Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of us signed to terms that were reasonable from the start. We even changed lenders in favor of better rates only to have those banks renege and change their terms to a less favorable set.
Some of us are not high risk debtors but regularly paying customers with high credit scores.
The world is unfair when a legal contract can be broken by only the party with the larger assets.
Ah, but did you read the contract? If it's against the contract you can sue, but if it was part when you signed it not much you can do. They didn't tie you down and beat you till you signed it. If it gets to unfair terms you can always opt out and pay your balance while being unable to use it going forward.
Most unsecured loans contain the provision they can change things as they see fit, it's not very nice but it's not breach of contract. It's an important lesson to not read a contract like Peter Griffin (imagine naked ladies).
Ah, but did you read the contract? If it's against the contract you can sue, but if it was part when you signed it not much you can do. They didn't tie you down and beat you till you signed it. If it gets to unfair terms you can always opt out and pay your balance while being unable to use it going forward.
Most unsecured loans contain the provision they can change things as they see fit, it's not very nice but it's not breach of contract. It's an important lesson to not read a contract like Peter Griffin (imagine naked ladies).
I read every contract I sign. Yes, I have read the contracts and no, I can't sue because I don't have bottomless coffers dedicated to legal defense. At any rate they are mandated by the "opt-out" clause to allow me to pay it off at the original rate. This is a matter of more of business ethics than legal contract bindings. It is an illustration of less than user-friendly contract writing.
I read every contract I sign. Yes, I have read the contracts and no, I can't sue because I don't have bottomless coffers dedicated to legal defense. At any rate they are mandated by the "opt-out" clause to allow me to pay it off at the original rate. This is a matter of more of business ethics than legal contract bindings. It is an illustration of less than user-friendly contract writing.
Humm, true. However, weigh the business ethics of raising rates on your customers to make ends meet or bankrupting the company and having to lay off everyone who works there into an economy they are unlikely to find work in. Nothing like looking at your employees and telling that because people refuse to pay back their loans, and you won't raise the rates on those who do, everyone is without a job (and you default on loans to your bank).
If it is big enough (over $5k is the average boundary) you have a good case lawyers work on contingencies, or you can sue in small clamis court for about $50 under that amount. Breach of contract should not be rewarded, but if it's in there they can they are within their rights.
It's hard for me to have sympathy for these companies that are essentially the same banks (at least satellites of the same financial institutions) that received assistance from the government. Much of their customer service help is out-sourced in foreign countries in order for them to keep labor costs such as wages, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, and benefits to a minimum and profit margins high.
I said it before. 10% hard cap....period. If these companies can't live with that maybe they need to use a little more sense in who they hand out credit cards to....
If Dodd wanted to actually help consumers what he would propose and insist be passed is a federal usury law that provided for a hard cap on interest rates.
if you can't make money as a bank on a ten percent spread between "borrow short, lend long" in a market-priced world for your assets you're either (1) an idiot and deserve to fail due to stupidity or (2) trying to force those who are responsible users of credit to pay for those who are deadbeats - that is, those NON-CREDIT WORTHY customers who you gave credit to ANYWAY, smug in the knowledge that you could rip SOMEONE off, whether it be the taxpayer or your other customers, to paper over your "decision."
I see no problem with this other than that you will be cutting off credit to the poor and young. If it were 10 years ago, you'd be called a racist for proposing this....just saying.
I don't care one way or another it won't effect me in any event.
Limiting the credit card rate will simply encourage more people to get into more debt, which in reality is what the government wants us to do. More debt = more spending = "growing" economy, albeit a false one.
Furthermore, a credit card is simply an unsecured loan. Why market rates were below 30% APR blows my mind. They really should be much higher!
If you cap CC rates, that will push out all but the people with the best credit AND history of using a credit card. The poor and middle class will turn to the use of pawn shops and payday loans to make ends meet, which charge interest rates in the 100%-400% range. This will also encourage more stealing as people will pawn their stolen goods off at pawn shops.
What we should want as Americans is for the market to set our rates. CC's are revolving debt and as such are not designed to carry a balance for more than a few months. I think some people have legit beefs in that the card companies were offering "fixed" interest rates yet changed their tune. It's either fixed or is isn't. However that doesn't change the fact that they were using credit cards as a long term source of money. That being said, I would assume that would be covered under "false advertising" laws that are currently on the books.
The way to combat that is to insure the market remains free. As long as you have competition you will have the lowest interest rates possible, and can take your business elsewhere if you think you are getting screwed.
But why get government involved in the first place? There is no reason to, except to enforce where the card companies behaved in fraud (ie deceptive advertising). Unless of course you like government involvement in our society. I would wager many do not.
explain to me how that helps the general population. the poor will just be delinquent and refuse to pay, thrusting that debt load onto the general population, since our idiot congress has effectively promised to hold americans accountable for any and all delinquencies. this would just place a greater burden on the working population, while rewarding the banks that engaged in usury.
Poor people shouldn't be using credit cards and the general population seemed to live just fine without credit cards for centuries. Also, perhaps you should read up on banruptcy law. A poor person can and will file chapter 7. Even if someone isn't "poor" they can't repay what they don't have. but why shouldn't the working population be accountable for their debts. Why do you think were in this mess? You should have really read a blog and copy and pasted it. On your own you just make no sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
