Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
19. It's not a contract...
Sat Apr 12, 2014, 01:07 PM
Apr 2014

...because there is no exchange. In order for there to be a contract there must be and exchange of benefits, and there was not. The money is simply given to the child with nothing required in return.

It is not related to the parent's rent. The rent was a contract: money in exchange for a place to live, and it was between the parents and the landlord, not involving the child at all. The landlord never, under any circumstances, has any claim on the child. If you are the landlord you will never in a million years get the IRS to take back rent of of anyone's paycheck.

I agree this is a bad law, and I am disgusted and outraged at Congress that it was passed, but we cannot claim that it was illegal based on the basis that the child could not enter into a contract. We cannot claim that it is illegal at all. It is immoral, outrageous, corrupt, and contemptible, but it is not illegal.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This country is just humming along like a well-oiled machine. Brigid Apr 2014 #1
I knew they can collect from an estate.... Historic NY Apr 2014 #2
Nice. progressoid Apr 2014 #3
, blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #4
it's perfectly fine as long as the richest among us are never inconvenienced nt pragmatic_dem Apr 2014 #5
I can't believe this since a child would not be able to defend against a charge like that. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #6
The repayment was not for "dead parents' debt." JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #7
Awww... fleabiscuit Apr 2014 #8
Even if that's true, Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #9
I agree. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #16
thank you passiveporcupine Apr 2014 #10
That's not what it was. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #17
You are correct passiveporcupine Apr 2014 #21
Except that the article inaccurately references "parents' old debts." JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #22
No, the article states the money was taken because of an overpayment to "someone" 7962 Apr 2014 #11
The article did not equivocate. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #18
While you're correct, a child should not be held responsible. joshcryer Apr 2014 #12
Still a child cannot enter a contract. gvstn Apr 2014 #13
"who inserted the sentence" - Not a sentence, a philosophy. Popular with one side of the aisle jtuck004 Apr 2014 #14
It's not a contract... JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #19
well, they can't tax the rich, so they had to find a way to screw 2pooped2pop Apr 2014 #15
thats a gawker link pitohui Apr 2014 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Government Will Take ...»Reply #19