Why Don't We Just Bring Back Debtor's Prison?

[Michael P]

Seriously, that bankruptcy bill scares the crap out of me. I've heard about it before, but the extent revealed in today's column was so odious as to induce dry heaves. Emailed my Representative right away.

Wasn't thrilled with the idea of a Greater Depression on the way. Although really, the thought of one of these dumbass measures eventually pushing the populace past the breaking point doesn't really thrill me either, and that strikes me as the second most likely outcome.

Hey, anybody wanna buy a handbasket?

[They Call Me Evil]

Seriously, that bankruptcy bill scares the crap out of me. I've heard about it before, but the extent revealed in today's column was so odious as to induce dry heaves. Emailed my Representative right away.

Thats why i don't use credit cards, loans, or any of that bull. Call me a caveman, but if i can't afford it outright, i don't sweat it. Not much interested in selling myself into slavery. Nope, no thanks.

Although really, the thought of one of these dumbass measures eventually pushing the populace past the breaking point doesn't really thrill me either, and that strikes me as the second most likely outcome.

It thrills me to the bone. But i'm crazy like that.

[tricksterpup]

Seriously, that bankruptcy bill scares the crap out of me. I've heard about it before, but the extent revealed in today's column was so odious as to induce dry heaves. Emailed my Representative right away.

Wasn't thrilled with the idea of a Greater Depression on the way. Although really, the thought of one of these dumbass measures eventually pushing the populace past the breaking point doesn't really thrill me either, and that strikes me as the second most likely outcome.

Hey, anybody wanna buy a handbasket?

Hey folks here is the current news on this.
Congress Passes Bankruptcy Reform Bill
By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of people who want to wipe out their debts in bankruptcy court would have to work out repayment plans instead under legislation Congress approved Thursday.

A 302-126 vote by the House sent the legislation to President Bush, who is eager to sign it, the biggest rewrite of the bankruptcy code in a quarter-century. It marks the second major change in law to benefit business since Republicans increased their House and Senate majorities in last fall's elections.

Debate in the House was acrimonious as Democratic opponents warned that the measure would hurt the economically vulnerable.

After eight years of strenuous efforts by congressional backers, banks and credit card companies, the legislation was catapulted toward enactment starting earlier this year. The legislation, which garnered some Democratic votes, cleared the Senate last month on a 74-25 vote.

The measure would require people with incomes above a certain level to pay credit-card charges, medical bills and other obligations under a court-ordered bankruptcy plan.

Opponents say the change would fall especially hard on low-income working people, single mothers, minorities and the elderly and would remove a safety net for those who have lost their jobs or face crushing medical bills.

The legislation "protects the credit industry at the expense of the consumer," Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., declared in House debate. "It will drive more Americans deeper into financial crisis and weaken the nation's economy and social structure."

But backers in Congress and the financial services industry argue that bankruptcy frequently is the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires — often celebrities — who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors.

Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., said the legislation would save American families an average $400 a year in higher interest rates now charged to consumers to recoup losses from those who abuse bankruptcy proceedings.

In a bitter scene on the House floor, Democrats — most of whom opposed the legislation — used an array of parliamentary maneuvers to delay the final vote, forcing an unsuccessful roll call vote on adjourning the session and lining up one by one to register their objections in brief, biting statements.

Democrats were furious that the GOP leadership allowed none of the 35 amendments they had proposed earlier to be voted on. They particularly wanted provisions that would exempt from the new bankruptcy requirements military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and people whose indebtedness is the result of financial identity theft.

Between 30,000 and 210,000 people — from 3.5 percent to 20 percent of those who dissolve their debts in bankruptcy each year in exchange for forfeiting some assets — would be disqualified from doing so under the legislation, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Taking effect six months from enactment, the measure would set up an income-based test for measuring a debtor's ability to repay debts. Those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which, if approved by a judge, erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited. Those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years — $100 a month — would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would then order a repayment plan.

The legislation also would require people in bankruptcy to pay for credit counseling.

Underscoring the issue's political sensitivity, the liberal group MoveOn was beginning a campaign of radio ads this week against House lawmakers of both parties who support the legislation.

"We're going to call the Republican agenda what it truly is: a war on the middle class," said Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn's political action committee.

New personal bankruptcy filings edged down from 1,613,097 in the year ending June 30, 2003, to 1,599,986 in the year ending last June 30, breaking an upward trend of recent years.

[fumetti]

If the bill equally limited the rich/corporations, I'd not complain. But it is most definitely targeting the working class. A few deadbeats aren't enough of an excuse to pass this bill.

What's more, there's a story on MSNBC about how many under age KIDS possess credit cards (so-signed by parents).

If the credit card companies are truly concerned about bad debt, they shouldn't give these cards out like fucking candy. I've seen the sheer volume of pre-approved applications sent in bulk to our college campuses. Anyone who gives credit to people without a job does NOT deserve special legislation to protect their STUPIDITY.

Again, new legislation and Big Gov't is okay so long as it helps the rich. It's only bad when it helps the middle and lower classes.

[Michael P]

If the credit card companies are truly concerned about bad debt, they shouldn't give these cards out like fucking candy. I've seen the sheer volume of pre-approved applications sent in bulk to our college campuses. Anyone who gives credit to people without a job does NOT deserve special legislation to protect their STUPIDITY.
Stupidity like a fox. The entire reason they pass them out to college kids is in the hopes that the kids will overuse them, not be able to pay the bills, and end up paying massive interest and fees for years. They don't want to prevent people from going into debt; they want to prevent them from getting out of it.

[They Call Me Evil]

Yeah, its not a black and white issue. There is regular abuse of the bankruptcy laws (i've seen such abuse up close), but as you've said, its often their own damn fault for handing out credit so carelessly. But hey, how else do you lure victims into the trap? The trap has to have some tasty cheese!

I detest this change because its going to hit a whole lot of people who don't deserve to have their futures taken away because they made the mistake of selling their souls away to the dev...er credit companies. I prefer the old law that, if it errs (and i'm sure it does), that it errs on the side of the people and not the corporations. We have enough of that already.

[fumetti]

I blame the Democrats for not knowing how to make an argument. This should have been fairly easy to shoot down.

Protecting the Credit Card companies in this case is the same as protecting DRUG DEALERS.

Both are guilty of giving out their product/services to anybody who'll take it with the SOLE purpose of making them DEPENDENT.

And you'd think conservatives would be hawkishly protecting our youth and our families. They're the ones always (rightly) preaching to stand on your own two feet. But here, the party of the conservatives is FACILITATING the spread of credit-dependency, and worse, debt-servitude.

And who wouldn't want to help keep people OFF dependency? Never allowing a family a do-over financially--the same that is afforded any business--is to DOOM that family forever.

These Republicans do NOT have the best interest of Americans in mind.

(If the credit card corporations were forced to stand on their own two feet without Big Government aid, they'd have to accept responsibility for the failure of their SCHEMES. God, how I hate the GOP.)

***And let me add that the reason Bankruptcy has lost its sting is because businesses actually GIVE CREDIT to these people! You can buy a brand new car a month after bankruptcy! Why? Because the dealer knows you can't file again until well after the car is to be paid off. And in some cases you can even get new credit cards. I know this happens, I've seen it.***

We need a populist political party in the worst way right now. Otherwise the GOP is going to hand the whole damn country over to the corporations.

[bartl]

Yeah, its not a black and white issue. There is regular abuse of the bankruptcy laws (i've seen such abuse up close), but as you've said, its often their own damn fault for handing out credit so carelessly. But hey, how else do you lure victims into the trap? The trap has to have some tasty cheese!
However, the ultra-high credit card rates are designed for bankruptcy. What is strange is the case that bankruptcy attorneys call "Titanics"; those who use credit cards, keep building up debt, pay the minimum payments (and sometimes a little more) like clockwork, on time, every month, until they get hit by disaster, and suddenly stop paying, while credit card companies keep offering them more and more credit, even while they are in the process of filing.

And, as the article points out, the disproportionately high rates that credit card companies charge is designed for bankruptcies; this way, they don't care about bankruptcy as much, because based on reasonable rates of interest, many bankrupt people have long since paid back their loans.

[Steven Grant]

My favorite line in the article was from the Republican who said this is a good thing for many middle Americans because now the credit card companies can lower their interest rates because they don't have to take bankruptcies into account. Does anyone really think the companies will lower their interest rates?

The thing to do now is a) get a list from www.house.gov and www.senate.gov of every congressmen who voted for this hideous measure; b) start telling as many people as possible in their districts about it; and c) in the nearest possible election, vote the bastards out.

Thing is, this is just one of a slew of measures the Republicans will be ramming through before January 2007 (when the new Congress gets seated) that will hand lots of money and resources from the middle and lower class to the upper and corporate classes and strip the middle and lower classes of any way to contest it. And they're praying the real impact of it won't be felt by middle America until at least 2010.

Maybe everyone should file for bankruptcy in the next six months just on principle. Level the playing field before the new laws kick into effect. If everyone's doing it, there's no social stigma involved... and it's not like credit card companies won't then be desperate to hand out credit cards at low rates to whoever wants them, if no one's got one anymore...

[Steven Grant]

And in some cases you can even get new credit cards. I know this happens, I've seen it.***
A friend of mine had to file bankruptcy about 11 years ago, and on the way out of the courtroom he was beseiged by companies offering him new credit cards at "reasonable" rates.

We need a populist political party in the worst way right now. Otherwise the GOP is going to hand the whole damn country over to the corporations.
Well, if everything goes the way the Republicans would prefer, that will happen over the next 18 months. What we need is a populist party to repair the damage they're going to do. The problem with populist parties, though, is that throughout American history they have tended to be xenophobic and insular, rather than progressive.

Where's Fighting Bob Lafollette, now that we need him...?

[tricksterpup]

Steven, Thanks for the imput on this.
I posted this on the general chat forum but will post this here as well.

Ok here is the actual link to the Bill/Law
Its actually called the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
PDF format: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/62xx/doc6266/s256hjud.pdf
Link to website: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6130&sequence=0&from=6


MAJOR PROVISIONS

In addition to establishing means-testing for determining eligibility for chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, S. 256 would:

* Require the Executive Office for the U.S. Trustees to establish a test program to educate debtors on financial management;

* Authorize 28 new temporary judgeships and extend four existing judgeships;

* Permit courts to waive chapter 7 filing fees and other fees for debtors who could not pay such fees in installments;

* Require that at least one of every 250 bankruptcy cases under chapter 13 or chapter 7 be audited by an independent certified public accountant;

* Require the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to receive and maintain tax returns for certain chapter 7 and chapter 13 debtors;

* Require the AOUSC and the U.S. Trustees to collect and publish certain statistics on bankruptcy cases; and

* Increase chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy filing fees and change the budgetary treatment of such fees.

Other provisions would make various changes affecting the bankruptcy provisions for municipalities and the treatment of tax liabilities in bankruptcy cases.

The more I read about this law the more I do not like it.

[Steven Grant]

Wasn't thrilled with the idea of a Greater Depression on the way.

To some extent it's already here. Take gas prices. For some reason this isn't being figured into inflation at all, though it has already raised airline prices, food prices (because of the cost of shipping), mailing/shipping costs will be next, etc. Gas prices are now running around $2.50, without any real explanation for it except for vague mumblings about events in Iraq (which we supposedly didn't enter for oil, so why does what's happening there figure into the price of our gasoline) or heating oil costs, and they're expected to hit $3 before July 4th weekend. Some analysts have the price hitting $4-$4.50 before Christmas. Oil companies and oil futures bettors are jubilant. I have a Neon with an 11 gallon tank. I never let it get down below a quarter tank, but if I were to fill it from scratch, it would cost me $27.50. People are starting to try to sell their SUVs because they're suddenly paying $60-$75 for one tank of gasoline. At $4.50 per gallon, it will cost me almost $50 to fill the tank of a Neon! A Neon is a little car that gets reasonably good gas mileage. I never drive all that far.

At $4.50 per gallon, the auto industry functionally collapses. No one will be buying cars. No one will go any further than absolutely necessary to buy what they need, and there won't be anywhere near as much left, certainly not for the average families, to pay for, oh, entertainment. Or clothes. Or food. Or insurance payments. Or heat in the winter. What happens when you live in the north of the country and have to pay $1000/month just to heat your home. Or... well, you can figure out your own ramifications... Electric and hydrogren cell technology cars aren't likely to be cost effective for most people anytime soon...

We live in a fairly fragile economic ecosystem, and that one disruption will have far-ranging effects, and could even push many "marginal" (and the definition of "marginal" gets broader as gas prices rise) to bankruptcy. Except there no longer is any bankruptcy. So...

Welcome to the 21st century. Wasn't the future wonderful?

[badMike]

My favorite line in the article was from the Republican who said this is a good thing for many middle Americans because now the credit card companies can lower their interest rates because they don't have to take bankruptcies into account. Does anyone really think the companies will lower their interest rates?The same argument was made for the 1996 Telecommunications Act that cable companies would start lowering rates since competition would be opened up. Who here's cable bill is lower now than it was 9 years ago?

The thing to do now is a) get a list from www.house.gov and www.senate.gov of every congressmen who voted for this hideous measureI don't know about Republicans (did they all vote for it?), but you can find a list of sell-out Democrats here:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004142.php

[nitish]

reading the "So what does the bill accomplish?" paragraph in the column and articles about the bankruptcy reform bill (the AP article tricksterpup included (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1243862&postcount=3) within the thread, a miami herald article (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11398631.htm)... google news (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Bankruptcy) is your friend...) lead me to believe there must be two different bills out there, because the one Steven Grant refers to apparently is much different than the one pending.

- grant version: "It creates a single national average standard for living costs"
reality: a benchmark is in fact the "state's median household income"

- many of the "Tough" illustrations are not relevant as income and/or assets levels would be factored into bankruptcy proceedings: "Those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which, if approved by a judge, erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited." [emphasis added]

- grant: "No more Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which wipes out debts for extreme cases"
reality: chapter 7 is not eliminated as a possibility. by definition, half of the households are below the state's median household income, thus eligible for chapter 7. "Currently, most consumers enter Chapter 7 protection, which erases debts after certain assets are forfeited. Those with low incomes or few assets could still qualify under the new law."

if the bill steven grant describes were actually on the table, that would be a disaster....
fortunately, the facts don't prove that to be the case.

[Steven Grant]

The rhetoric doesn't fit the case anyway. Ostensibly, yes, those without the means to pay could still file chapter 7... but if you read the fine print of the bill, rather than the press bullets, the qualifications are so stringent that basically nobody can meet them... and the cost of filing chapter 7 also rises significantly enough that those who meet the qualifications won't be able to afford to file...

Did you happen to note, by the way, which certain assets they're talking about?

[tricksterpup]

Here is the actual bill for fees.

Changes in Bankruptcy Filing Fees (Sections 325 and 418). Section 325 would increase chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy filing fees and change the distribution of such fees. In addition, the bill would allow the U.S. Trustee System Fund to collect 75 percent of chapter 11 filing fees. Under current law, the filing fee for chapter 7 and chapter 13 is $155 and is divided between the U.S. Trustee System Fund, the AOUSC, the private trustee assigned to the case, and the remainder is recorded as a governmental receipt (i.e., revenue). Under the bill, the filing fee for a chapter 7 case would be $160, and income from this fee would be recorded in two different places in the budget. Of the $160, $65 would be recorded as an offsetting collection to the appropriation for the U.S. Trustee System Fund, and $50 would be recorded as an offsetting receipt and spent without further appropriation by the AOUSC. The remainder of this fee would be spent by the private trustees assigned to each case. The bill would reduce the filing fee for a chapter 13 case to $150 and change how the fee is recorded in the budget. The U.S. Trustee System Fund would receive $105, and the AOUSC would receive $45 per case to spend without further appropriation. Under S. 256, no portion of chapter 7, chapter 11, or chapter 13 filing fees would be recorded as governmental receipts.

Section 418 would permit a bankruptcy court or district court to waive the chapter 7 filing fee and other fees for a debtor who is unable to pay such fees in installments. Based on information from the AOUSC, CBO expects that, in fiscal year 2006, chapter 7 filing fees would be waived for about 3.5 percent of all chapter 7 filers and that the percentage waived would gradually increase to about 10 percent by fiscal year 2009.

Considering the expected reduction in the use of chapter 7 because of means-testing and the provision that would allow fee waivers, CBO estimates that implementing the new fee structure and changes in fee classifications would result in an increase in offsetting collections totaling $246 million over the 2006-2010 period.

Now that is just the basic fees, but what about the law cost. After all you have to go to a lawyer to declare bankruptcy and I am sure those costs would go up as well.

[badMike]

To some extent it's already here. Take gas prices. For some reason this isn't being figured into inflation at all, though it has already raised airline prices, food prices (because of the cost of shipping), mailing/shipping costs will be next, etc.There's an interesting article in the LA Times today about how rising gas prices is putting the squeeze on those poor immigrants we count on to cut our lawns. They're paying double in gas than what they paid just a year again, but their cheapskate customers won't pay 'em any more. If you feel like registering to read the article, it's here:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hurting18apr18,0,3894282.story?coll=la-home-business

[Dennis]

anyone here cut their own lawn? i wouldn't call the customers cheapskates...once you set a price, it's really hard to bump it up, it's a psychological thing, like when a website starts asking readers to pay for a service, even at an absurdly low price. the people cutting lawns and cleaning houses are making a pretty decent wage. the problem is they usually have three kids.

[WatsonGlenn]

They're paying double in gas than what they paid just a year again

Gas was $1.25 last year in California?

[WatsonGlenn]

anyone here cut their own lawn? i wouldn't call the customers cheapskates...once you set a price, it's really hard to bump it up, it's a psychological thing, like when a website starts asking readers to pay for a service, even at an absurdly low price. the people cutting lawns and cleaning houses are making a pretty decent wage. the problem is they usually have three kids.


Oh no you de'int! Anyway, I used to have one of those reel mowers. It was hard to push but you needed no gas. And I only have two kids.

[badMike]

anyone here cut their own lawn?I've only lived in apartments for the last 10 years, so no.

Gas was $1.25 last year in California?From the article:

"The gardener shells out $450 for fuel each month, which is $250 more than it was costing him last year to fill up his lawnmower, weed trimmer and 1989 Ford F-150 pickup truck."

Bad choice of phrase on my part.

[Dennis]

being able to make a living doing yardwork is pretty amazing, considering the people hiring them are perfectly capable of doing it themselves. the economy is pretty rockin' for the middle and especially upper middle class. even in my lower midclass neighborhood, they're hiring mexicans to do the yardwork. i see as many brand new big ass suvs and tiny little cellphones in the mexican neighborhoods as much as the suburbs.

amerika is strong!

[jonahhex]

What we need is a populist party to repair the damage they're going to do. The problem with populist parties, though, is that throughout American history they have tended to be xenophobic and insular, rather than progressive.

Where's Fighting Bob Lafollette, now that we need him...?

A fighting populist party would certainly address the issues of onerous credit cards, but probably would stop at the prison reform and criminal justice reform needed in this country. The U.S. now has 1 in 4 of the entire World's prison population.

I wish for a return of the radical abolitionist tradition in U.S. politics. The one that gave us people, like Frederick Douglas, John Brown, William Garrison, Wendell Philips, Walt Whitman, Susan B. Anthony, Thoreau, Martin Delaney, etc. up to W.E.B. Dubois, Malcolm X, and MLK.

A famous 1960s african-american civil rights leader (whom I forget his name), once said, "the emanicipation of blacks began with a goal of ending the fiction that a human being is a piece of property, and will only acheive its final goal when the fiction that a piece of property, the corporation, is a legal human being is ended." I can dream, can't I?

[badMike]

I can dream, can't I?No. I believe Congress is passing a bill against dreaming soon.

[jnscott]

Well, if everything goes the way the Republicans would prefer, that will happen over the next 18 months. What we need is a populist party to repair the damage they're going to do. The problem with populist parties, though, is that throughout American history they have tended to be xenophobic and insular, rather than progressive.

Where's Fighting Bob Lafollette, now that we need him...?


I a way I agree but what I think we need is just some common sense, screw political parties and all that crap. I wish people would have listened to the Foudning Fathers, most of whom were against any political party establishment, and just voted the best people into office and not this silly system we have now. But then I'm changing the subject.

I've seen abuses by both sides. I think it would be poetic justice if they passed a law regulating the credit card businesses.

[bartl]

I wish people would have listened to the Foudning Fathers, most of whom were against any political party establishment, and just voted the best people into office and not this silly system we have now. But then I'm changing the subject.
The original system was largely based on people voting for people who they knew. They had not considered the populations getting as large as they did, nor the desire to elect Senators and Presidents directly, rather than indirectly.

[WatsonGlenn]

I a way I agree but what I think we need is just some common sense, screw political parties and all that crap. I wish people would have listened to the Foudning Fathers, most of whom were against any political party establishment.

Many, maybe most of the founding fathers joined even founded political parties.

[Loren]

He asked his customers to give him an extra $25 a week. Two offered $10, the Inglewood resident said, and the rest declined to pay anything additional.

"You explain the gas is expensive, but they say they can't give you more money."

My brother does lawn work for a living, so I asked him about gas and lawnmowers. Mowing a good-sized lawn, which hasn't grown up too much (and if it's being mowed weekly, that's not a problem) takes about a half-gallon of gas. Maybe a gallon. Weedeaters use even less. So the increase in the cost of gas to mow a single lawn has only been about $1-2 or less per mowing.

He also said that while he usually charges $40 to mow a lawn, that's kinda on the low side. $50 and up is common for an actual lawn-service business. And most lawn-mowing businesses deal with customers on a contract basis; they pay X dollars a year for the lawn to be mowed every so many days (often once a week). Those contracts can average out to $45 per mowing.

And all people are paying more to drive these days, and not a lot of people are getting raises to make up for it.

Asking for a $25 increase per week is insane. It would be more appropriate as an increase in the yearly rate. If that request was to make up for the extra $250 he's spending each month in gas, that means he's only doing ten mowings a month, and I'm at a loss as to how he could be blowing that much money unless each lawn covers acres of land.

As for the guy who asked his customers for $1 more, that's much more in line, and his customers should have agreed. Actually, it shouldn't have been a request at all; he should have started accounting for the higher cost of gas when making new contracts.

Loren

[WatsonGlenn]

I just bought a new house with a very nice lawn and I actually enjoy keeping it myself. The lawn is just now starting to turn green. I hate every little weed that pops up and so I pull many of them by hand. I do not have the patience to wait for the weed killer to get them.

What I am looking for is some sort of a device that I can stick into the ground and will pull the weeds out by the roots. I know I saw one a long time ago. It was called the Weed Popper or something like that.

The guy next door to me works for the city and is in charge of the city's grass so of course his lawn is perfect but he uses Chemlawn to kill the weeds.

[badMike]

My brother does lawn work for a living, so I asked him about gas and lawnmowers.Let me get this straight: You've compared the business plan of a guy in one state to the business plan of a guy living in another state? Particularly using one of the states where the gas prices are on average higher than the rest of the country (that would be California).

Also, using your comparison, I have to assume that your brother's lawn maintenance equipment magically transports itself ala Star Trek from each house to the next, while the poor guy in California actually has to drive his equipment from house to house! (Plus, Rafael is driving his equipment across one of the most traffic congested cities in the U.S.)

Finally, the LAT article doesn't say which neighborhoods Rafael covers, but if it's the Beverly Hills area--there's some pretty big friggin' lawns over there.

[Loren]

Let me get this straight: You've compared the business plan of a guy in one state to the business plan of a guy living in another state?

Do lawnmowers use more gas in other states? I foolishly thought that was pretty standard across the board.

Particularly using one of the states where the gas prices are on average higher than the rest of the country (that would be California).

Lessee...according to this (http://www.losangelesgasprices.com/), regular unleaded in LA is going for $2.80, max.

If we assume that LA gas was going for $1.30 this time last year, that means that a gallon in LA costs $1.50 more today than it cost last year.

And how much gas does it cost to mow a lawn that was mowed last week? About 1/2 to one gallon. Or about 75 cents to $1.50 in LA-priced gas.

Now I'll quote my last post: "So the increase in the cost of gas to mow a single lawn has only been about $1-2 or less per mowing."

Care to hypothesize about where the other $23+ of gas per customer per week could be going? 'Cause it's not going in the lawnmower. Even if his vehicle gets just 10 mi/gallon, the extra 15 gallons that $23 buys means that he would have to drive 150 miles round-trip for a single mowing to use that much gas.

Also, using your comparison, I have to assume that your brother's lawn maintenance equipment magically transports itself ala Star Trek from each house to the next, while the poor guy in California actually has to drive his equipment from house to house! (Plus, Rafael is driving his equipment across one of the most traffic congested cities in the U.S.)

I thought I made the point that *everybody* who drives to work is paying more today. Lots of people in LA commute, and sit in awful traffic. And virtually nobody is getting paid extra because of it (particularly if it involves renegotiating a contract price, as Rafael is trying to do).

And my brother *is* paying more in gas these days. And the result is that when they set prices for new jobs, they take that into account.

Finally, the LAT article doesn't say which neighborhoods Rafael covers, but if it's the Beverly Hills area--there's some pretty big friggin' lawns over there.

The gallon estimate I gave is for a big lawn. About a half-acre or so, I think.

Loren

[badMike]

Do lawnmowers use more gas in other states? I foolishly thought that was pretty standard across the board.I honestly don't know what your problem is at this point. Steven made a point about how rising gas prices can quickly affect the economy in a negative way and I brought up an example of small business owners feeling the pinch. Granted, I called people "cheapskates," but I'm a coarse person. I don't know why you're suddenly going off trying to prove that Raphael in the article is a liar and a wannabe thief. If you don't agree that Raphael should ask his customers for more money because his expenses are more, then fine. We don't agree. The end.

But I was incorrect in saying the article didn't say where Raphael was mowing lawns. It did say and it was where I figured he was: Beverly Hills. According to the article, Raphael lives in Inglewood and cuts lawns in Beverly Hills, which means he has at least a 22-mile round trip every day, probably more. As I said, there's some big ass houses in BH with big ass lawns. Some real estate sites I checked gave a range of 3/4 of an acre to 3 acres, more than the half-acre you based your minimum on. Also, Raphael drives a 1989 Ford F150. I couldn't find MPG info for that year pickup, but the 1990 F150 gets between 13-16 MPG (city), which is more than the 10 minimum you set.

So, I tell you what: Rather than this random speculation you and I are doing, why don't you find Raphael's phone number on the Internet (you know his full name and what part of L.A. he lives in), call him up and ask him exactly what he's spending his money on, post the info you find out and we'll get to the real bottom of this.

[Steven Grant]

Lessee...according to this (http://www.losangelesgasprices.com/), regular unleaded in LA is going for $2.80, max.

If we assume that LA gas was going for $1.30 this time last year, that means that a gallon in LA costs $1.50 more today than it cost last year.

And how much gas does it cost to mow a lawn that was mowed last week? About 1/2 to one gallon. Or about 75 cents to $1.50 in LA-priced gas.

Sorry, but you established the cost of gas to be $2.80 per gallon, not $1.50, so the cost per lawn would be $1.40-$2.80. Stretch that into 8 or ten yards per day and he's spending $11.20-$28.00 per day on his business whereas last year he would have been spending $5.20-$13/day at this time last year. Which doesn't factor in labor costs nor travel costs, which in terms of gasoline used probably amounts to roughly the same expense, given traffic conditions in Los Angeles and the likelihood of significant distance from Raphael's home to his clients. So what's your point?

A lawn would cost about the same to mow whether it was mowed four weeks ago or last week, it would just be harder to groom and look worse in the interim. Why bring it up?

Bear in mind also that while the price of gasoline in L.A. has gone up, so too has the price of food and energy so Raphael is spending a greater percentage of his takehome pay on the same essentials he was buying last year, which, in terms of pay/expense ratio, represents a lowering of his wages, and the costs of those things are going up mainly because the cost of gasoline is going up. (If you're paying $100/mo. for the same groceries you paid $60 a month for this time last year, that represents a 40% drop in the value of your money over the course of a year, and a 40% drop in practical wages -- unless your wages have risen proportionately to the rise of costs.) So there's no doubt Raphael is feeling a pinch, regardless of the actual proportion of the rise (I pulled the figures out of the air for illustration, but costs have risen and will rise further), and in most businesses that gets factored into the costs of services as well, beyond simply the bare operational costs. There are other cost considerations: the rising price of capital, for instance, as the prime and other rates slowly rise. Rising health care and essential insurance costs. Why should Raphael be expected to run his business differently? It's a much more complex economic matter than how much he has to spend on gasoline to get the job done.

[Loren]

Sorry, but you established the cost of gas to be $2.80 per gallon, not $1.50, so the cost per lawn would be $1.40-$2.80. Stretch that into 8 or ten yards per day and he's spending $11.20-$28.00 per day on his business whereas last year he would have been spending $5.20-$13/day at this time last year.

And if he's mowing eight or ten lawns per day, and asking for an extra $25 per customer per week, that means he's spending $6-$15 more for gas per day and (assuming he mows each customer's lawn once a week) requesting that he be paid an extra $200-$250 per day because of gas prices. That's a lot of extra money "for gas" each day.

I'll go you one better. Assume he mows eight lawns a day, five days a week. Even at a gallon a lawn, that means he's spending $60 more than last year in lawnmower gas each week. And if he's asking each of his forty customers for $25 each, that's a total request of $1000. (Or over $50,000 a year.)

And I don't think he's spending a thousand dollars more a week on gas for his truck.

Which doesn't factor in labor costs nor travel costs, which in terms of gasoline used probably amounts to roughly the same expense, given traffic conditions in Los Angeles and the likelihood of significant distance from Raphael's home to his clients. So what's your point?

Like I said before, and as illustrated by the $~1200 weekly discrepency shown above, asking for an extra $25 a week is an insane request, and it doesn't surprise me at all that his customers would reject it. It's a poor example for the author to use; so poor, in fact, that I wonder if Raphael didn't actually say "per month" or "per year" and the article's author got it wrong.

A lawn would cost about the same to mow whether it was mowed four weeks ago or last week, it would just be harder to groom and look worse in the interim. Why bring it up?

A lawn mown every week only needs to be run over once. If the grass is allowed to grow for a whole month, there's a good chance that it will have to be mowed over twice. This depends on the grass type, and on whether the clippings are being shot out or bagged.

For example, the last lawn I mowed personally had grown for 3-4 weeks, and had to be bagged. It had grown so much in those weeks that I couldn't start the mowing at the desired height. So I had to do one run-over with the blade at a higher height (and dumping the bag about every two trips around the lawn), and then doing a second mowing with the blade lowered.

Thus, twice as much gas gets used than with a single-over mowing. Also, assuming that Raphael mows each customer's lawn once a week gives him the benefit of the doubt; if he only mows each customer's lawn once every 2-3 weeks, it makes his $25 per week request even more outrageous (as he ends up charging them $50-75 extra per mowing).

Why should Raphael be expected to run his business differently?

Primary reason: because it's not what he agreed to do. Chances are, he has a contract with his customers to mow their lawns on a regular basis for a defined amount of money. If one of his expenses goes up partway through the year, then tough. He can ask if they want to pay him more, but they're not obliged to do so. If he set his contract price based on a high gas price, and then price at the pump dropped to half its current levels, are his customers entitled to a refund? Of course not. They agreed to purchase his services at a given rate, and they're not entitled to money back just because his life got cheaper.

And when it comes time for Raphael to set up contracts for the next year, or to sign up new customers, then he's perfectly entitled to say "This is my new price; take it or leave it." If he's not currently contracted to mow lawns, and merely does it on a job-by-job basis, then he can raise his rates anytime he wants.

Loren

[Loren]

I honestly don't know what your problem is at this point..I don't know why you're suddenly going off trying to prove that Raphael in the article is a liar and a wannabe thief.

It caught my eye in the article as something absurd, and something no one else had seemed to notice. And Dennis had asked if anyone cut their own lawns, and I have.

If you don't agree that Raphael should ask his customers for more money because his expenses are more, then fine. We don't agree. The end.

I said his request was out of line. You asked how I could possibly make that judgment. I provided my math and reasoning. You then said "I honestly don't know what your problem is at this point." And here I thought I'd been pretty clear. If you think $25 per customer per week is reasonable, then yeah, we'll never agree.

But I was incorrect in saying the article didn't say where Raphael was mowing lawns. It did say and it was where I figured he was: Beverly Hills. According to the article, Raphael lives in Inglewood and cuts lawns in Beverly Hills, which means he has at least a 22-mile round trip every day, probably more.

Sweet. Now let's assume he does a lot of driving around during the day, and logs 50 miles of travel each day. With a truck that gets 13-16 MPG, that means he's using 3-4 gallons of gas a day, and spending $4.50-$6 more on truck gas per day than last year.

With Steven's 8-10 lawn/day schedule, that would mean each customer would be responsible for less than a dollar each.

As I said, there's some big ass houses in BH with big ass lawns. Some real estate sites I checked gave a range of 3/4 of an acre to 3 acres, more than the half-acre you based your minimum on.

Was what you checked the size of the property or the size of the lawn?

But what the hey; let's assume that Raphael mows only big lawns, and each lawn eats TWO gallons of gas per mowing. That's a whopping extra $3 in gas. Add that to the $1 in truck gas above, and he's only got $21 left to account for. (Or if you'd prefer, go ahead and assume three gallons per lawn, and you bring it down to an unexplained $19-20.)

Also, Raphael drives a 1989 Ford F150. I couldn't find MPG info for that year pickup, but the 1990 F150 gets between 13-16 MPG (city), which is more than the 10 minimum you set.

Then instead of a 150 mile round-trip, that $23 would afford him a 195-240 mile round-trip. As with the 'one mowing per week' standard, I gave the low MPG to give the guy the benefit of the doubt; higher mileage makes his request worse.

Loren

[WatsonGlenn]

Here are some interesting facts about bankruptcy

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/bankruptcyguide/P77617.asp

[bartl]

Here are some interesting facts about bankruptcy

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/bankruptcyguide/P77617.asp
One thing it does not mention is that many leases give the landlord the ability to evict in cases of bankruptcy, and many landlords will not rent to people who have gone bankrupt.

[Dennis]

http://greengrasscutters.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/id7.html

Lawn mowers produce several types of pollutants, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, ozone precursors, and carbon dioxide.

One type of pollutant emitted by lawn mowers is polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These are classified as probable carcinogens by the CDC. Testing found that operating a typical gasoline mower with a four-cycle engine produced as much PAH as driving a modern car about 150 km or about 95 miles. (Note 1). This means that unless you drive more than 95 mph, your mower actually produces more pollution per hour than your car!

Another source claims that operating a gas mower for one hour will produce the same pollution as driving a car 1300 miles. (Note 4)

Yet another source claims the figure is about 3400 miles of car travel per hour of mower use.

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Lawn-Mower-Pollution.htm

One old gas powered lawn mower running for an hour emits as much pollution as driving 650 miles in a 1992 model automobile