Woman blindsided by 29 year old debt

[Steve]

Considering the fact that the government was just as at fault I would say that instead of blindsiding her now, it would be more ethical to allow payments to be made. At least give the woman an opportunity now that it has come to light.
I say the government is just as at fault because if she were emancipated and married... Well that is on file. And part of her taxes and many other things that government agencies pay people to keep track of. So this should have been caught long ago. Like before the debt was several thousand dollars.

good points. I don't know if technology in the 80s was at a place where that kind of coordination was possible. But nowadays, I'd agree.

Also, I don't know if payments are a possibility, but I'd expect that had she contacted ssa within the 60 day period before her debt was sent to the IRS, it would have been much more likely.

Mismanagement of benefits like this isn't all too uncommon. And we wonder why the future of our government programs like Social Security is in question.
The fact is that the debt is legitimate. But it was a mistake on the government's side as they understand the laws that this woman likely didn't. So give the woman at least part of her tax refund and allow her to plan payments. Worst case scenario you just take the rest out of taxes later. Blindsiding people will end up with people like this lady actually NEEDING government assistance programs to get by.

As for this lady. Well, realize it happened. She will have to pay. Now or later, and it's time to work that into a budget. Been there myself. It sucks and it's a part of life. Sorry :/

you use the term blindside. What does not blindsiding look like to you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Drasken]

good points. I don't know if technology in the 80s was at a place where that kind of coordination was possible. But nowadays, I'd agree.

Also, I don't know if payments are a possibility, but I'd expect that had she contacted ssa within the 60 day period before her debt was sent to the IRS, it would have been much more likely. you use the term blindside. What does not blindsiding look like to you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hey my mom had something similar happen. She had a student loan through a government agency. My father too. They had to file bankruptcy. It was supposedly cleared. Well my Dad's was, not my mom's. She wasn't notified until a few years ago when they took my mom's tax refund. She has since worked out payments and actually gets a signifigant portion of tax refund now. Even though technically it was an oversight with the bankruptcy, my Mom is paying what is owed.
However the fact is that the government agency can find your address. We all know they can. And not notifying someone before taking their money without warning is blindsiding. They could have notified her beforehand. Hell if she was behind on taxes I guarantee they could find her to conduct an audit. So they can't tell me every effort was made. That would be like putting clothes in water and leaving them there, then claiming every effort was made to wash them.... Give me a break.

I agree the woman owes the money. But if I were denied my tax refund it could tip the scales more toward my wife and I being on the street. Many people are like that. So the "every effort" excuse doesn't really fly. And is highly unethical.

It's also worth noting with my mother's situation they also threatened to garnish wages. Making it impossible to live on what she made. Their solution? Welfare and food stamps. Like that makes sense right? Let us pay your bills so you can pay us what you owe... Great job there of managing government funds right?
What made it worse is 7,000 turned into 48,000 with the interest on a bill my Mom was told she didn't owe anymore. The way things are handled I am inclined to believe that our government offices are staffed by monkeys with typewriters.

 

[Steve]

Hey my mom had something similar happen. She had a student loan through a government agency. My father too. They had to file bankruptcy. It was supposedly cleared. Well my Dad's was, not my mom's. She wasn't notified until a few years ago when they took my mom's tax refund. She has since worked out payments and actually gets a signifigant portion of tax refund now. Even though technically it was an oversight with the bankruptcy, my Mom is paying what is owed.
However the fact is that the government agency can find your address. We all know they can. And not notifying someone before taking their money without warning is blindsiding. They could have notified her beforehand. Hell if she was behind on taxes I guarantee they could find her to conduct an audit. So they can't tell me every effort was made. That would be like putting clothes in water and leaving them there, then claiming every effort was made to wash them.... Give me a break.

I agree the woman owes the money. But if I were denied my tax refund it could tip the scales more toward my wife and I being on the street. Many people are like that. So the "every effort" excuse doesn't really fly. And is highly unethical.

It's also worth noting with my mother's situation they also threatened to garnish wages. Making it impossible to live on what she made. Their solution? Welfare and food stamps. Like that makes sense right? Let us pay your bills so you can pay us what you owe... Great job there of managing government funds right?
What made it worse is 7,000 turned into 48,000 with the interest on a bill my Mom was told she didn't owe anymore. The way things are handled I am inclined to believe that our government offices are staffed by monkeys with typewriters.

They did notify her. Right? I'm pretty sure the article says that she was sent notification. If they didn't, you're right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Drasken]

They did notify her. Right? I'm pretty sure the article says that she was sent notification. If they didn't, you're right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I went back and reread the article. Apparently she was not sent notification. They sent notification to the last known address of the woman's now deceased mother. Allegedly she knew nothing until she ended up going to the SSI office after being directed there in reguards to her questions about not receiving her tax refund.

Now, that doesn't mean she didn't receive notice and is claiming ignorance. But based on how our government efficiency is, I'm more inclined to believe this woman overall.

Which is sad isn't it? That I, and many Americans, am inclined to believe a woman I've never heard of or met over our government? I mean how bad does your track record have to get before that happens?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Fair enough. If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I got the impression there was emotion involved, because it is a very strong, definitive position on a topic you admit not being as informed as you should on.

Not so much strong as having been formed long enough ago that I don't give it a lot of thought. In light of new information, it is subject to change.

SSA is a really easy target for politicos these days since it's been announced that outlay will exceed income by 2021. Lots of folks have jumped on that bandwagon to flog their consituents into making knee-jerk decisions of benefit to the politicians. Here's a quick rundown about what the deal is with the SSA. Most interesting to me is the fact that income inequality has a large part to do with the projected problems with Social Security. You never hear any of the politicinas complaining about that!

5 Huge Myths About Social Security

This was very helpful and informative. My thanks!

 

[Steve]

I went back and reread the article. Apparently she was not sent notification. They sent notification to the last known address of the woman's now deceased mother. Allegedly she knew nothing until she ended up going to the SSI office after being directed there in reguards to her questions about not receiving her tax refund.

Now, that doesn't mean she didn't receive notice and is claiming ignorance. But based on how our government efficiency is, I'm more inclined to believe this woman overall.

Which is sad isn't it? That I, and many Americans, am inclined to believe a woman I've never heard of or met over our government? I mean how bad does your track record have to get before that happens?

I think it's interesting how different people can have such different reactions. My initial reaction was the opposite of yours. I presume that she did get the notice. The USPS has a pretty strong track record, processing somewhere around 160 billion pieces of mail every year. Also, I looked up the treasury offset program rules and it looks like they send the notice to the last known address from the IRS, as well. As far as I'm concerned, the odds that she didn't receive the notice are exceedingly slim. It's possible, but unlikely. At least, that's my opinion.

What I think is likely is that she got the letter and either didn't open it at all or didn't read it carefully. But that's just conjecture.

Again, your perspective is not wrong, and I appreciate the comments. Just interesting to me that we default to completely different presumptions.

Overall, I guess I'm surprised that everyone's defending this woman. I would have thought that some of the more conservative people would come down on the side of collecting debt that was previously considered unrecoverable.

So far, no one's talked about where the line is for you. Most everyone here seems to agree that this debt should be written off. But, why is this not okay debt to recover? What, in your opinion, IS okay debt to recover? When should the Fed write it off and when should they pursue collection? Does the reason for the debt matter?

 

[Drasken]

I think it's interesting how different people can have such different reactions. My initial reaction was the opposite of yours. I presume that she did get the notice. The USPS has a pretty strong track record, processing somewhere around 160 billion pieces of mail every year. Also, I looked up the treasury offset program rules and it looks like they send the notice to the last known address from the IRS, as well. As far as I'm concerned, the odds that she didn't receive the notice are exceedingly slim. It's possible, but unlikely. At least, that's my opinion.

What I think is likely is that she got the letter and either didn't open it at all or didn't read it carefully. But that's just conjecture.

Again, your perspective is not wrong, and I appreciate the comments. Just interesting to me that we default to completely different presumptions.

Overall, I guess I'm surprised that everyone's defending this woman. I would have thought that some of the more conservative people would come down on the side of collecting debt that was previously considered unrecoverable.

So far, no one's talked about where the line is for you. Most everyone here seems to agree that this debt should be written off. But, why is this not okay debt to recover? What, in your opinion, IS okay debt to recover? When should the Fed write it off and when should they pursue collection? Does the reason for the debt matter?

Oh as I said before, this debt is legitimate. And she will have to pay it.
I also think that my inclination to believe the woman about lack of notice is based on personal experience as well. My mother's debt was also pushed into collection of tax refund without any notice.
Either way, the lady needs to realize that she will need to pay her debt. And the government agency should realize that mistakes were made and if she is willing to work with them, then they should also be willing to work with her.

 

[pgsmith]

Oh as I said before, this debt is legitimate. And she will have to pay it.

It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's mother defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.

 

[granfire]

It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's mother defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.

well, if it is the mother's dept the daughter did not know about it - correct me if I am wrong - it was part of the estate, if daughter assumed ownership of it, so is the money mother got overpays and owed.

I am thinking - aside from what Steve suggested about the agency not being able to garnish tax returns before - that that is were the three decade delay comes from....

And still, she would have to pay it.

But hey, it isn't that huge of an amount. I mean, it's nothing I would want to shell out in a lump sum (especially unexpected) but it's not astronomical! Considering compounding interests and such things Uncle Sam likes to tack on....

 

[Steve]

It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's mother defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.

pgsmith, I don't think anyone defrauded the government. For it to be fraud, there would need to be intent, and I don't get the sense from the article that anyone intended to get more than was due.

One interesting wrinkle with this story is that, once the women got married at age 14, she was technically an adult. So, any money paid on her record was her debt and not her mother's.

But all of that aside, if the woman were older and had received the money directly 29 years ago, would you be okay with the government pursuing collection? Strictly commenting on the age of the debt, is 29 years too far back to go? Should someone be given a pass after a period of time? If so, what's the cut off, in your opinion?

 

[Drasken]

It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's mother defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.

Time means nothing to debt. If I have 7,000 in back bills I will have them for the rest of my life until they are paid. I don't see fraud here, it was a mistake due to not knowing the law. But that doesn't mean it goes away.

Also, bureaucracy works in favor of people occasionally. We fought with hospitals and Medicare when my brother was going through cancer treatments. They kept trying to charge my brother, who was a minor. Well when he turned 18 it all went under his name. After he passed they continued to try and collect. However, since he died and had no assets to collect from after his death they had no legal action they could take. They had to eat the cost of close to 750,000 dollars of treatment bills. Despite my parents best efforts to put it on themselves to keep my brother's credit clean. But to be honest it worked in our favor.

The laws have to be followed. The fact that the debt is so old doesn't really factor in. And I am sure that they will be willing to work with her if it is clear she agrees to pay the debt and is willing to work it out. And if they aren't, well it is immoral but still legal
Life sucks sometimes. But at least the debt isn't too bad. I mean her current tax refund took care of most of it after all.

 

[pgsmith]

pgsmith, I don't think anyone defrauded the government. For it to be fraud, there would need to be intent, and I don't get the sense from the article that anyone intended to get more than was due.

We don't know that. All that we have to go on is the woman saying that she didn't think her mother would do that on purpose.

One interesting wrinkle with this story is that, once the women got married at age 14, she was technically an adult. So, any money paid on her record was her debt and not her mother's.

And I agreed that this was legally true, even though the woman obviously knew nothing about the payments, according to what she states in the article.

But all of that aside, if the woman were older and had received the money directly 29 years ago, would you be okay with the government pursuing collection? Strictly commenting on the age of the debt, is 29 years too far back to go? Should someone be given a pass after a period of time? If so, what's the cut off, in your opinion?

I would be fine with the government pursuing the debt in that case. What I'm not fine with is them stealing her tax return for it. Every state has a statute of limitations on old debt, a period of time beyond which a person cannot be sued for an old debt. This doesn't mean that an old debt is not owed, simply that they cannot file suit against it. The longest statute of limitations is in Kentucky, where it is 15 years. Now here we have a debt that is almost twice that old and, never mind filing suit, the government simply steals the money when they have the chance. Why does the government NOT have to follow the same laws as the rest of the country? That's my biggest problem with this whole scenario. It's not whether the woman can afford it, or whether it is legally owed, but that the government has its own set of rules, which are disconnected to the laws which govern the rest of us.

Since I like analogies, here's one that I feel fits ... my ex-wife owes me back child support as well as other money she borrowed from me from over 20 years ago. If she handed me her keys to get something out of her car and I sold it instead to help pay that debt she owes me, would I not get accused of theft? How is it not theft when the one owed is the government instead of an individual?

I don't see fraud here, it was a mistake due to not knowing the law.

I would appreciate someone proving that to me.