CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Rising credit card interest rates: a moral blight
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rising credit card interest rates: a moral blight

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
From Dailykos.com:

Today's NYT contains an excellent example of a moral blight upon this country that not only offends most Americans' values -- it also robs from their pocketbooks. And the government, while fully empowered to rein in this monster, has refused to do so. The villain? Credit card companies that charge exorbitant fees and raise interest rates without warning even on those borrowers who never miss a payment, who always played by the rules:

When Ed Schwebel was whittling down his mound of credit card debt at an interest rate of 9.2 percent, the MBNA Corporation had a happy and profitable customer. But this summer, when MBNA suddenly doubled the rate on his account, Mr. Schwebel joined the growing ranks of irate cardholders stunned by lenders' harsh tactics.

Mr. Schwebel, 58, a semiretired software engineer in Gilbert, Ariz., was not pleased that his minimum monthly payment jumped from $502 in June to $895 in July. But what really made him angry, he said, was the sense that he was being punished despite having held up his end of the bargain with MBNA.

"I paid the bills the minute the envelope hit the desk," said Mr. Schwebel, who had accumulated $69,000 in debt over five years before the rate increase. "All of a sudden in July, they swapped it to 18 percent. No warning. No reason. It was like I was blindsided."

Mr. Schwebel had stumbled into the new era of consumer credit, in which thousands of Americans are paying millions of dollars each month in fees that they did not expect and that strike them as unreasonable. Invoking clauses tucked into the fine print of their contract agreements, lenders are doubling or tripling interest rates with little warning or explanation.

I say that it is immoral when a large bank screws customers who held up their end of the bargain. I say that it is immoral when the bank is allowed to do so through use of contracts of adhesion, mandatory arbitration clauses, and an utter absence of sensible regulation. And I say it is immoral for the government to enable all of this because the credit card issuers are among the most powerful lobbys in Washington. I'd wager most Americans agree. I'm no theologian, but the quote from Ezekiel at the top of this post indicates that usury has long been frowned upon in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These aren't "Democratic values" -- these are basic values of a society that values fair play. But they are values that Democrats are, by virtue of their politics, more likely to fight for.

The fight against credit card robber barons is a moral fight, a winning issue, and one that fits into the Democratic Party's mission. Now, I know there are a lot of Dem politicians -- too many, really -- who are in the pockets of the credit companies, but on the whole, we are a party that can carry this banner. The core Democratic value could be expressed, as Clinton often did, as "if you work hard and play by the rules, you should get ahead." That value is being abused today by the credit issuers and their sycophants on the Hill. It's time for us to raise fair credit regulation as one of our moral wedge issues. What are some others?
post #2 of 53
Another blow to personal responsibility.
post #3 of 53
Now what Ed should do is go to another card company - many still have 0% teaser rates on balance transfers, Capital One has a Prime Lock product, and there are lots of companies that want his business. So he gets a new card, transfers that balance, and cancels his MBNA card. I fail to see how the credit card people are "robber barons."
post #4 of 53
Maybe Ed, knowing he was closing in on retirement, should not have ran up $69,000 in debt. God forbid Ed should take personal reponsibility for his spending habits.
post #5 of 53
He was taking personal responsibility for his spending habits, the credit company fucked him anyways. But, let's not put any personal responsibility on corporations, only people.
post #6 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
He was taking personal responsibility for his spending habits, the credit company fucked him anyways. But, let's not put any personal responsibility on corporations, only people.
All he had to do was answer one of the 100 offers he probably gets in the mail for lower interest rates and transfered his balance. It's not like MBNA is the only card in town. Sorry, I can't feel bad for the guy.
post #7 of 53
Of course you can't. You've never had those problems, therefore people who do are stupid.

And what fucking planet do you people live on where someone who's semiretired with 70K in credit card debt is getting shitloads of offers from other banks?
post #8 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
All he had to do was answer one of the 100 offers he probably gets in the mail for lower interest rates and transfered his balance. It's not like MBNA is the only card in town. Sorry, I can't feel bad for the guy.
I don't know if they'd be willing to transfer a balance of 69K in credit card debt.
post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
Maybe Ed, knowing he was closing in on retirement, should not have ran up $69,000 in debt. God forbid Ed should take personal reponsibility for his spending habits.
I agree, but c'mon, why jack up the interst like that??? That makes it less likely he can ever pay it off. The fine print for these terms and conditions are never discussed and explained very well to consumers, I'm all for regulating that. If the credit card companies want to limit what their CUSTOMERS spend, then lower the limits, and have a way to keep track of their overall "credit card" limit across cards.

But don't do this with the interest rate, it's not going to help consumers be more disciplined or pay back the debt ... ever.
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Of course you can't. You've never had those problems, therefore people who do are stupid.

And what fucking planet do you people live on where someone who's semiretired with 70K in credit card debt is getting shitloads of offers from other banks?
Wow - how you stupidly assume. I put over $20,000 on a credit card to pay for school. Over four years, I surfed the balances from card to card to get better rates until I could finally get a home equity loan to pay off the balance. I really don't know the story behind how he got in this mess, but in general, most Americans have overspent themselves with all of these low rate/deffered payment deals. Having a high balance and his age makes him a risk, no matter how timley his payments.

My grandparents get offers for new cards/loans every day and they pretty much skimp by on social security and don't own ltheir home, so I have seen it happen.
post #11 of 53
Your grandparents have 70K in credit card debt?
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
Wow - how you stupidly assume. I put over $20,000 on a credit card to pay for school. Over four years, I surfed the balances from card to card to get better rates until I could finally get a home equity loan to pay off the balance. I really don't know the story behind how he got in this mess, but in general, most Americans have overspent themselves with all of these low rate/deffered payment deals. Having a high balance and his age makes him a risk, no matter how timley his payments.

My grandparents get offers for new cards/loans every day and they pretty much skimp by on social security and don't own ltheir home, so I have seen it happen.
Just because you get the offers in the mail, doesn't mean they take you in btw.
post #13 of 53
Also, the offers such people recieve are going to be low-limit, high interest cards. Maybe if Mr. Schwebel had a nanny to watch his kids, he'd be able to work more and pay it off quicker.
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Your grandparents have 70K in credit card debt?

They carry other debt that is not on cards. Not quite 70k, but considering they have no assets and are over 80, it is alarming how many offers they receive from credit card companies. I am not arguing that credit card companies aren't predatory, because they are, but I can't feel sorry for someone who racks up 70K in debt unless I know more about his circumstances on how the debt was compiled.
post #15 of 53
I love this shit.

Greedy corporate whores = excused for their behavior.

Law-abiding, on-time-paying customer = stupid old asshole.

USA! USA!
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Also, the offers such people recieve are going to be low-limit, high interest cards. Maybe if Mr. Schwebel had a nanny to watch his kids, he'd be able to work more and pay it off quicker.
I don't think being angry at someone who has reached a semi-level of success is going to help him at all.
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
but I can't feel sorry for someone who racks up 70K in debt unless I know more about his circumstances on how the debt was compiled.
What fucking difference does it make how much debt he incurred, if he's making his payments on time in good faith?
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
I don't think being angry at someone who has reached a semi-level of success is going to help him at all.
He's angry at a corporation, not a person. I don't get what you're trying to say.
post #19 of 53
$70000 in debt? Suddenly I don't feel so bad about my $14000....

Before I consolidated all my card debt, two things used to drive me absolutely nuts. First was the minimum payment. This is an out-and-out LIE. On almost every single one of my cards that was close to the limit, I'd pay the minimum payment, only to watch as the interest put me OVER my limit. And you can bet they leaped at the chance to charge me an over limit fee. Seems to me a "minimum" payment should take that into account.

Then there were the endless phone calls asking me if I wanted to sign up for this program or that. "Only $39.99 a month and you can get great rewards!" or "Protect your credit for only $45 a year!" And I would always tell them, "You obviously have my account information. You can obviously see what my balance is. Now what in the world makes you think I am willing or even ABLE to put MORE charges on this thing?" Prime ass-hattery.
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
What fucking difference does it make how much debt he incurred, if he's making his payments on time in good faith?
In my opinion, credit spending is a serious problem in this country and consumers need to be better prepared to deal with consequences of getting instant gratification through a vehicle which is basically a high interest loan. I never gave MBNA a pass, but the whole problem could have been avoided if this guy didn't run such a high balance. Again, I might be jumping to a conclusion and he might have had to spend that much for an emergency reason. But until I know more, it is another case of overspending
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
He's angry at a corporation, not a person. I don't get what you're trying to say.
No, but you have a problem that I have a nanny. Tell me, o wise one, what is wrong with leaving children with someone to take care of them while their parents toil away at work?
post #22 of 53
There's nothing wrong with it - good for you. I don't know why you percieve that I would give a shit. I just always find it funny because you try and paint yourself as the typical middle-class person.
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
In my opinion, credit spending is a serious problem in this country and consumers need to be better prepared to deal with consequences of getting instant gratification through a vehicle which is basically a high interest loan.
Just for the record, I agree 100% about credit spending.
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
In my opinion, credit spending is a serious problem in this country and consumers need to be better prepared to deal with consequences of getting instant gratification through a vehicle which is basically a high interest loan. I never gave MBNA a pass, but the whole problem could have been avoided if this guy didn't run such a high balance. Again, I might be jumping to a conclusion and he might have had to spend that much for an emergency reason. But until I know more, it is another case of overspending
That is a problem for another thread. Did the guy overspend - no doubt. Does that mean the credit companies should have the right to stick it in and break it off - no.
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
There's nothing wrong with it - good for you. I don't know why you percieve that I would give a shit. I just always find it funny because you try and paint yourself as the typical middle-class person.
I would perceive you give a shit because you bring it up on about every reply to my post. No, I realize that I have it pretty good. There are a lot who have worse and many who have better. But now we are veering off of credit card debt, so let that continue...
post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Did the guy overspend - no doubt. Does that mean the credit companies should have the right to stick it in and break it off - no.
The fact that his debt is so high and combined with his age and impending retirement, which may mean less income, his risk level has probably increased. With increased risk, the higher the interest rate charged and this guy is high risk. There are probably many people in the same situation that have totally defaulted on their balances. Yes, moving the rate from 9% to 18% is harsh, but I think MBNA is in it's rights to move his rate up, now matter how timely his payments. If he didn't overspend, he would never be in the situation.
post #27 of 53
You know you're killing your first arguement here.
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
You know you're killing your first arguement here.
I said the rate increase was harsh, not illegal or a "moral blight." Bottom line, if you don't have it, don't spend it. That way you cannot complain when a credit card jacks up your rate. My arguement is for personal repsonsibility, which stands.
post #29 of 53
Your arguement was that he should have been taking all those great credit offers that were filling up his mailbox. Though now you say he was probably 'high risk', meaning there weren't any such offers.

Again, you preach personal responsibility, but don't think a corporation should have any. It's a typical Republican response. It's already been said that they guy overspent, but that's what he did & he was paying the price. According to you, poor spending habits entitles the company to force endendtured servatude on debtors.
post #30 of 53
Also, it's pretty fantastic that the people who have the most trouble paying their debt have to also pay the most. "Oh, you can't pay this off fast enough? Well, let's see how doubling your interest rates will help"
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Your arguement was that he should have been taking all those great credit offers that were filling up his mailbox. Though now you say he was probably 'high risk', meaning there weren't any such offers.
He was high risk to MBNA. I make no other assumptions concerning what other companies would consider him. He obviously has a high credit limit, which could mean he is pulling in some big money, some company may take a chance at a lower rate.

Quote:
Again, you preach personal responsibility, but don't think a corporation should have any. It's a typical Republican response. It's already been said that they guy overspent, but that's what he did & he was paying the price. According to you, poor spending habits entitles the company to force endendtured servatude on debtors.
Yet another bad assumption - I am not a Republican. A corporation is not a person, so how can it have personal responsibility? A corporation's first responsibilty is return to shareholders and MBNA is allowed to charge enourmous rates in order to hedge the risk of default. How is MBNA taking his land and making him work for them? At worst, he can claim bankruptcy or have some of his stuff reposessed.
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Also, it's pretty fantastic that the people who have the most trouble paying their debt have to also pay the most. "Oh, you can't pay this off fast enough? Well, let's see how doubling your interest rates will help"
No, it's not. Companies that take greater risks do so for greater return. Simple eco principle.
post #33 of 53
You're right, it's not fantastic at all. I'm glad you felt my sarcasm.
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
Yet another bad assumption - I am not a Republican. A corporation is not a person, so how can it have personal responsibility? A corporation's first responsibilty is return to shareholders and MBNA is allowed to charge enourmous rates in order to hedge the risk of default. How is MBNA taking his land and making him work for them? At worst, he can claim bankruptcy or have some of his stuff reposessed.
Of course you're not - you just agree with them and vote for them. It's all summed up in that post - a corporation's ONLY responsibility is making money. Congratulations on being a compassionate conservative (i.e. a capitalism trumps anything and everything and profit is always the highest goal no matter who it fucks over conservative).
post #35 of 53
Credit Card companies are stupid, this man will be forced to file bankruptcy, in which case the card company gets jack and shit.

Fuck em when they pull that shit.
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Of course you're not - you just agree with them and vote for them. It's all summed up in that post - a corporation's ONLY responsibility is making money. Congratulations on being a compassionate conservative (i.e. a capitalism trumps anything and everything and profit is always the highest goal no matter who it fucks over conservative).
More bad assumptions. Find one post of mine gloating over Bush's victory. Bottom line, I might have voted for him, but I am not happy with the constituency that really voted him in or some of the Republicans that took seats in the Senate races. The corportation's FIRST not only responsibility is to make money. Say this guy and others like him defaults on his card debt, leaving MBNA holding the bag for billions of unpaid debt. Say this affects MBNA enough that they go bankrupt and then go to the government to bail them out. That's what I want to avoid - government bail out that cost the rest of us, who can control our consumption, more. You worry about the minority, I'll worry about the greater good.
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
Yes, moving the rate from 9% to 18% is harsh, but I think MBNA is in it's rights to move his rate up, now matter how timely his payments.
They are in their rights here because they don't explain their policies to their customers, and bury these terms (we can change your interest rate at any time) in small fineprint that they very well know customers don't read.

BTW, the government is within it's rights to regulate the heck out of them for pulling these stunts, which is what is probably going to happen ...
post #38 of 53
The greater good means gauging consumers? How is that possible? Not to mention, if you are worried about someone not paying the debt, it's not good business to make them pay more, as Xtain mentioned, forcing them into bankrupcy and government bailout. So, you actually are trying to get the government to pay for this.

My assumptions aren't assumptions, btw.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
More bad assumptions. Find one post of mine gloating over Bush's victory. Bottom line, I might have voted for him, but I am not happy with the constituency that really voted him in or some of the Republicans that took seats in the Senate races. The corportation's FIRST not only responsibility is to make money. Say this guy and others like him defaults on his card debt, leaving MBNA holding the bag for billions of unpaid debt. Say this affects MBNA enough that they go bankrupt and then go to the government to bail them out. That's what I want to avoid - government bail out that cost the rest of us, who can control our consumption, more. You worry about the minority, I'll worry about the greater good.
That's bullshit. Complete bullshit.

If the company didn't jack up the rates in the first place, this situation wouldn't occur and they wouldn't need the government to bail them out. This is just another example of a big business not taking responsibility for their actions and putting the sole blame on people that can't pay their bills because said company doubled the person's monthly payment. In your scenerio the company was already making huge money and got even more greedy by increasing the rates. It's a win/win situation for the company. They hike the rates and get the money from the customer that's at their mercy, or the customer can't pay the bill and the company runs off to the government and cries to get bailed out. The company doesn't have to take a loss because they get their money either way. If the company would play fair to begin with, we wouldn't have this situation. Your greater good argument is completely wrong.

Is 70k of credit debt out of control? Maybe. You don't know what the guy's income is. 70k for this guy might be like 10k for me. The article doesn't say that he couldn't pay it. That's not the point at all, though. The point is that we're at the mercy of the company, and they're not playing fair.
post #40 of 53
theroyle, I can pretty much understand (if I don't agree with) most of what you've posted in this thread, except for this part below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
The corportation's FIRST not only responsibility is to make money.
Its a slippery slope excuse for some atrocious behavior.
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key Chung
Its a slippery slope excuse for some atrocious behavior.
It's not an exuse. Corporations are formed because people want to make money. How they go about doing that is a another ball of wax. I wouldn't call jacking up an interest rate atrocious when compared to Enron or Worldcom.
post #42 of 53
If MBNA is truely worried about them defaulting should try to get as much as soon as you can.
The article states his payment went up like 40%, upholding this theory.
Also, if the company has to write off some of the balance but collected enough prior to his actual entering of default status it would be considered acceptable.
Loan loss reserves and charge offs are part of the business.
If a credit check or other check indicated his ability to repay had changed they needed to adjust accordingly.
Is it right? not really, but nobody forced him to borrow money.
Then credit card industry is fundementaly set up to the detriment of the consumer.
IF you want to play you accept the consequences.

If anything there should be more effort put into something like a gamblers hotline for credit junkies.
post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomstick
Is 70k of credit debt out of control? Maybe. You don't know what the guy's income is. 70k for this guy might be like 10k for me. The article doesn't say that he couldn't pay it. That's not the point at all, though. The point is that we're at the mercy of the company, and they're not playing fair.
If it's not out of control he could roll it over to another lender and there is no problem(well $200 loan fee).
If that is the case MBNA would lose all it's customers that are able to pay and go out of business.
If it is out of control that is why MBNA needs to adjust his rates to reflect the new risk.

If you can't pay don't borrow.
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
The greater good means gauging consumers? How is that possible? .
The greater good is those of us who can control their spending habits. The minority is those who can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Not to mention, if you are worried about someone not paying the debt, it's not good business to make them pay more, as Xtain mentioned, forcing them into bankrupcy and government bailout. So, you actually are trying to get the government to pay for this..
It is good business to make them pay more because the higher interest they pay could cover most of the principal in case of default. At worst they go bankrupt. I don't like the idea of a government bailout, but at least it would pretty much stop reckless spending by the bankrupt indiviual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
My assumptions aren't assumptions, btw.
They sure are. Voting Bush for president was the first time, ever, I voted republican. I have voted in the 92 and 96 elections. I would have voted down any state ban of gay marriage had my state had a vote.
post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDan242
If MBNA is truely worried about them defaulting should try to get as much as soon as you can.
The article states his payment went up like 40%, upholding this theory.
Also, if the company has to write off some of the balance but collected enough prior to his actual entering of default status it would be considered acceptable.
Loan loss reserves and charge offs are part of the business.
If a credit check or other check indicated his ability to repay had changed they needed to adjust accordingly.
Is it right? not really, but nobody forced him to borrow money.
Then credit card industry is fundementaly set up to the detriment of the consumer.
IF you want to play you accept the consequences.

If anything there should be more effort put into something like a gamblers hotline for credit junkies.
Well said.
post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
It's not an exuse. Corporations are formed because people want to make money. How they go about doing that is a another ball of wax. I wouldn't call jacking up an interest rate atrocious when compared to Enron or Worldcom.
Not all corporations are formed to make money.

And I wouldn't jump to any conclusions wrt the particular action of jacking up interest rates. But in general, I don't like credit card companies and nothing more about this story would surprise me. That's why I want to have as little to do with them as possible.
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Key Chung
And I wouldn't jump to any conclusions wrt the particular action of jacking up interest rates. But in general, I don't like credit card companies and nothing more about this story would surprise me. That's why I want to have as little to do with them as possible.
You won't get any arguement from me there.
post #48 of 53
This economy relys on the middle-class credit debt. If everyone in the middle-class started behaving sensibly and not spending money they didn't have, I think companies would be folding left and right like an origami competition. Higher interest rates benefit no one, except the credit card companies. It certainly doesn't benefit companies with actual product, because no one will buy their stuff if people can't afford the payments.

It's nice to talk about fiscal responsibility when our government seems to have forgotten all about it. Believe it or not, people follow by example. When our president tells us to spend after 9/11, he certainly didn't mention the part where we get fucked later.

I agree, people should live within their means. A $70000 debt didn't just happen. If he missed payments, yeah, I could understand the bite they took. But according to him he didn't, and that's just wrong.
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
The greater good is those of us who can control their spending habits. The minority is those who can't.
You keep bringing it up, but IT DOESN'T MATTER. The fact he was stupid in his spending doesn't have a thing to do with this. He was paying it back, making the payments every month and doing everything he could to fix his error. Then, they fuck him just because they can & you're all for it, only because he's not as frugal as you (which is what this is all about - you). Hey, if they're going to make such a horrible error as to spend too much money, it's completely right that a company that's already making a shitload of money off of him screw him over even more!

He didn't rob a bank or rape anyone, but you think stupidity in spending makes it okay to punish someone for life. Leave your morals at the door people, cause all that matters is $$$$$ in this great ole US of A. Doing the right thing is ALWAYS second to making money.

And as Nordling said, it's pretty funny that someone who claims to be so much into responsibility (fiscal and otherwise) voted for Bush, a man who wouldn't accept responsibility if he were caught in the act and spends enough money to make sure our great-great-great grandchildren are going to be paying it off. But, you'll be dead, so what do you care?

EDIT: Also, I don't understand what that quote is saying - The greater good is those of us who control our spending habits? That doesn't make sense. People who live beyond their means are no longer part of the greater good? Fiscal irresponsibility is immoral?
post #50 of 53
Also this is MBNA we are talking about.
The only ethics MBNA knows is the gray barely legal kind.

But I guess that would require a little research prior to getting involved in a business transaction.
Can't expect that from people.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Rising credit card interest rates: a moral blight