Should I voluntarily surrender my car?

[Nika]

For certain scenarios yes, but certainly giant corporations see debt, lending, and finance as a purely business transaction. Nothing wrong with the average Joe doing the same thing every now and again.

Now if your aunt Sally lends you money, or a community bank or credit union, I would agree.

That being said, I don't think strategic default (aka "voluntary repo") is the best option in this case.

Might be best suited for a ethics/morality discussion.

If you truly want to be ethical, call the lender and see what they suggest? Might be willing to refinance or extend the loan?

If their answer is "F U" then that will be your answer too.

I don't like the whole tangent of "It's ok to be unethical with those people because they are not good people. You should be ethical with good people, that's what's important." Once you go on down that slope, society goes downhill fast, because you will justify/rationalize whatever you want to do, when circumstances allow - from strategic default here, to rape in the time of war because they are "infidels" or "not good muslims" or whatever and different standards of ethics can apply to dealing with "those people".

And while there is some allowance for circumstances beyond personal control in these financial matters, they don't apply here at all. OP was not struck by cancer or a drunk driver and had overwhelming medical bills, there were no circumstances beyond his control at all. He went out and made that decision completely voluntarily, and now thinks it is unfair to be forced to live with the consequences of his choices.

[disneysteve]

Thing is, this "average Joe" who started the thread has been able to make those car payments since January of 2014, per original thread. Sounds like the new car fun has worn off and it's gotten to be unpleasant and no fun anymore.

Exactly. He's been making the payments for 2 full years (on a 6-year loan). Why stop now? Just because it's inconvenient or there are better things he could be doing with that money? He should have thought of that before signing on for an insane loan.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

from strategic default here, to rape in the time of war because they are "infidels" or "not good muslims" or whatever and different standards of ethics can apply to dealing with "those people".

You're seriously comparing strategic default to rape???

I agree that my premise is debatable but that is a really ridiculous response.

In the end it's up to the individual. It's not like he'll get away scott free if he walks away from the loan (nor should he be able to). He can choose to look at the situation as a moral conundrum or a simple business transaction. It's up to him. Life is short.

But it's a bad option anyway so maybe all this arguing is moot. If he's underwater on the loan they'll come after him for the rest. Better to sell, buy a cheapie crapbox, and talk to the bank about paying down the loan balance.

[emilyliving]

I guess you should pay all money you took for loan and then only you should plan to move to other place.

[Nika]

You're seriously comparing strategic default to rape???

I'm not comparing it. I'm saying that the mechanism to justify your own behavior based on your perception of a victim is the root of many of world's problems.

"Stealing is wrong, but Macy's is a big corporation and pays employees next to nothing, so it is not really bad"
They might be a big corporation, but you are still a thief.

"Identity theft is wrong, but at the end, they won't loose any money, and only big faceless business will be on the hook"

"This guy is not from my community, so it is ok to cheat him, I can donate some money to my synagogue, because my community is all that matters."

"Killing is wrong, but I heard this guys is not a good muslim, and my good observant muslim family needs that money"

The fact that people get to feel better about whatever crap they are doing by judging the victim, is a line of justification I am opposed in your argument - Screwing over a large bank is ok, just not the credit union. Same self serving thought, just at a much lower level.

Do you think when drought makes grazing grass in short supply, a sub-saharan tribe thinks "we need these additional fields to feed our cattle or we will die, so we are going to forcefully take that hay and that land even though we are wrong"? No, the hate that resurges towards the other tribe that controls other grazing areas they need is real. They feel righteous and justified and leads to brutality far in excess of what would accomplish the underlying economic goal.

"these people are not like us, so it is ok to apply a different moral code to dealing with them than I would with my own people" is what I have a problem with. This concept that allows people to continue to believe that they are good people, not matter what they do.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This concept that allows people to continue to believe that they are good people, not matter what they do.

We can agree to disagree if you want. I don't like screwing over banks, my advice was for the OP to talk it over with the bank, but if the bank refused to budge, that would make the decision a lot easier IMO.

I prefer not to live my life thinking that walking away from a loan, if it's ruining your life and the bank refuses to budge, is as bad as rape, or tribal warfare (lolwut).

[ua_guy]

I think there are too many assumptions about my guise that debt is a contractual obligation. No, really, that's what it is in this country, a contractual obligation. Judgements against people who can't pay are in accordance with the terms of the contract, and the law. You are welcome to insert whatever spiritual or moral code you believe in, but you do so with the caveat that not everybody in this country shares your morals. If you believe our nations lenders, businesses and banks all operate in moral solidarity (to what moral code?) you are misled. That's not authorization to default on loans or anything else, but realize that you hold yourself to your own standards beyond what's spelled out in the contract.

I agree the OP should pay the car off...because he can, because one car loan isn't ruining his future, because he still gets to drive the car. Seems like the right thing to do, the winning-est option for both the OP and the lender.

If the situation was different I'll bet your perception would change. What if OP had a wife that left him with a kid, and he could no longer afford to pay the car and take care of the kid? We'd probably all agree he has a more important obligation to the kid versus the car, and to default on the car would be the necessary and right thing to do.