'The Car Was Repossessed, but the Debt Remains'


I’m with you on this. “Buy here, Pay Here” lots can provide a valuable service to some folks who wouldotherwise probably not receive help. We have one in a small town 10 miles from me that has been in business for a few decades and has a reputation for being honest and helpful.

They sometimes sell some fairly worn, old cars (I’m sure a little costly), but they stand behind them and they won’t screw anybody. They can’t know everything about all of their cars. Some are not very reliable right off, but it’s not intentional. He has newer vehicles, also.

They have a mechanic and will take care of customer complaints. If they can’t make a car reliable, they’ll replace it. I see some of there “rejects” (with window stickers still intact) at the local salvage yard.

This place has made it possible for many people to remain or become employed by putting them on the road to freedom. The guy who owns it is generally well-liked and respected.

It goes both ways. I will add that he sometimes gets screwed by customers that stop paying and take off with their vehicle. He has to take out ads in the local paper to get help locating them.

From our government:



I didn’t say illegalize but discourage. I’m for giving cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, opioids, meth, cocaine, and junk food away.

This is a myth. If we stopped treating they would, but we don’t.

Social reform & reformers had nothing to do with it: ‘We The People’ are responsible. If either the Ds or Rs got rid of Medicare they would disappear next election.

Mortgagees require mortgagors to insure the mortgaged properties to prevent loss. If we do the same for cars so that lenders aren’t left unpaid when Suzy Motorist-Borrower crashes her Lincoln Exhibitionist and purchases a maintenance contract then every state can have the law that 4 do that the lender has no recourse other than repossession. This would prevent lenders from exploiting ignorant borrowers while still staying in business. It would raise the price of a car loan a little to pay the cost of investigating Suzy’s credit-worthiness. This would probably cost the public less than it pays now to make up the losses of careless lenders and would prevent the bailout we’re approaching when so many of these loans fail the government bails the banks out.


Not a myth.




Holy moley, that final paragraph is so confusing I’m not sure where to start!

Cars with loans ARE required, by the lender, to have full coverage insurance against loss. Not sure where the maintenance contract comes in but OK. The loss recovery is the security of the loan, the car. The rub occurs when the difference between the value of the car and remaining loan value. That would be GAP coverage, much like PMI for a home. As for banks being bailed out, that should NOT have happened.


That is an assumption on your part. By that statement you imply that a law can be crafted to prevent the vulnerable from being preyed upon without restricting any other’s right. That is wrong on its face by the argument I made previously, quoted below.


On this we agree. We simply disagree where the point lies. I say it lies more toward protecting the vulnerable and less toward ensuring that people are allowed to harm the vulnerable.


Yes, I agree. Reasonable people can disagree on where to place the line. And we can be reasonable people!

Good summary.


I’m not sure how this addresses the issue of non-payment. Suzy neglects the car, blows the engine and stops paying. Suzy has a tendency to hit curbs and ding doors and stops paying. Suzi just plain stops paying on a new car soon after taking possession, how does the seller recoup diminished value? Insurance doesn’t address any of these issues.

BTW, it’s against the law for the seller to require Suzi to buy gap insurance as it stands today…As Mustangman appropriately pointed out, laws/regulations often benefit one party to the detriment of another. The law exists to protect the consumer. Change it, and the liability just shifts to someone else.


Not to argue again with you fine folks but some years ago I had the conversation with an internationally renowned health professional when the whole anti-smoking campaign got going. He commented then that smokers actually cost the system less money because they died sooner compared to non-smokers. He has very seldom been proven wrong and one of the few people I rely on for actual facts concerning health issues.


Did he factor the lost wages a parent might have earned for her/his family if the smoker hadn’t died a premature death?

Did he take into account the people who don’t die from smoking, but spend years sucking oxygen from a tank through a tracheotomy and need home health care?

The smokers who die a quick death are the lucky ones if you ask me. They don’t have to suffer and they don’t have to live through the wreckage they leave behind.


I guess I just wouldn’t be so quick to drink the kool aide from the folks that throw this stuff out. They do after-all have a personal career interest. But wages are kind of an apples to oranges. Wages are paid in exchange for service rendered. So if the guy is dead, no services are rendered so how can lost wages be a cost? I got an A in Accounting 101. We were talking about all the terrible costs to the general public and how they affect your health care costs but alas some things are just not as cut and dried as they seem. Your diabetes might affect my costs too but so far cup cakes have not been outlawed although some are trying.

Now on the other hand, just to keep it car related, driving a motor cycle all the time instead of a protective car really raises the risk that you will be hit and become a ward of the state. No fault of your own but even if you wear a helmet your chances of being injured for life on a cycle could impact my health care premiums. No?


Speaking of Kool-Aid, I drank many gallons of it sans sugar 40 years ago and the results have been devastating… And at the time I drew a salary of $150/mo +/- for services rendered. And while I never took acct 101 I did operate 2 businesses as sole proprietor for 30 years quite profitably and paid an outrageous tax rate most of those years.

Every problem can be looked at from various perspectives often with diametrically opposed opinions. But when there was no cake the pitchforks came out.


Doubtful as seen by recent republican wins. There are predatory loan practices outlawed in some places,but say when one signs over a car title for cash it can be a devastating turn of events. Ignorance and desperation the 2 main factors my guess.


I think it’s actually more accurate to say you choose which Kool-aid you drink based on your predispositions, as evidenced by your lack of direct answers to direct questions.

The reason I mentioned lost wages is that economists (who are the folks who should be making these calculations, not accountants) consider the lost contribution to GDP caused by premature deaths significant. Civil courts also consider lost wages a factor in awarding compensation for wrongful deaths.


Well I got As in Economics too, but I hope we’re done with this health policy back and forth. If you have a direct question on car financing or motorcycle injury rates, I’ll be glad to answer, but public health policy issues should be discussed on another board.


Public health relates directly to transportation, as in seat belt and helmet laws. What I’ve said about smokers would easily apply to those who ride a motorcycle without a helmet as they are as likely to die as they are to become human vegetables.

How about you agree to stop throwing out incendiary phrases like “drinking the Kool-aid” when it would be more accurate to say, “I disagree”? If you’re going to deliberately try to push people’s buttons, don’t be surprised when I respond, sometimes in kind.


OK, I disagree with you that public health relates directly to transportation and particularly has nothing to do with financing a car and repossession which is what we were talking about.


In the 19th Century, people at times worked up to 12 hours a day, for not enough to support a family. If they worked at horribly dangerous work, and got injured, legally, it was their own fault.

Early cars were death traps.

Today, the 40 hour week is pretty standard, well, except for part-timers to avoid the health insurance laws. If you are injured, there is accident coverage, and your employee is required to keep you safe at work.

A Honda mini-van, according to an article I read a few days ago, I forget which model year, but not the current one, has never had a driver killed, not once. I want one of those, heh, heh.

And, at every step on both topics, working conditions, and car safety, there was a horrid caterwauling about divine rights being violated, or something like that.

I also remember when banks used FIFO on savings account, so if you had a million dollars (an exaggerated example) in an account, put in a million dollars and took out a million dollars, you got exactly $0.00 interest. The money you took out was the money there are the beginning of the month, and the other million was not there a month, so deserved no interest.

The banks said this was to encourage savings. What hokum! You encourage savings by paying maximum interest, not zero interest.

Anyway, eventually the law was changed and they pay some sort of weighted average amount now.

Just so, eventually, this selling cars with the hopes they cannot pay will be stopped. It is neither hard to write such a law, nor to enforce it. Yet, somehow the earth will continue revolving around the sun.

And, the poor will have to resort to traditional means to get a car. Steal the sucker. :smiley:


Neither of these is from JAMA. The first refers to a Dutch study, a country with a completely-different model of health economics. I can’t read the second, but it’s in ‘Forbes’, a magazine of rhetoric, not information.

Why doesn’t it? If a lender had no recourse but repossession a market for such insurance would come into being.

Really? Why would there be such a law? Fred Dealer wants to sell Suzi Motorist a car, limits on insurance make no sense.

@Bing’s ‘internationally renowned health professional’! Must be true! What’s his name?


I learned all of that from my parents then had a refresher course in public high school required “Modern Problems” class (!969-1970).


Right. And who do you think would pay for it? The buyer. The price of the car would increase to cover it. No dealer is going to just absorb it.

Because it protects consumers. Dealers cannot REQUIRE they buy gap insurance. Look it up if you don’t believe me.