Business Bankruptcy Law | Small Business Bankruptcy Laws

The bail outs are not free market capitalism, that’s fascism to have the government dictate the market.

Don’t tell me it divides the rich and the poor. 50% of the American GDP is from small businesses – Fortune Magazine

Not to mention majority of America is middle class, there are more suburbs then any other form of society in America. Middle class to me sounds balanced, there isn’t a majority of lower or upper class, only a select few in population.

In free market capitalism the consumers dictate what they want to buy, the businesses can’t survive unless they satisfy what the consumer wants to purchase.

With the bail outs the government chose to do ruined the free market, the consumers dictated they don’t want cars from GM, the government intervened and bailed them out. In a free market capitalist system, that company would go out of business, and a more efficient business would move in that territory and do a better job. Bailing out GM will come back to haunt us if it fails again, it will mandate another bail out or bankruptcy.

The banks them selves aren’t truly a free market. They are mandated by the government with so many regulations they lose their freedom to choose what to do. The Community Reinvestment Act which Fannie Mae in 1992 was invested in crashed later at the end of the Bush Term in 2008. That’s 18 years difference in time. Home Mortgage loans take time to pay off. If you give loans to people that have bad credit obviously they’re a hazard to possibly repay it back. Banks where mandated by the government to give out the loans to people that didn’t qualify. Not discrediting banks being greedy they where, but it was the bureaucracy that enabled banks to have bad practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act – Read the History

The regulations banks under went with all the changes and enabling them to give bad loans is the reason we feel this 18 years later. Most peoples home loans take longer then 18 years to pay off. Giving them to people that didn’t qualify makes it even more dangerous, with the housing market devalued the banks got the homes back with a lower value of the origional loan, cooping an even bigger loss since they can’t sell it back.

It’s not free market capitalism to bail out the banks, and it wasn’t free market capitalism for the government to regulate banks on how they distribute home loans. The government made the mess, and it’s the tax payer that suffers. This isn’t free market capitalism. I just want to make sure you realize free market capitalism doesn’t involve government regulation/interference.

If you mention things like the FDA and FCC, those don’t dictate what company’s can sell their product at or anything, that’s for safety purposes, it will effect a company’s cost but they will just push it to the consumer, regulating the cost they put to the consumer will damage their ability to independently function in the free market.

So don’t bash a system you probably know nothing about. It really upsets me people watch Michael Moore’s movie and think that’s capitalism. Bail outs are not Free Market Capitalism, it’s government interference which is fascism.
Sakata Gintoki: Wow you’re pretty ignorant, the people in other countries wouldn’t have jobs in their country if it wasn’t for the US providing them. They would be killing each other and be unproductive. In any state where there is no employment, which can be a country like Somalia or even the great depression. It was and always will be out of order since there is no production, everyone will just kill each other and constantly be at war. There is no wealth generated. When employment happens, production increases causing wealth to be generated, and it’s peaceful. Government housing projects have the highest crime rates in America for a reason that is parallel to unemployment.
crunch: Free Market Capitalism hasn’t existed since FDR, his socialistic ideals make Americans dependent on the government. The more dependent on the government one becomes the less independent they become. Causing them to demand the government takes care of them. This is why we have health care reform, Medicare is costing America too much money each year, Obama is going to end Medicare and merge it with his new plan. It’s going to keep adding to our debt. I’d rather disable all government aid. Not allow doctors to be sued by Lawyers. Then sit back and watch the Doctors compete against each other for patients. There would be so much competition doctors would force each other to lower prices. Just like fast food when McDonalds introduced the dollar menu. Everyone else had to have a value menu because they where getting killed. The consumer will always win.
Sakata Gintoki: Wow you’re a whiny little blamer, do you understand everyone has the free will to choose what to do with their lives? You can’t blame the employer when the employee willingly works there. You can’t blame tobacco companies for people who smoke and get cancer since the individual should of known better. You’re discrediting the individuals right to choose what they want to do. You blame others for the individuals fault and sole choice they made on their own. You can’t blame someone when the individual chose to do it. No one is forcing anyone to work any where, unless it was a totalitarian state and mandates they must. That isn’t the case in Free Market Capitalism. The Employees can picket and not work there, if they picket and they get fired and replaced by others, it obviously tells everyone that the work environment must not be that bad if others still want to work there.
Matthew D: Middle Class is not defined by how much money you have, since the cost of living per state is different. Middle Class homes in So Cal cost 500k, if you took 500k to Alabama you could live in a mansion. The upper class homes here are valued from 900k and up in So Cal. You can’t live in a big house here. It depends on where you live and what the cost of living is. All suburbs are defined as middle class. Government housing projects are lower class, and the upper class are the few rich that live in areas the average person can’t afford. Most homes in America are affordable for the average American depending on which state you are in. Real Estate is about location, saying a value determines middle class is stupid, because 500k in so cal isn’t worth much compared to Alabama. It’s about each location and what the norm is.
AgriCult: I know who George Orwell is, he is an author of a book 1984 which was a prediction of how totalitarianism would spread. I know what his philosophy is. Second I want to say that Hitler was a Fascist, Fascism is two things.

1. The cause of race superiority.
2. The merge of corporations and government

I for one see number 2 clearly happening right now in our American society. 61% of GM is owned by the US Department of Treasury. It’s damaging the system America was built upon. The fore fathers wanted a small government, we are constantly stirring away from it, and I don’t want to have a government that is parallel to the king of England. If the government today owns many companies and the king of England taxed high percentages, what difference does it make. Either way the form of government generates a high revenue through ownership or taxation. I really dislike this, all governments can do is go bankrupt, we see it with the USSR, Nazi Germany, and with us being 11 trill debt.
remmycool: due to lack of comenting space I am allowed I will keep this short. I agree with everything you said, if the world was a free market system America’s value would decrease. I don’t mind that, I am not about superiority of currency, I am for the innovation free market capitalism has offered the world. I love it and it makes every bureaucrat look like a selfish dictator that wants the wealth through taxation.

I agree with your comparison of Zimbabwe and them being millionaires. Of course not everyone can be a millionaire, it would just be inflation and the value would be even more useless. The problem is people see the rich and think that they’re selfish. The belief of that is preposterous since the rich generated that wealth through smart investments. Every society there is a rich class, either a dictatorship/government or the people who choose to make innovative ideas in our democratic republic society. I hate the witch hunts people have on successful people.
Aidan: Well for starters I agree with you that the bail outs saved capitalism since it enables banks to give loans to businesses for what ever purpose they need it for. How ever I disagree that you will believe a government report on a government program they allowed. I see a bias there considering if they disagree with their own intended policy it will make them lose credibility, Americans will lose trust in them and no one would ever want something like this to happen again. To push this point even further look at the cause and effects of other programs.

Social Security’s cause is to allow you to be financially secure by the government past age 65, yet people past 65 still work and aren’t retired.

Welfare sounds nice to help people in poverty, yet those people become dependent on the program and always will be in poverty. There is no incentive to become independent and not depend on the government anymore.

I can go on and on, but I hope you get the point, plus I have no more space
x x: You do realize oil companies face a major restriction by the government of where they can drill. If oil companies could drill any where and have a massive quantity the price of it would lower. Gas would be much cheaper if it was accessable by oil companies to drill any where. The government restricts oil companies to drill any where. So oil companies must buy it from foreign distributors like Canada, and the tariff they pay to ship it here adds to the cost of production. Due to scarcity and the tariff cost, the oil companies pass these burdens to the consumers. Otherwise they would eat a massive loss and go out of business. Again that’s government regulation ruining the free market ability of oil companies drilling where ever they want. Gold is expensive because of the scarcity it holds as a natural resource. Same reason why you won’t pay money for dirt since it is every where it’s so common it doesn’t hold a value.

I am having trouble understanding a few things about the economy and how big business works. Right now the economy is in big trouble, we have the Banks that needed to be bailed out by the United States government, but the bank raises the fees for bounced checks and let more people go so there are fewer workers in the bank to take care of customers. Yet the CEO’s and anyone higher up the chain get bigger bonuses and more goodies even though they had to downsize; how does that make things right?

I used to work for Gateway as a customer support technician. They decided to move the operations overseas to India to save money so they could develop newer technologies and create new jobs. The only place they created anything is in their pockets. They may have developed newer computers faster smaller and all sorts of goodies, but this was all done over seas where the labor is cheaper, and they lined their pockets with more money.

About 5 years ago there was an airline that the workers were going to go on strike. The company CEO went to the Union Leaders and said look if you go for more money we will be forced into bankruptcy. He really pleaded and made the union think that they were all going to loose if they persisted. So the Union backed down. Guess what the CEO and board of directors did, they all gave themselves a pat on the back for avoiding a strike and lined their pockets with big fat bonuses. This did not sit well with the workers, in the end the Board of Directors found it prudent to return that nice little bonus and give it to the workers who are actually making the money for those idiots.

I wondered if we all got together and started to boycott certain business for a set period of time to really shake these jerks up a little and make them think about how they really do have it too nice. Would that make a difference?

One other thing right now there is a guy accused of insider trading. His name is Mark Cuban if he is found guilty I think it only fair that he pays back all of the funds that he made plus a fine in fact he should be kicked down to the bottom of the ladder. He is not just stealing money from insider trading we ALL suffer as it affects all of us. It devalues every bodies stocks and retirement funds. Look up past insider trading and see if after some sanctimonious CEO and board of directors who decided on a get rich scheme did not affect you retirement account.

I think all CEOs and anyone on the board of directors are overpaid and need to return all bonuses and perks until the US has a stable economy. Or do I have a warped view of the way it all works?

For every ones information the way they calculate the unemployment figures is BASED on people who are actually drawing an unemployment check, not the ones who have lost their benefits or those denied unemployment because they were terminated with cause.

Sure they may seem like a good thing…eliminating late fees, not allowing a spike in interest rates for being late, increasing the minimum payment so the balance gets paid off quicker, but there are repercussions. This may help people who are irresponsible, take on more debt than they can handle, don’t read what they sign, don’t keep track of their finances, but to the people who do it the right way it will likely hurt them. Banks aren’t going to just sit back and allow their profits to be eaten away like this. Instead of late fees they will charge annual fees. Since they will be restricted when and whom they can raise interest rates on, they will just raise them on everybody for no reason before the law takes affect. Forcing customers to pay an increased minimum payment may be more than some can afford at the time and will drive them into bankruptcy (how ironic that will be) Maybe they can only afford to pay a month until they get out of college and get a better job, then they can pay it down more. Who knows what each individual person’s situation is, certainly not a mickey mouse bureaucrat in Washington. I remember about 4 years ago when some financial regulatory agency in Washington was just RECOMMENDING that credit card companies increase their minimum payment requirements and people countered by saying, oh well this is only a recommendation, and I told them sooner rather than later the day would come when it would be mandated and what do you know, it happened. Also, it will be harder to get a card in the first place. I say if adults are irresponsible enough to take on more debt than they can afford and businesses are dumb enough to lend it to them, let them both go down and let them live and learn and leave the government out of it, but I guess this is what people wanted they checked that little box that said "Obama" 11 months ago. A liberal is what you voted for and a liberal is what you got. A do-gooder, and yes I do mean that in a negative way. You say why doing "good" isn’t always so nice. Sure, I read that part in the law that says this new law is "optional" The problem is, if I choose not to follow the government rules, I have to close my account altogether and not have a card at all and all future card holders don’t have a choice and have to play by the government’s new rules. Check out the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bank_of_america_annual_fees

i had a small business which has gone under in this currant recession i have 2 houses one rented and one my home both of which i have remorgatged twice for the business so they are both in negative equity and now no income and a considerable debt a large amount interest was added by the various banks i have a tenant in the house the rent pays the mortgage and they are unaware of the problem any help would be a comfort i did try and do things the proper way and am in the uk..

i own a small business that i needed five cars to run and now of course everything has slowed way down and i cant afford the car notes anymore. is there a way out of this? will banks be willing to work with me and somehow cut my payments in half?

Do you remember when Bush & the Banks, changed the bankruptcy Law’s, around the beginning of his first term. Many people must pay, no matter their condition, but you can go before a Judge, and appeal for a lessor payment, something like paying into your grave. So here we are, the very same Banks, wanting demanding, asking for our money, so they can stay in business, and still earn their high salaries. I say put them into our Bankruptcy system.. If Fraud is involved, prosecute them. ( DO you Agree or Have another Suggestion )????

We have put in so much work into laws that create the many forms of bankruptcy that are intended to allow a person or company a "redo" and allow them to restructure their business/lifestyle so that they are better off on the other side…. If a business isn’t structured correctly and going to die eventually because of it, why would you consider having someone bail you out leaving the same old broken structure except have less control over your business/Life?

How are bailouts even an option? Where did they come from? The airlines went bankrupt and we still fly…..?
Why is Pelosi and Reid giving everyone bailouts then?
Many analysts? Exacerbate? So, we’re in rough times, typically, as accountants do in a bad year, they "purge" all the bad in the bad year. Yes, this "exacerbates" the problem, but its a good long term strategy and protects the next year from that toxic stuff they pumped out last year…..
Its obvious that Bush initially wanted to bail out the banks because this was a slam dunk for McCain to look like a "Maverick" on taking stance that was in line with conservatives while Bush did something right up Reid/Pelosi’s alley.

My mother has 2 houses going into foreclosure worth close to a million dollars, credit card debts, SBA loans, home equity loans, e.t.c. I have a few questions. One, will they EVER come after me(her son), or my father for her debt. Say I drive a BMW and live in a mansion with thousands in my bank account, can they come after it because of my mom? How bout my dad? Also, she’s thinking of filing chapter 7 but none of the lawyers want to touch her case. They’re excuses are: "The amount is too large", "too much work". Most importantly though, her SBA loan was done through a "broker" of sorts, a small business loan taken out from a business that doesn’t exist. The broker used some loopholes to do this, I think this is why lawyers won’t touch us. Please help me sleep in peace at night, will the creditors, banks, come after me or my dad’s assets/money? Also, how do I find a lawyer who handles large cases like this? The total amount for filing should be 1million+

Thanks so much ya’ll.

im going to need a personal loan or small business loan in the next 2 weeks for a store im looking to rent and open a bakery. my credit score right now is 662, im waiting for it to update this week which should be going up into the high 670’s or even low 680. my credit is short only about 4 yrs old. I dont have much collertal to use to secure it. My parents just declared bankruptcy and my house is probably only worth 40k for secureity. I need around 75k. Anyone think i have a shot? or know of any banks that would be willing to work with me.

I have recently lost my job after being in the telecommunications industry for ten years. I have had no luck finding a new 9-5 job with a regular salary. I have been forced to take a job full time at a restaurant.

I have over ,000 in credit card debt most with APR’s in the high 20’s. I have done my best over the last 6 months to keep up with my minimum payments but am finding it impossible recently to balance my debt along with my living expenses. By living expense, I do mean the bare minimums. Rent,utilities, gas, food etc.. I have not wasted funds on entertainment or purchases other than does required for work.

I had an hour long conversation today with a debt consolidation company. It is has been in business since 1965 and is non-profit. I actually used their services in the past to consolidate debt that I managed to pay off about 8 years ago. They analyzed all of my assets, income, debt and overall financial situation. They determined that I was running at a 65% deficit between what I am brining in and what I owe. They recommended that, although it may sound harsh, my best option was to file for bankruptcy. They determined that I would not be able to keep up with any type of repayment schedule that they would negotiate with the banks and that a fresh start may be my best option.

I have avoided the thought of filing for bankruptcy in the past for several reasons. But now that my income is at an all time low and my job prospects do not seem to be sorting themselves out in the near future, I do not now what other options I have available to me. Needless to say, the stress of the whole situation has been making life extremely unpleasant.

I am single, have no kids, and will not be purchasing a house in the near future. The only asset I own, is an 8 year old car.

I have five questions:

1) Other than having a bankruptcy ruling on my file for the next ten years and not being able to secure credit, what are the other disadvantages of filing for bankruptcy?

2) I do not have disposable income. I am making enough to pay for essentials. Would my chances of having the entire debt excused be good? Or would I still be responsible for paying a percentage?

3) I know from my corporate experience that my credit file would be reviewed during the job applications process. I am considering a career with the Federal Government. How would a bankruptcy ruling be looked upon by the government during the job application process?

4) How much with a reputable bankruptcy lawyer cost me?

5) I have also read that another option is to do nothing and ignore my creditors. The following excerpt below is from http://bankruptcy.findlaw.com/ . Is this plausible?

Do Nothing
Surprisingly, the best approach for some people deeply in debt is to take no action at all. If you’re living simply, with little income and property, and look forward to a similar life in the future, you may be what’s known as "judgment proof." This means that anyone who sues you and obtains a court judgment won’t be able to collect from you simply because you don’t have anything they can legally take. (As a famous song of the 1970s said, "freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.")

Except in unusual situations (being a tax protester or willfully failing to pay child support) you can’t be thrown in jail for not paying your debts. Nor can a creditor take away such essentials as basic clothing, ordinary household furnishings, personal effects, food, or Social Security, unemployment, or public assistance benefits.

So, if you don’t anticipate having a steady income or property a creditor could grab, bankruptcy is probably not necessary. Your creditors probably won’t sue you, because it’s unlikely they could collect the judgment. Instead, they’ll simply write off your debt and treat it as a deductible business loss for income tax purposes. In several years, the debt will become legally uncollectible. And in seven years, the debt will come off your credit record.

I am planning on contacting a bankruptcy lawyer for further advice but wanted to get an idea as to what I am dealing with before I further the process.

I appreciate any feedback the Yahoo community is able to provide!

Thank you in advance!!