This is reprinted from a letter to The Wall Street Journal:
"Why is income inequality wrong? Why should those who have money feel they are not entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor? Why should they feel that they should share with all, particularly those who are lazy or unmotivated?
Often morality is brought into the question of income equality. Is it moral to deny people access to housing or healthcare if they can't pay for it? It is assumed that health care and housing are "constitutional rights". They are not constitutional rights.
It IS moral to provide subsistence but nothing more to those who cannot pay. How else do you teach the value of work if you reward those who don't work?
Unfortunately our political system rewards politicians for kowtowing to those who want something for nothing or who promise to correct a perceived inequality. Of course that correction will create another inequality."
But think about that letter to the Journal:
It's very cogently written by someone who is obviously hard-working and resents giving her money away [Please note: I was not the letter-writer]. But I do personally pay well over 60% of my income in taxes. Basically what this means is that until sometime on a Thursday morning, I am working for the government. Every penny I make on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday goes to pay taxes.
This makes me work less, not more, because there's no incentive to work harder just to pay more in tax.
My provision of that money to you via handouts-----money that I sacrificed for, spent years getting an education for, and worked hard to earn, while you chose to take the easy road-----why is it that you are entitled to that money? Why should I work, and you don't, and then I'm just supposed to just hand it over to you? Shouldn't I be able to enjoy what I worked so hard to get while you were not working?
Don't get me wrong----I DO believe that there are certain segments of society that for reasons beyond their control, will always need our help, and it is our obligation as a society to provide for these individuals and families who cannot otherwise make it on their own.
This makes me work less, not more, because there's no incentive to work harder just to pay more in tax.
My provision of that money to you via handouts-----money that I sacrificed for, spent years getting an education for, and worked hard to earn, while you chose to take the easy road-----why is it that you are entitled to that money? Why should I work, and you don't, and then I'm just supposed to just hand it over to you? Shouldn't I be able to enjoy what I worked so hard to get while you were not working?
Don't get me wrong----I DO believe that there are certain segments of society that for reasons beyond their control, will always need our help, and it is our obligation as a society to provide for these individuals and families who cannot otherwise make it on their own.
A short explanation of how bankruptcy works by law, and in practice:
The Trustee takes over all the assets of the bankrupt person. The trustee has a legal obligation to ALL the creditors to sell those assets for the most money that he can. The Trustee gets a small percentage of the proceeds from anything he can sell.
But in reality, the Trustees are overworked. In Maine at the time of the McCusker Bankruptcy, we only had 2 Trustees for the whole state. So like any overworked person, the Trustee kind of performs triage. In other words, the Trustee is going to work hardest on the Bankruptcies that have the most assets------which are almost always businesses---- and not pay much attention to the smaller cases. Wouldn't you do that too, if you were the Trustee? You are going to concentrate on the cases that have the most assets, since that's the way you make the most money.
But in reality, the Trustees are overworked. In Maine at the time of the McCusker Bankruptcy, we only had 2 Trustees for the whole state. So like any overworked person, the Trustee kind of performs triage. In other words, the Trustee is going to work hardest on the Bankruptcies that have the most assets------which are almost always businesses---- and not pay much attention to the smaller cases. Wouldn't you do that too, if you were the Trustee? You are going to concentrate on the cases that have the most assets, since that's the way you make the most money.
I could see the Trustee was doing virtually nothing on the McCusker case.
Why was this important? Because as a Creditor I was depending on the Trustee to get me some money back, and he wasn't doing anything.
And I was trying to get back as much as possible of the $120,000 I was owed.
So I decided to buy some of the assets myself.
Because I was the major Creditor (It's been suggested to me by more than one attorney that I was the main reason Steve filed), I would immediately get back 50% of anything I paid the Trustee. So I paid $10,000 for Steve's rights to the house, but got back $5000 of that immediately. This means that I made a long-term investment of a mere $5000 in real estate in an area that is the hottest-growing area of the Portland community. Small properties there are selling for huge amounts of money. For just a wee $5000 investment, I can afford to wait a while.
Because I was the major Creditor (It's been suggested to me by more than one attorney that I was the main reason Steve filed), I would immediately get back 50% of anything I paid the Trustee. So I paid $10,000 for Steve's rights to the house, but got back $5000 of that immediately. This means that I made a long-term investment of a mere $5000 in real estate in an area that is the hottest-growing area of the Portland community. Small properties there are selling for huge amounts of money. For just a wee $5000 investment, I can afford to wait a while.
Importantly, because I wished to be fair to the McCuskers and their family, I put into the Judgment a right for them to buy out my interest in the property for a small amount of money for a few years. Steve knows this.
The McCuskers (nor their immediate family) did not exercise this option. Yet several times (including more than once in her depositions), Liz McCusker has stated that I should simply give them back a house in an ocean-side neighborhood that I validly purchased. "Just give it back!" she stated, "It's the right thing to do".
Well, her husband's family had the right to BUY it back------for as little as $16,000. Why was she asking me and not them?
Why is it the "right thing to do" to simply hand over a valuable property that I legitimately bought with my own money? If not for their profligate spending on a lifestyle they could not afford, the McCuskers would still own that property. But now I'm just supposed to hand things back, gratis? On what basis? I wish Liz would answer that question; I'd be happy to post her answer here. I'd probably even GIVE the property back to her and Steve if I perceived any contrition whatsoever on her part.
But my bet is she'll NEVER take me up on it------and when she inevitably doesn't; draw your own conclusions about Liz's motivations (and greed).
Well, her husband's family had the right to BUY it back------for as little as $16,000. Why was she asking me and not them?
Why is it the "right thing to do" to simply hand over a valuable property that I legitimately bought with my own money? If not for their profligate spending on a lifestyle they could not afford, the McCuskers would still own that property. But now I'm just supposed to hand things back, gratis? On what basis? I wish Liz would answer that question; I'd be happy to post her answer here. I'd probably even GIVE the property back to her and Steve if I perceived any contrition whatsoever on her part.
But my bet is she'll NEVER take me up on it------and when she inevitably doesn't; draw your own conclusions about Liz's motivations (and greed).
The strategy of buying the interests in a Bankrupt's estate is a good one. I was able to make quite a bit of money back from Steve's business interests, which I also bought from the Trustee. I wonder why Liz doesn't focus on that, but is instead focused on the house, which was quite a bit less valuable than the business assets.
But like the WSJ the writer says, there's a lot of laziness and non-motivation over at the McCusker house
Heck, if I was about to lose my house through foreclosure, I wouldn't be sitting on my butt. If my husband lost his job, I'd be working three jobs if necessary.
But according to various emails from her son, Liz "[sat] like a bump on a log". He stated that she felt "above" getting a job as a clerk at Hannaford or WalMart, which would have provided good benefits, including health insurance (because of her lack of education, her job possibilities do have limitations). Even after her husband moved out on her, Liz didn't move a muscle to get a job.
Eighteen months doing nothing! Think about THAT next time you are driving to your job.
So she wanted the good life; she just didn't want to bother going out and working for it. But the rest of us are supposed to provide her with that life.
But according to various emails from her son, Liz "[sat] like a bump on a log". He stated that she felt "above" getting a job as a clerk at Hannaford or WalMart, which would have provided good benefits, including health insurance (because of her lack of education, her job possibilities do have limitations). Even after her husband moved out on her, Liz didn't move a muscle to get a job.
Eighteen months doing nothing! Think about THAT next time you are driving to your job.
So she wanted the good life; she just didn't want to bother going out and working for it. But the rest of us are supposed to provide her with that life.
Liz McCusker also stated under oath that she "needed" a 6000 square foot house with a swimming pool.
When she was questioned under oath as to why after losing a 1700 square foot house to foreclosure, she upgraded herself to a luxurious 6000 square foot house on 6 acres with a pool, Liz stated, "I had to live somewhere". While I agree with that statement that we all have to live "somewhere", I wonder what her motivation was to pay the rent on a luxury home while not paying other bills.
Entitlement?
Entitlement?