NYT: Soaring Interest Compounds Credit Card Pain for Millions

A "poor bullet" isn't totally ineffective, just not very good.

I didn't say "without assuming debt." I said "ways that don't involve taking on *masses* of debt." (Emphasis added).

My point was that it can be done without sinking yourself in a morass of debt. Even something as simple as paying your utility bills on time each month builds credit rating.

^^^^^^^^ Watch out for this word "apparent". Credit isn't *really* inevitable in the US or anywhere else. It may be everywhere, but it isn't

*inevitable*. It's not hard to take on little or no debt, but doing so does mean being prepared to make sacrifices - such as buying things next month or next quarter, when they can be afforded, rather than today, when the debt mountain must be built higher.

You think that it won't help the borrower to stop taking on more debt?

Not at all. The discussion continues on from my original assertion that the debtors in the examples did it to themselves, and that nobody put a gun to their heads (figuratively) to make them borrow. Digging your heels in and refusing to take on more debt is definitely relevant to such a discussion.

This all hinges on exactly how you interpret "expect" above. They "expect" repayment, in the sense of "anticipate", but allow for the fact that people sometimes do not, for various reasons. Nobody puts special terms in contracts to deal with the times when everything's going well, so of course the contract looks unbalanced. Everybody knows that lenders lend for profit, and they aren't responsible for the fact that borrowers cannot manage their own finances.

Read on, maybe you'll see an answer.

That's not actually what I said. I meant that old-fashioned idea of living within your means. If you can afford to take it on, fine, otherwise don't do it. I have fairly strict view of "afford" in this context, meaning living within your budget, but I wouldn't go so far as to allow only cash transactions.

Note that where borrowing is at a variable rate of interest, the borrower must be careful to ensure that he will not be over-extended if the rates increase. This means reading the small print, and not taking debt on if you don't like the terms. For instance, here in the United Kingdom, banks offer overdraft facilities. I don't use mine except in dire emergencies, because the terms of the facility allow the bank to call it in at any time. I don't want to expose myself to that kind of risk, so I make sure to keep a credit balance in the account all the time.

I would argue that the people who have over-extended themselves have dealt the hand to all of us.

They didn't borrow money like it was going out of style? Without the consumers borrowing money like this, the banks couldn't have created the monster.

No, the consumer maintains the monster with instant-gratification borrowing.

A more responsible attitude to borrowing money, as I suggested, would go along way to ending this situation.

Reply to
SteveR
Loading thread data ...

That isn't true: a borrower can decide that the payments are too high, or take up too large a portion of his take-home pay, and decide not to borrow. These may be the same criteria that the banks use but a borrower doesn't have to use the same limits. A borrower can decide that taking out a 6-year loan on a car unlikely to be kept for more than 4 years is going to leave him in deep doo-doo 4 years from now.

I was pretty shocked when I was buying a home and heard how much home the realtor expected me to buy based on the kind of loan I could get. My own comfort level was at about half the home price, which, interestingly enough, corresponded to a monthly payment not much higher than I was paying in rent.

Loans don't happen unless both borrower and lender say YES.

Credit cards are often a convenient *method of payment* and for some things, it's difficult to do certain kinds of transactions (e.g. car rental) without them. Paying off your balance each month is perhaps more reasonable than requiring only cash transactions, although it depends on having discipline to do it.

Gordon L. Burditt

Reply to
Gordon Burditt

Or favorable usury situations. Without South Dakota, for instance, there would be no credit card industry as we know it today.

Reply to
Steve

"John A. Weeks III" wrote

Contradiction in terms?

For those people actually paying the "higher fees & interest rates", they

*are* worse off !!
Reply to
Tim

Excuse me???

A borrower damn welll better know if he can afford the loan or not or he/she shouldn't be borrowing the money. Just because someone fits within some broad guidelines about indebtedness doesn't mean they should be borrowing the money in the first place.

Reply to
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.

But it is a fee for service product. The consumers are getting high risk loans that they would otherwise not qualify for, and the credit card company is getting the fees and interest that are appropraite for a person with that level of debt and credit damage. If the consumer doesn't want to pay those fees, then they have the option of sending their payments in on time. If they don't want to pay that level of interest, then they should not take out the loan. Everyone knows what the rules are up front. They are spelled out in detail in the credit card contract. If a person is well behaved in that they only use credit that they can afford to pay back, and they make the payments on time, then everything is OK.

-john-

Reply to
John A. Weeks III

No, what your statement means is that you ridicule statistical proof when it shows your opinions to be bizarre and ... wrong!

Elizabeth Warren, whether you like her (and I suspect you never actually heard of her) is a scholar; you are a jerk. Harvard professors, whether you like them or not, are indisputably among the most intelligent and intellectually honest in the world.

That's only if you don't shop around. Nationwide Building Society

formatting link
charges zero load on top of VISA's commission and spread. Many US credit unions charge no load. You seem to be a shill for the most crooked within the banking industry. Those who have bothered to oppose you in this thread simply argue that shoppers should ... shop around.

I haven't bothered to read the rest of the rubbish you posted.

Reply to
Sufaud

When people borrow using their credit cards, they have no way of knowing whether they can afford it, because the loan terms can be changed at any time. They may be perfectly capable of handling the payments at the stated interest rate, but what happens when that rate is arbitrarily increased?

Reply to
Steve

I thought we were talking about credit cards here, though. If you're borrowing for a business, for education, or for otherwise "improving your circumstances" (such as, say, by buying a home), you shouldn't be using *credit card* debt for that (unless it's just for convenience, and you could easily pay back the loan).

"Life-improvement" loans tend to have much better terms and protections than credit card loans. For instance, when you get a mortgage on a house, you can usually *lock in* a rate much better than a typical variable credit card rate. That's partly because the loan is secured, unlike credit card loans, and partly because loans that improve someone's circumstances also tend to improve their earning ability, and thus the ability to pay off the loans.

Credit cards should be used only for convenience, or for the consumer protections that come with credit-card purchases, or for the other bonuses one sometimes gets with such a card (such as airline miles, cash back, or the extra float time for the actual payment-- though with the last one, one should be careful to avoid getting dependent on the float.) And as you note, you can build up a stellar credit rating without ever running up a balance, but just paying off your card(s) every month when the bill comes in.

Getting *dependent* on the credit cards is a definite financial warning flag. It sometimes happens in emergencies, but if so, one should try to get out of such situations as soon as possible, by reducing expenses, shifting debt one can't pay off right away to bank loans that have better terms, and taking preventative measures like emergency savings accounts and insurance.

I can't recommend consciously *deciding* to get dependent on credit card loans to improve one's circumstances, though. If you need a loan for a home, a car, education, or a business, you should be able to do better than credit cards. If you can't get a loan on more reasonable and lower-risk terms, then that's a warning sign that the banks consider such a loan too risky. And that you probably should too, and re-evaluate your plans accordingly.

John Mark Ockerbloom

Reply to
John Ockerbloom

I have never seen the rates "arbitrarily" increased. The rate and terms changes that I have seen all happen when the credit rating of the borrower has a signficiant change. This includes late payments at other creditors, mortgage in default, or the loan to income rate is significantly increased. People have to expect that they will have to pay higher interest rates and fees when their credit rating goes down. It is nieve to expect otherwise.

-john-

Reply to
John A. Weeks III

That's why smart people never borrow money using their credit cards. They use them for miles, cash back, and other "rewards," but they never carry a balance or pay interest.

Reply to
Scott en Aztlán

Hogwash! The borrower had better know what he can pay before even

*thinking* about borrowing. The borrower knows what he wants to pay and the lender knows what he's willint to lend for. It's a "meeting of the minds", otherwise known as a *contract*. Live with it.

The borrower is not impotent. He can always walk away from a bad deal

*before* the contract is made. The fact that he doesn't isn't the fault of the lender. Do you buy a new car at sticker? No, you wouldn't think about it. You'd walk off the lot and see someone else.

Stop whining about your foolish mistakes.

Reply to
keith

If you can't, *DON'T*. No one is *forcing* you into hock. If you're a bad money manager you *deserve* to pay more since you are a higher risk to the lender. Life's tough.

Boo hoo! You agreed that they're a higher risk, thus they *should* pay more. Lenders are protecting their butts.

I see. So you're siding with the people who will simply decide that it's "too hard" to repay a loan, so default. Somewhere in here is the reason they pay more. The lender has much more risk with those who have little to lose.

What the hell does this have to do with the price of oats in China? You took the best deal you could get for the loan you wanted. Do you somehow think that somone owed you a 0% loan? Yes, I've taken several up on 0% loans (why use my money), but I don't expect it. ...well, actually I do now, since it's become the norm when buying large ticket items. :-)

Again, what does this have to do with deadbeats who don't pay their bills,,, and therefor cannot get the good deals that those of us who pay their bills are offered (we aren't entitled to anything either).

Oh, horse shit! Consumer loans aren't even looked at by a "loan officer". It's a numbers game. Mortgage loans are a little different, but they're not much different. Pay your bills and you'll have all the credit you can stand (read this senten I've said).

Reply to
keith

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.