Why I Defaulted on My Student Loans

Oh, my God, you and the "promise."

It's not a wedding vow. It's a business contract, using business language. There were consequences built into said contract should he decide not to pay it back. He did, and he will suffer those consequences.

If Grand Valley State had written, "Brian Kelly promises to coach here 'til death do us part, but if not, he has to pay a buyout," I guess you'd be up in arms about that, too. (Assuming GVSU's endowment is large enough to set off your sympathy radar.)

 

In the larger sense, yes, you definitely should.

But what is theft or fraud about abiding by a clearly stated 30-day return policy?

It's a marketing tool for Macy's. If it didn't pay off for them, they wouldn't do it. The truth is many (most?) of the people who walk out with a suit with the intention of returning it don't actually return it. And maybe you also bought a shirt or tie or shoes that you can't or didn't return. And if none of that happened, you've still been in their store and are thus an active customer.

I know this is far afield from the initial discussion, but I'm really curious as to how it's a moral failing to return a suit within 30 days at a store that has a 30-day return policy.

 

Relatedly, I am not sending back my Knob Creek for them to drink, as I am 100 percent satisfied with the bold bourbon taste.

 

You're right, it's quite solemn. I signed mine surrounded by Tibetan monks.

 

His buddy promised to pay him back the 600 bones. There might be a little displaced frustration (anger even) at play here.

 

As did the student loan guy.

 

Because I acquired the suit with the full intention of benefiting from its use without paying for it. Had I purchased the suit in good faith and changed my mind after the fact, I would not think twice about returning it. It's immaterial that Macy's plans on a certain amount of its customers being unscrupulous dicks and finds a way to take advantage of that.

 

Failure to make good on a promise is not the same thing as committing fraud, though I suspect you know that. Defaulting on a loan is not fraud, which why it's called default and not fraud. There is a difference. You seem to be saying - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that his failure to pay his loans today indicates he never intended to pay them, including the loan he procured when he was 17 years old. Saying that because he did not pay the loans back means he never intended to pay them back and, therefore, committed fraud is absurd.

Companies and individuals make similar decisions every day. Some declare bankruptcy. Some walk away from their mortgage. This guy decided he could not achieve financial stability and live up to the terms of his loans, so he chose to take the hit to his credit - limiting his ability to borrow in the future - and keep his cash in hand. It was a decision that made the most fiscal sense for him.

Serious question: Are you fundamentally against bankruptcy protection?

 

That's your hang-up, then.

Department stores don't subjectively assess whether your reasons are good enough for them.

 

This is not a jab at you @cranberry, I promise, but I read that and think BS. You *knew* you weren't going to pay for the one-time use but you went ahead and took it anyway.

It's like, you *knew* you were going to be a bad boy but could self-moralize the behavior later with a bout of guilt. That's a strange combo.

That said, go to Macy's and give them 30 bucks and tell them what you did years ago. Or buy a gift certificate and give it to someone just because.

 

You're being kind of hard on yourself, you Unscrupulous Dick.