2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf you cap interest rates won't banks stop lending
To their riskiest clients especially on an unsecured basis?
Hope Bernie has thought this one through
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 11:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)There will be an outcry over the riskiest clients who can't get access to bank credit because banks are evil or redlining or something
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Why should someone pay 28%-35% interest on their credit card simply because they are deemed "risky". There is a far better chance of someone maintaining their payments at a lower interest rate.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)has the right to a loan at any interest rate.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...and you don't think they'll pay you back:
1. Why would you lend to them anyway?
2. Is charging an outrageous interest rate the best way to get anything back?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)On probabily x% of these borrowers will default and you recover y% of principal. You don't know who will default so you charge people with this credit profile z%.
You set z so it covers x and y and leaves you with a profit.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Which of those do you think ought not to be capped?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)Unprofitable to lend to people with a certain credit profile they will stop doing that.
The real question is: do you want to cut these people from access to credit?
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)Even if it is illegal someone will still loan the money at rates and collection practices that exceed even those of Payday loans.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That is not a particularly good reason for making loan sharkery legal.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)where has that been heard before?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)or obscene payday loan rates, or both?
You know you can be 'for Hillary' and not 'against everything Sanders is for', right? You don't actually have to box yourself into uttering republican talking points.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I just understand that the result will be many people losing access to credit. There is no way around that fact.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)A living wage job. Less need for obscene credit just to put food "on the family".
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)countries do - use the postal service as a very low cost public banking service. Payday loan sharking is a bullshit service that should be replaced with a public service.
The credit card companies will continue to issue credit cards, they just won't be able to gouge people with ridiculous interest rates. "Many people" is a completely ambiguous statement. Some people will have more difficulty getting a card, but only because they have truly lousy credit and probably shouldn't have a card. I rather doubt that capping card rates at some level based on current prime rates would have a huge impact on access.
States effectively regulated credit card rates until Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp - http://consumer.findlaw.com/credit-banking-finance/usury-laws.html#sthash.TdebVwlg.dpuf in 1978 and the Reagan era Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 - See more at: http://consumer.findlaw.com/credit-banking-finance/usury-laws.html#sthash.TdebVwlg.dpuf put an end to that. There was no great shortage of credit cards prior to that.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)which would expand access to credit for people of lower income.
Haven't you thought this through?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Paulie
(8,462 posts)Bernie Sanders's Highly Sensible Plan to Turn Post Offices Into Banks
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/bernie-sanders-lets-turn-post-offices-into-banks/411589/
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)to gouge people who are not a credit risk. I once had my interest rate jacked up over 10% for no discernible reason except that it coincided exactly with when I paid off my only other card and cancelled it, so my only remaining card was the one with the jacked up rate.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Who exactly do you think can fill a lending void?
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Your line of reasoning is exactly the same as "If you raise my tax rate I will stop working". We already know that threat is empty.
Maybe you should think something through instead of taking desperate shots at a reasonable policy proposal.
Context: (and by the way, he is still playing even now)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1/21/1180771/-Oh-Noes-Phil-Mickelson-R-Golf-Might-Retire-Citing-Incorrectly-Tax-Hikes-on-Top-1-Boo-hoo
^snip^
Oh Noes!!--Phil Mickelson (R-Golf) Might Retire, Citing (Incorrectly) Tax Hikes on Top 1%--Boo-hoo.
Monday Jan 21, 2013 10:24 AM EST
Mickelson says he might retire or move from California.
"I'm not sure what exactly, you know, I'm going to do yet," Mickelson said. "I'll probably talk about it more in depth next week. I'm not going to jump the gun, but there are going to be some. There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and, you know, it doesn't work for me right now. So I'm going to have to make some changes."
Conservative bloggers are already gloating about how this is some kind of sign that Obama, the big meanie who loves to stick it rich people (even though he is one of them), is going to destroy capitalism or some other such nonsense.
Of course, Mickelson, who is a Republican according to a number of sites that list "Republican Celebrities," describes his tax situation in notably false terms.
"If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent,"