OT - Bank of America Credit

There a some other points about credit cards you may not be aware of. Credit cards are not bound by your state's usury laws. They are bound by the laws of their home states. That's why many are based in Delaware. I think S Dakota is the other popular state.

They may change your rate based not >I read the fine print. Awhile back my MBNA Credit Cards (business and

But they can't stop you from paying off your balance in full (including "transferring" the balance to another credit card with lower rates) when they raise your rates.

And since - I believe - the lendors are obliged to inform you if they change your rate, you should have no trouble getting away from "usurious" rates (usuary being a completely subjective notion).

Clicked Send a bit too soon.

You should have no trouble paying off the credit card with the "usurious" rate assuming, you did not over-extend yourself in the first place so that you are ineligible for any other interest rate ... in which case, you deserve to pay the "usurious" rate.

It isn't BOA, it comes from VISA International, Master Card, American Express, Discover and their lawyers. You must repay your debit, period the end. Didn't you hear about the revision to the bankruptcy act preventing you from discharging credit card debit? They have got good lobbyists.

And you can pay off the outstanding balance, fire the issuer and take your business to a competitor based not on whether they raise your rate but based strictly on whether you can get a better deal elsewhere, or whether you got up on the wrong side of the bed that day, or because the bank's CEO voted for a president you didn't like or because he's of the wrong race, color, religion or sexual orientation. Or for any other damn reason.

Which gives you far more rights than the lender.

Huh? Anybody acquiring debt should be responsible for paying it back - ya deadbeats! If they don't then we all pay!

Andrew DeFaria wrote in news:8MCdnRqe_POXE3jYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

I agree that one should pay all legitimate debts. However, as you know, Andrew, some people run up debt and try not to pay it (those people should be punished in some way).

On the other hand, the credit card companies also make it difficult to resist their too good to be true offers. Then the question becomes whether the CC company (despite the noticess in small print) have not (at least in spirit) violated the full disclosure laws.

I once fell for an offer of "free" credit, not realizing that my monthly payments first went to the loan, and only thereafter to any previously outstanding balance. I was able to quickly correct the situation with minimal consequences, but others that may have been as stupid as I admittedly was may not have the resources. You may call people who act like I did as just too gullible, but the way the credit card companies act is to take advantage of that, and in my opinion that should be punished too.

Hello SpammersDie,

hm. not convinced about how sound that strategy is. the above aren't rights, but just tricks. Switching house does erase your liability: you still have to pay down your debt and stop overstretching yourself.

When your creditworthiness goes south, so do your chances to get better deals elsewhere.

Unlike you I don't treat adults like babies. "Difficult to resist" is no excuse IMHO.

If so then the CC company should be prosecuted and the responsibility for initiating that prosecution lies squarely on those duped. And the penalty for not doing so should be that you have to pay the money owed. IOW if you f'ed up then you pay the price (AKA buyer beware). In either case the innocent people who did not enter into the transaction, be it legit or not, should not be punished.

Not my problem! It is not my problem that others are stupid or lacking resources (and what do you mean by resources anyway?). IOW I should not be penalized in such cases.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine - Ayn Rand

Then start a campaign or activist group to punish them if you feel that strongly. However the current state is to punish everybody else and surely that is not right!

Should you and other CC holders be penalized when CC companies actively solicit those with poor credit? That is what happens all to often.

FWIW, I d>> I once fell for an offer of "free" credit, not realizing that my

When two parties enter into an agreement by means of a contract (as is the case here) those parties and no other parties should be responsible

- don't you agree?

Not being "likely to be able to pay their debts" is no excuse! People need to be responsible for their own actions! And we need to stop making excuses for people who refused to own up to their own obligations. Unless it can be shown that a) the CC company violated a law, in which case the CC company should bear the responsibility or b) the consumer was mentally unfit (i.e. mentally challenged (AKA a retard)) the debt should be honored and not thrust upon other innocent people.

IOW If you can't repay your debts then don't borrow money - ya idiot!

You have a point. In personal injury law it's called "maintaining an attractive nusiance." This is in conflict with the other strategm: "never let a sucker keep his money." As with all concepts, there's a balancing test.

I agree that neither you nor I should be responsible for the debts of others. Whatever is necessary should be undertaken to satisfy the debt. For example, a kidney or a cornea has market value.

As a matter of fact I do.

Agreed. I'm pleased to see you agree with me that the companies, not their cardholders, should suffer when they actively solicit individuals whose past credit histories show them to be a poor risk and those individuals default on the payments.

Not necessarily so. If not a and not b then guess who gets the responsibility? The stupid, non mentally challenged consumer, which I suspect is the case 90% of the time.

Having failed in their duty to their shareholders by extending the credit in the first place, the companies still have a duty to their shareholders to transfer as much of the suffering as possible onto the deliquent debtor.

Andrew DeFaria wrote in news:Rp- dneSRidMdRnvYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

I am punishing the banks by doing as much as I can what they do - taking advantage of them. Sevral times I have asked them to forgive late charges and interest because I made a mistake, and they acquiesced beccause they did not wanted to lose me as a customer. Unfortunately, the cost of that business is the extra charge that merchants have to build into their prices because the credit card companies do not allow a discount for cash.

Agreed. And the companies themselves should suffer the consequences for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the rest of their consumers.