Talk:Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
72 thousand dollars as the average income in MA?!?!?! I really, really doubt that number. I hate to suggest fact checks, but that seems so outta whack, even for MA, that I wanna see some kinda proof."
- Its been a while since I read this but I am almost positive that that is for a "family of four" bracket. Double income households would have each income earner making $36K ..... I will look up the exact stats and add a link when I can find the info agaon. —the preceding comment is by 170.201.180.136 - 07:26, 30 June 2006: Please sign your posts!
-
- The 72K figure is a little old, it's actually >80K for a family of four now. The extlink to the actual numbers is already on the main page, look for this extlink: US Trustee Means Testing page with Median Income Table --Flawiki 11:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] I love this thing
Just wipe out a good deal of work on my part to make the article a little less biased, including a rather useful external link to the American Bankruptcy Institute's analysis of the law. And yes, I'm a lawyer. Thanks.
Arniebuteft 09:39, 14 October 2005 (CDT)
- I backed out your edit because it excised a number of neutral, verifiable, yet still objectively negative facts about BAPCPA/BARF. The rationale for backing the edits out was described in slightly more length in the section below entitled POV. You're experiencing the tension explored a bit on the Be Bold wiki article. I myself am an ABI member (a debtor's counsel, primarily consumers; go figure) and like many others here, an attorney. I have a sneaking suspicion we have some creditors and perhaps a OUST folk or two... Flawiki 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but I am wondering why it is phrased that Republican Jim Sensenbrenner sought to make it harder for people in Katrina trying to file for bankruptcy, when in actual fact he said the opposite. The new law makes it harder to file for bankruptcy, Sensenbrenner has said that people in Katrina would not have to file under the new law, quote "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply,", which means that those on hard times will not have to file under the new law, meaning that they will be able to take advantage of the old law. Which is the opposite of what is being written and suggested. Can anyone tell me why the author has suggested the inverse of what he actually said?
[edit] POV?
I backed out a large revision by Arniebuteft to the last ver by Markles (the edit descr came up incorrectly due to my butterfingered typing and inadequate field length).
I think it'd be difficult to dispute that the article carries an anti-BARF tone, but I'm not sure excising large chunks of factual, neutral material is the way to fix tonal issues. For ex, nuking the factual passage noting the ch 7 means test applies only to debtors with primarily consumer debts (new 707(b)(1)) itself may expose some POV, or perhaps it's just fast editing. In any event I'd ask that there'd be some discussion before additional substantive wiping of passages in this article were performed under the guise of NPOVing it, or even just an attempt to convert that which is POV into NPOV while preserving the facts. Flawiki 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Credit Counseling Requirement
Im making an attempt to gather and post some information about the new Credit counseling requirement of this act. I added an internal link here.
[edit] "Inadequate government response"
This sentence is highly POV, and I have removed it. There are many (myself included) who hold that the government did too much in response to the recent unpleasantness. Kurt Weber 19:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Although I disagree that the response was adequate I do agree with Kurt Weber that the bits removed were POV and should be left out of this article. With that passage excised might it be appropriate now to remove the NPOV-sect tag? As I'd not edited the removed passage into the article or POV tagged it, I'm not at all certain if that was section's offensive element, and would therefore defer to further discussion. --Flawiki 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- No other discussion noted so off it comes. --Flawiki 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
