NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's an idea for an issue (although I don't know if one exists along these lines or not). If you think it's a workable idea, I'd be happy to help edit it some.
-------------

Fancy lobbyists for <insert nation>'s largest corporations are approaching the legislature wanting more ways to collect debts from their debtors.

Then the options could be any of the following:

1. Chairman of the Association of Fat Cat CEO's: Sell all the debtor's property at auction and deliver the proceeds to the creditors.

2. Economics Professor: Reach a compromise by selling all the debtor's property except their home, their car, and any personal property with value less than 100 <insert national currency).

3. Your Secretary of Economics: Forbid reaching the debtor's property, but allow the garnishment of 10% of any of the wages that the debtor makes in the futre.

4. You mother (who is nationally reknown as having the worst credit in the whole nation): Enact stronger debtor protections -- after all, the big corporations have ways of looking out for themselves, such as refusing to provide goods or services until payment is made, in full.

This issue would be better if it acknowledged real life more. For example, under current law, a creditor can take you to court and (assuming court approval) put a lien on your house and/or garnish your wages. If you cannot afford this, you can declare bankruptcy, which may allow you to protect house, car, clothes, etc. However, your other property will be sold at auction. It seems to me that all of your options decrease collection options rather than increasing them.

What are you actually changing here? How is it different from RL credit laws? What does each option add? What does each option take away? What side effects would occur? For example, number four would likely cause it to be harder to borrow, since the only guarantee is getting payment in full first. I.e. it might have an effect like "Home ownership plummets."

@@NAME@@ and @@CURRENCY@@ are the macros to return your nation's name and currency IIRC.

Good points, thanks.

I think I should amend the issue to make it clear that the corporations want to collect from people who don't have enough money to pay all their debts (thus, the bankruptcy issue is somewhat mooted, as these are the kinds of people we are dealing with, I'd guess).

Option 1 is just what a creditor (perhaps a greedy one) might want in such a circumstance -- sell everything and divide the proceeds, leaving the debtor nothing. (Thus addressing your concern when you said, "It seems to me that all of your options decrease collection options rather than increasing them.").

So far as the effects of choosing the options, I think you're right on about home ownership and other loans declining if option 4 is picked. As for the other options, you might say as follows:

If #1 is picked: Former successful entrepreneurs comprise a signficant portion of the nation's homeless population....

If #2 is picked: The Government is taking steps to protect debtors from agressive collection tactics....

If #3 is picked: Teenagers have recently began running up very high credit card bills, realizing that the law will never require them to pay more than 10% of their wages throughout their lifeime.