reaffirming. A Chapter 7 by itself does not alter or change your payments or your payment schedule, and if you stop making payments, the bank will foreclose/repossess your collateral once the automatic stay is lifted (this is outside of any discussion about equity and state/federal exemptions).

In a Chapter 13 you can use a bankruptcy plan to catch up on your mortgage payments/car payments and subordinate your unsecured debt while retaining your secured property and stopping any foreclosure or repossessions. You can also use a Chapter 13 to strip a second or third (or fourth) mortgage that is wholly unsecured from a home (this would have the effect of reducing your mortgage payment forever).

It's also important to note that anyone who wants to file a Chapter 7 (liquidation) must pass a means test first--which basically means you have to be at or below the average gross income for your family size in your state. This varies by state. If you "fail" the means test, you may file a Chapter 13 and make an effort to repay at least some of your unsecured debt instead.

Personally, I find the bankruptcy process and its rules to be very reasonable, especially since bankruptcy reform. However, I live in a very debtor-friendly state. States like Maryland barely leave you with anything to exempt or "keep" in a liquidation.

Ah. See, I find the whole push for home ownership a deeply problematic and inappropriate form of social engineering to begin with. I do not own a home and never plan to, despite the ridiculous pressure to do so from the government.

I don't disagree with this. Home ownership isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are a lot of benefits to renting. My husband and I just sold our last house (what a disaster that was, especially given the fact that the housing values took a major downturn in our area between the time we bought and sold) and have been renting since then. Homeownership just seems like a terrible way to invest money, plus you have all of the costs that come along with home ownership--sometimes those costs are very high and unexpected. If I had invested the money we put down on that house in stock in my husband's employer--well, I would be a much less bitter person about homeownership myself probably.😕

I like the flexibility that renting gives us, and if the whole place burned down tomorrow I would take my renter's insurance check and ride on out of town without a second look. As it is, if any appliance breaks or whatever, I know my renting costs are my rent and that's it. Our landlord had to replace our entire air conditioning unit last month to the tune of $4k. And he still had to pay his mortgage.😱