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.
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.
29.99% APR is highway robbery. CC's catch people with their pants down and they jack up the rate because they know they are f-ed and don't have any options but to either pay it or go bankrupt.....and given that most people don't like going bankrupt they make the wager that they will pay.
Granted nobody twisted anyone's balls and made them get a cc in the first place but it just seems illegally wrong that this sort of practice can go on.
29.99% APR is highway robbery. CC's catch people with their pants down and they jack up the rate because they know they are f-ed and don't have any options but to either pay it or go bankrupt.....and given that most people don't like going bankrupt they make the wager that they will pay.
Granted nobody twisted anyone's balls and made them get a cc in the first place but it just seems illegally wrong that this sort of practice can go on.
I guess we'll have to disagree. Personally I feel even 30% is low interest for an unsecured loan.
Why is it "illegally wrong" (I have no idea what that means) for credit card companies to charge whatever interest rate they want to charge? Where in our constitution does it guarantee the consumer low interest rate loans? Please provide a link, as I personally haven't seen it written anywhere. In fact, the founding fathers were against debt and were for strong monetary policy, the gold standard, etc. I do not believe you will find it.
We need to be clear on one issue, which you glossed over.
Quote:
Granted nobody twisted anyone's balls and made them get a cc in the first place but
But WHAT? Who cares? The consumer opened the CC and used it. By doing that they agree to the terms. If they don't want a variable rate card, go obtain a personal loan, (if available) get a second job, or don't buy whatever it is that you want to buy.
Sounds harsh but that is reality.
After college my wife had $2k on her CC, which was raised to 30% interest. It hurt to pay it but we made sacrifices and never again has she carried a balance. Lesson learned. Obviously America has some learning to do.
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.
once again you feel that you have to go to name-calling to try and make your point. it is a shame because you were making some progress before.
this isn't just an issue about "poor" people. i look at the whole financial system as an unstable house of cards and it wouldn't take much to bring it all down at this point. many banks are already unstable! if they raise their rates during rising unemployment and increasing foreclosures to gouge people, they are less likely to get ANY money back since some people will simply stop paying. do i agree with that? no, since they signed the contract, but i like that the banks are increasing their risk of defaults by pressuring people who are already struggling.
if these banks go down, we don't have enough money in the FDIC fund (which is a joke at this point) to cover the losses. if people recognize that fact at some point, there could potentially be a bank run as people try to get their money out of banks and we are back in a great depression. this whole illusion of prosperity is only made possible by government stepping in temporarily and at some point government is going to have to step back. that is a fact!
of course, the best way to fix these particular bankers (not all banks are engaged in unethical behavior) is to BOYCOTT these banks. people should pull all of their money out of these banks and dump these credit cards. i just resent that people were supposed to bail the banks out and show mercy to the banking system when it was on the edge (due to THEIR stupidity) but that they wouldn't show any mercy when they are back in the driver's seat due to an unethical congress.
Last edited by floridasandy; 10-27-2009 at 05:11 PM..
Two different issues here. The huge financial institutions, and the use of credit cards. I do believe the financial institutions should have been dealt a lot more punishment instead of the very generous relief they have received at the hands of the taxpayers. However this is a totally different and separate issue from the OP.
On the credit card usage, I am of the opinion this isn't something that people have to have and thus the banks should be free to charge what they like for offering them. If anyone doesn't like the terms then don't use them. There can't be anything more difficult than that. Banks are not allowed to change terms for existing balances. So if you don't like what they are doing, cut the card up, call the bank to cancel the account, and work to pay off the balance. I have always told people that if you keep a balance on a credit card then you have handed the bank license to really ********* over so don't do it. Period.
I simply don't get this "notion" that credit card debt are some kind of right and necessary for day to day living though many seem to think this now.
If you impose a hard cap, everyone who poses a credit risk above that cap will have no access to credit. I'm not sure this necessarily helps consumers.
once again you feel that you have to go to name-calling to try and make your point. it is a shame because you were making some progress before.
I absolutely did not call anyone any names.
this isn't just an issue about "poor" people. i look at the whole financial system as an unstable house of cards and it wouldn't take much to bring it all down at this point. many banks are already unstable! if they raise their rates during rising unemployment and increasing foreclosures to gouge people, they are less likely to get ANY money back since some people will simply stop paying. do i agree with that? no, since they signed the contract, but i like that the banks are increasing their risk of defaults by pressuring people who are already struggling.
YOU'RE the one who brought up poor people. I was just responding to what you said.
if these banks go down, we don't have enough money in the FDIC fund (which is a joke at this point) to cover the losses. if people recognize that fact at some point, there could potentially be a bank run as people try to get their money out of banks and we are back in a great depression. this whole illusion of prosperity is only made possible by government stepping in temporarily and at some point government is going to have to step back. that is a fact!
of course, the best way to fix these particular bankers (not all banks are engaged in unethical behavior) is to BOYCOTT these banks. people should pull all of their money out of these banks and dump these credit cards. i just resent that people were supposed to bail the banks out and show mercy to the banking system when it was on the edge (due to THEIR stupidity) but that they wouldn't show any mercy when they are back in the driver's seat due to an unethical congress.
You've got to make up your mind. You've been saying for months the banks need to fail now you say if they do it's game over.
You say if rates were to high people couldn't pay the banks back and the banks would fail, then in the next paragraph you say we should boycott banks and dump credit cards.
Having an opinion is fine, but you can't own both sides of the issue.
If you impose a hard cap, everyone who poses a credit risk above that cap will have no access to credit. I'm not sure this necessarily helps consumers.
It would help them by keeping them out of debt at loan shark rates.
As a society we need to start saving a little more and using credit less.
The credit snare is out there to tempt you but it is up to you whether you put your head in the noose.
One thing I believe should be done is to protect people in good standing with their accounts from having their interest rates skyrocket.
If you are a high risk individual looking for credit and agree to pay an exorbitant rate so be it. It is awful but you earned it.
It is incredible how much more people could enjoy life if they did not make themselves indentured servants of their creditors. Credit should work for you not vice versa.
I'd rather have them limit the yearly fee. I don't carry a balance and don't use the card much so they don't make any money off me. Then I get a notice they're increasing the yearly fee about 100%. I went from no fee to about $25 to now $50. I'd switch cards but I'm afraid I'd just get the same treatment.
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.
Cap on credit card interest
