Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

poor? Pay up!

<< < (5/9) > >>

cranioscopical:
So, does that answer your question about who has ever suffered because of a lack of TV?
-app103 (May 22, 2009, 10:42 AM)
--- End quote ---
Nope, it just makes me feel another flash of despair about the way our society is headed.
The idea that TV is a 'must have' seems entirely preposterous to me. And the fact that 'poor' people 'have to' pay more to obtain one, when the act of saving the rip-off fees that they spend to do so would allow a later, cheaper purchase beggars belief. Many years ago, when I was struggling to keep my child fed and clothed, the U.K. required an annual TV license fee in order to use a set. The gift of a TV would have been impossible for me to accept because paying for the license just wasn't an option.

I don't think we can reconcile our views on this one  :)

wraith808:
I think she was mostly kidding.  I think.  I hope.

Edvard:
One way sounds almost socialist and the other way predatory.
-wraith808 (May 22, 2009, 02:41 PM)
--- End quote ---

Like I said... tentacles.
I rail at the methods of madness I know to be detrimental to my financial health... Even as I write out the check knowing it is my only recourse (aside from outright begging) when the fridge is empty. It is more than once I have seriously considered forgoing occasional meals out of concern for the thickness of my wallet rather than the thickness of my middle.  ;)

Almost reminds me of sub-prime lending and we know the way that worked out.
-wraith808 (May 22, 2009, 02:41 PM)
--- End quote ---

I too, was trying to work my rant in that direction but couldn't quite make the connection. We bought our house a full two years before housing prices skyrocketed and banks started offering 0% down loans to many who (in the long-term view) could not afford them, and I'm not just talking about the interest rates...
 :-\

app103:
One way sounds almost socialist and the other way predatory.
-wraith808 (May 22, 2009, 02:41 PM)
--- End quote ---

What is wrong with usury laws that limit the amount of interest one can charge, legally? I live in a state that has had usury laws since it was an English colony, so this is not something unheard of.

We don't have "payday loans" here because they exceed the 30% APR legal limit.

And what about extending the existing laws to cover more things, like rent to own? They should be disclosing the APR in a nice little chart like all credit companies have to do. There should not be a loophole that lets them get away with not doing that and allowing them to charge an illegal interest rate and making claims that it's not interest.

And it should be illegal to seize and keep $1000's of assets if someone defaults on a $300 loan. (People in FL lose their cars they put up as collateral on these small loans, and they are never refunded the difference)

And what happened to the laws that say that any hospital that receives federal funding has to offer charity care to anyone that shows up at the emergency room and can't afford it? It used to be that if someone was poor they could get that and not get sued and then have their wages garnished if they were under the poverty line. Now they end up with their wages cut to $150/week till the bill, interest, court fees, collection agency fees, plaintiff's lawyer fees, etc is paid off. Instead of charity care covering a $3000 bill, they are being fleeced to pay $10,000 or more, just because they are poor.

wraith808:
One way sounds almost socialist and the other way predatory.
-wraith808 (May 22, 2009, 02:41 PM)
--- End quote ---

What is wrong with usury laws that limit the amount of interest one can charge, legally? I live in a state that has had usury laws since it was an English colony, so this is not something unheard of.
-app103 (May 22, 2009, 05:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well, for one thing, at times people need an alternative.  And if these become a losing proposition because you are unable to mitigate the risk, then that alternative doesn't exist.  I've used it before when I had no other alternative; I had already sold what I could, and had a critical debt that needed to be paid and I knew I would have the money when I got paid.  The fee was worth getting the money now.

What I did do was make sure I wouldn't be in that position again, and I was also very aware of what I was doing, so it was a one time fee, not a way of life.  But what if it hadn't been available?

The reason the rates are so exorbitant is because of the failure rate of the loans.  And the repossession is not really wanted; the fees to do so merely allow the businesses to stay afloat- the interest rate on the people who make good on the loans are what keep the businesses going.

It's not as cut and dried as people make it out to be, and it's easy to lose sight of this and either legislate the option out of business, or allow them too free a hand.  They do serve a purpose to those who need them, and in general those who are totally against the idea and refuse to see the service that is being provided have never found themselves in dire enough straits to use them...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page