Hawaii Senate Bill SB3215

Hawaii 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/22
• Refer: 1/26/22
• Report Pass: 2/11/22
• Refer: 2/11/22

Caption

Relating To Garnishment.

Impact

If enacted, SB3215 would have a significant impact on Hawaii's laws related to wage garnishment. It seeks to modify Section 652-1 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, thus altering how creditors can claim wages from debtors. The current system is deemed insufficient in protecting individuals struggling with basic living expenses, including healthcare, housing, and transportation. By adjusting these thresholds, the bill aims to prevent situations that may lead individuals to bankruptcy or increased reliance on state social services, thereby promoting greater economic stability.

Summary

Senate Bill 3215 aims to amend existing garnishment laws in Hawaii to provide greater protection for individuals whose wages are garnished. The bill recognizes the financial challenges presented by wage garnishment, especially in light of Hawaii's high cost of living, and seeks to revise the withholding rates to allow individuals to retain more of their income. Specifically, the bill proposes to increase the withholding amount to five percent of the first $200 per month, ten percent of the next $200, and twenty percent of all sums exceeding $400, intending to lessen the burden of consumer debt on individuals and families.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB3215 appears supportive among consumer advocacy groups and those concerned about financial sustainability for residents facing garnishments. Supporters argue that the bill is a much-needed reform that prioritizes the well-being of consumers and addresses the disproportionate impact of garnishment laws on low-income individuals. Conversely, some creditors may view the changes as limiting their ability to recover debts, creating a point of contention regarding the balance between consumer protections and creditor rights.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding this bill include discussions on the appropriate level of protections for consumers versus the necessity for creditors to recover debts. Proponents of the bill emphasize the need for humane treatment of debtors, especially given that many live paycheck to paycheck. However, opponents might argue that reducing the amounts available for garnishment could hinder creditors and complicate the repayment landscape. The ongoing debate reflects broader issues of financial equity and the societal impacts of impermissible debts.