In these United States, the abuses inherent in consumer-debt collections contribute significantly to the number of American bankruptcies. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) explicitly links collection abuse to increased bankruptcy filings. The FDCPA was designed to counter creditors' transgressions by subjecting its violators to fines. Yet its penalties are negligble and therefore abuse persists: lies, threats, intimidation and harassment. Only bankruptcy-- not the FDCPA--puts a true stop to collection and definitively eliminates debts.

The FDCPA would empower consumers to request that creditors cease contact. Consumers can speak softly to creditors the statutory words that should halt aggression. Yet, when requests are not heeded, you can't just keep asking. You need to act. You need to explain to those who intimidate. Bankruptcy is an explanation.

Postscript

If you word-search above, you'll find reference to the phrase "consumer debt," i.e. debt related to the welfare of one's self and dependents, rather than business-related expenses. The FDCPA "protects" consumers. Yet, if your debt is from business, you are not likewise protected, even on paper. The distinction throws business debtors (among them self-reliant workers and entrepeneurs) to the dogs.

Post-postscript

Police are legally entitled to lie to suspects in order to elicit confession. You've watched the procedurals. A bad guy's brought in. The men and women in blue have nada: no confessions from conspirators, no solid evidence. So, Good Cop cracks open a Coke can, lays it gingerly in front of the perp, nods sympathetically. Bad Cop growls, we've got your DNA all over it; and your buddy in the other cell-- he told us everything. While lying isn't nice, we make an exception for law enforcement. In the interest of public safety, the end justifies the means. But, is there a public interest in permitting (by way of poor enforcement) debt collectors to lie?