this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
893 points (96.7% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
33067 readers
3362 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alright man, all I can say is you can talk to a lawyer when the time comes.
The Wikipedia article you just linked has nothing to do with debt in general. The debt referred to in that article refers specifically to caring for your parents, not assuming their debt for other things (medical bills for previous procedures, credit cards, loans, etc.)
What it’s saying is that you can’t put them in a nursing home, rack up a bunch of debt in their name specifically related to their care, and then not pay it when they die.
Literally just buried my grandma this year and dad a few years ago.
Here... In FINLAND. Where the laws of the United States of America do NOT apply.
Yes, it refers to taking care of your parents. Ie for instance being responsible for them, fiscally. For instance, having responsibility over the debt they've accumulated to the state.
When someone dies they and theyre declares insolvent, you imagine it just applies to all fiscal responsibility of that person.
It doesn't. The filial responsibility laws exempt that debt to the state from being able to be dissolved through insolvency.
And tbh, that guy with his own face and own name, despite being it being a bit from standup, is more credible than you are.
But despite that being generally the case, because the standup brought up the absurdity of the scenario, it wasn't enforced and the debt was dissolved.
Well, I can tell you that comedian is just making up a funny story and that’s not how it works in real life. You absolutely would not be responsible for paying your own child support, that is ridiculous. The comedian is clearly talking about the United States, not Finland.
Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt to the state. If that’s how Finland works, I think it’s pretty fucked up. That’s pretty weird because it’s usually the United States with backwards laws. Filial responsibility means you have to care for them - not assume their credit card debt, or debt to the state, like unpaid taxes. That comes out of their estate. You are not fiscally responsible for your parents, at least here in the states.
I don’t give a shit how credible I seem, you should talk to a lawyer regardless if you’re dealing with an estate. What I can say, is that in the United States, you do not inherit debt outside of a few niche scenarios.
And you're still not as credible.
I've read similar insane things like that from the States, from credible sources.
You know for a fact it didn't happen?
Finland doesn't have filial responsibility laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
You don't seem to understand what I've explained to you about insolvency and debt. Guess you're just one of those "I can't be wrong" people.
Honestly dude, I don’t give a shit what someone from Finland thinks about filial responsibility laws in the United States. You’re basing your opinions on a Wikipedia article and a standup segment. You don’t seem to understand that those aren’t good sources for legal matters. Get the fuck out, lol.
Hit me with those credible sources homie, cause I don’t think you have them.
Why would it matter where I'm from?
Facts are facts. Or are you saying that you're allowed to just say "nuh-uh, facts don't matter, I'm American and thus I'm right about everything remotely American"?
Because... that's quite childish.
How about you actually try reading my replies to you, with thought? Do you think you're capable of that? Eh, I'll simplify, just to be safe.
USUALLY, when a person dies and they don't have enough funds to pay off everything, the debts are dissolved. That's how it works in the civilised world.
In the US, the bastion of capitalism, however, some debts aren't dissolved despite insolvency because these American filial responsibility laws make it so certain debt, like medical debt or not having paid child support, isn't dissolved.
collapsed inline media
https://www.investopedia.com/can-you-inherit-debt-from-your-parents-11723748
Like I said I assume you already know how little you know about this subject and instead of gracefully bowing out you're going all in. Then you'll get personal while absolutely not being able to address the actual subject, which you're clearly wrong about. Then you'll devolve into one word replies like "k" or something and then in a few weeks when the thread is hundreds of replies deep, you'll just give up and make a new account because of your post history.
So perhaps let's just skip all that and you just say "ye, right, my bad. TIL, thanks"?
I’m saying you’re wrong, full stop. You know nothing about the laws here, that much is obvious. You’re citing articles I read before I met with the lawyer. None of them contradict what I’ve been saying.
Do you care to point out anything specific from that article, because it supports my point, not yours. It specifically says that you can inherit: property debt (outstanding mortgage on a property); co-signed debt; and medical debt ie caring for your parent, which I’ve already acknowledged earlier.
Outstanding mortgage isn’t “inheriting debt” unless they’re upside down. If you inherit a $400k property with $200k remaining on the mortgage, you just inherited +$200k of assets. Your net worth went up, not down.
Where do you get the idea child support is somehow under filial responsibility laws, which apply to the care of your parents, ie medical costs?
I do. The part which I screencapped and linked, which states:
Seeing how you're saying you're not wrong, while also just a couple of replies earlier you said:
Where you SPECIFY medical bills. When in fact medical debt is literally said to be an exception which you can inherit from your parents BECAUSE OF FILIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS.
What is it that you're not understanding, honestly, do tell? The answer is "nothing", I know. You know you're wrong and you know you're pulling arguments from your arse with someone who actually has experience and literal education on the subject. That's why you can't actually discuss this with someone, even when were having the discussion in your language.
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of filial responsibility laws.
You're trying to disprove the comedian's bit never happened. You can't prove a negative, silly, but we can definitely show that it's a plausible scenario, because of those filial responsibility laws YOU CLAIM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
You don’t have experience though, lol. You’ve never dealt with an estate in the US, have you?
Medical debt != child support debt, genius.
Also, I specifically said previous procedures. If they had medical debt from a procedure 10 years ago, that’s not part of it. The filial responsibility laws - rarely enforced - have to do with things like nursing home care or hospice, it’s not a blanket “all medical debt”.
Credible sources man, I’m waiting for them. Not Wikipedia, not another -pedia. Legal sources. You said you have read all kinds of stories.
Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.
And why, again, doesn't medical debt get dissolved through insolvency... genius?
Because not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency in probate. You don't even know the words. Because I know have experience on the subject in general, it's rather trivial to see what the circumstances are in the US. Which are that because of FILIAL RESPONSIBLITY LAWS, not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency.
I feel like I'm kinda repeating myself here.
Source: your sweaty (and probably overweight) ass.
So now you're on the "nuh-uh, my 'nuh-uh' is way more credible of a source than Wikipedia and Investopedia" rhetoric? Ugh. Remember how I called your rhetoric childish before? Yeah I take that back. In comparison, the earlier wasn't this childish.
Child support debt isn’t medical debt and wouldn’t fall under filial responsibility laws.
Source: the ones you’ve provided.
Child support isn’t medical debt. Are you even following your own logic, or does your LLM not have that sort of memory?
6’3” (1.9m) and 200lbs (90kg), not fat, but I am a bit sweaty at the moment, it’s summertime and to be expected at the end of the day.
You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.
It's not a comprehensive list of all the filial laws nor does it state that child-support debt isn't covered.
A bit touchy about your size, are you? It's not your height or weight which decree how fat you are. It's your fat percentage. But even if I was wrong in assuming you're part of the majority population of the US, which is slightly obese, that won't change the facts of the matter.
Just using Lemmy, my man, I feel absolutely no aggression whatsoever, but you saying that you perceive some let's me know that I've got to you. Cheers. ;)
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency and that's because of the filial responsibility laws which you said had "NOTHING to do" with this. But you're not incapable of admitting when you're wrong? :D
If you can find any kind of source that says child support falls under medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility exists, then I’ll admit that I’m wrong. I searched and I don’t see anything in any state laws that would indicate that you’re correct.
It’s just weird that you’re resorting to personal attacks, after implying I’d be the one starting that. Usually people resort to the personal attacks when they have nothing else to fall back on. I haven’t really met many Finns before, is this just how you guys are over there?
You just can't help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you've proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying "oh if that's how filial responsibility laws work in Finland" when the article literally begins "... are laws in the United States.".
Let's have another look at that link, shall we?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
#Support required
Weird how there's a bunch of words before "medical needs", innit, buddy?
Like I said earlier, you really should just say "okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir", and bugger away. "Gracefully" isn't an option anymore.
Like I said, you'd try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn't have anything to do with it. You're just desperate to make it personal, because you're not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I'll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I'm assuming it'll take a few years.)
I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.
You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.
The reason I brought up Finland is because you’re making ridiculous claims that don’t happen here in the United States. Just like how you say the article doesn’t mention child support, that article doesn’t mention Finland. I don’t have any clue what the laws are there, much like you don’t have any clue what the laws are here.
Who said anything about ad hominem? I’m not claiming that you say my argument is wrong for some personal flaw of mine. That’s an ad hominem. You’re just insulting me because you have no argument here, no supporting evidence for the frankly ridiculous claim that child support debt falls under filial responsibility.
Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.
Yeah keep chanting this, as if Wikipedia and Investopedia don't have sources. 2005 called and wants it's "wikipedia is bullshit" rhetoric back.
You don't have sources. You keep constantly being wrong, but then not admitting that you've made a single mistake. Just like I called it a dozen comments ago, you're just simply one of those people who can not accept when they're wrong.
You'll just keep ignoring all the times you're wrong, and then you're pathetically going to try to make it personal, while I'll keep repeating the actual arguments, which you didn't know jack shit about from the start, while I do.
That's ad hominem. It's not "insults" unlike people assume it is. It's when you're pathetically trying to drag an argument to be about something on a personal level, instead of the facts, because you're wrong and would like to ignore the facts. Such as:
Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?
Filial responsibility laws aren't only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?
And before all that, you were saying that "filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt". Are you gonna ignore that?
Still waiting on you to cite multitude of legitimate stories that you mentioned earlier. I reckon they don’t actually exist.
Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of with your character”. If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem. I haven’t done anything of the sort. Your points are incorrect because they’re incorrect, not because of an issue with your character or other personal characteristic not related to the argument.
Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong. Classic case of someone reading a Wikipedia article and thinking they understand the laws of a foreign country.
Probably, yeah. The opinion of a Finn on US estate law matters little to me. I have a lawyer to deal with the facts.
I said that I've read credible similarly fucked up stories. I meant that I've read them over the years. You know that the US is fucked up and crazy shit happens there and I've just shown you a personal clip of a person saying that it's a 100% true story what happened to them, then I've shown you how that is plausible through the legislation that the US has.
You've constantly been shown wrong, yet you won't admit to a single mistake and you're just shifting goalposts further and further and further.
Oh god, this is hilarious. Remember how I said that you keep proving yourself wrong? Self-humiliating? This is one those times. You literally implied this, very strongly, SEVERAL TIMES.
As in "your opinion on these facts doesn't matter because of a personal property."
That's literally a textbook ad hominem. Once again, I prove you wrong, based on things you've said, yet you can't accept it. You say in your last comment that "I don't have arguments", but you keep literally ignoring the ones I'm saying in each and every single comment:
Why are you talking about medical debt? We've already established that it's an exception to this. We're now pointing out that you argued that filial responsibility laws have "nothing" to do with inheriting debt, which is wrong, you then claimed that filial responsibility SOLELY concerns medical debt, which is also wrong. And you're simply going to ignore having been wrong, because you're not a big enough person to do that, just like I said from the very start.
Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?
Filial responsibility laws aren’t only for medical debts, you were wrong. Are you gonna ignore that?
And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?
You simply can't argue, you don't know the subject, and you should've taken the gracious option I offered earlier. ;)