Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2/1/2006 3:46:53 PM EDT
I personally don't like them. I really hate their whole little sham of over looking creditors selling debt accounts to each other, and the new account owner gets additionaly charges put against your credit score. Plus the whole assinine formula for determining credit score. If one were independently wealthy and had no CC or no loans for say ten years, they would have a horrible score!

These things encourage people to live in debt!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:49:22 PM EDT
Then there would be no need for them to buy on credit. They will have the cash to make a purchase without needing a loan. I am guessing your credit is pretty bad.........
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:51:13 PM EDT
they shouldn't be made illegal, but you should be able to completly opt out of them and also have your credit 'locked' for free.

Only like 9 states offer some sort of credit locking protection, and some of them require you to pay for it. Considering your life and credit can be screwed up by identity theft without you doing anything, the credit agencies should be required at least to offer some kind of opt out or locking service.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:54:32 PM EDT
Whassamatta, get turned down for a loan?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:55:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Then there would be no need for them to buy on credit. They will have the cash to make a purchase without needing a loan. I am guessing your credit is pretty bad.........



No my credit is pretty decent, I have a lower score simply because I don't have much of a credit history (good or bad). I have some school loans that are deferred and everything else I pay cash for the most part.

I realize if one can pay cash then it will not matter to them, but I was using it as an example of how skewed their measuring metric is.

They are looking to measure credit risk, no? Why then is someone that has demonstrated no high risk behavior (as in virtually no credit history ie demonstrating financial responsibility) rated lower than someone who demonstrates poor financial responsibility (constantly in debt) and possibly strikes against them for being late It makes no sense to me.

I understand the concept of desiring a measure of risk, but the industry standard frankly sucks.

I'm passingly curious since my major is insurance and risk management before law school.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 4:11:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
They are looking to measure credit risk, no? Why then is someone that has demonstrated no high risk behavior (as in virtually no credit history ie demonstrating financial responsibility) rated lower than someone who demonstrates poor financial responsibility (constantly in debt) and possibly strikes against them for being late It makes no sense to me.



I don't know shit from shinola on this topic, but credit card companies make a ton of money from interest. They don't mind taking on someone who has shown less than stellar financial responsibility.

Example: I get offers around the first of the year from my CC company to postpone my payment by one month for a $25 fee. They are encouraging me to get into debt to make some interest $$$.

They still make money off me because the merchants have to pay 3% off the top, but they make no money from me otherwise. I don't like using credit cards, but they are sooooo convenient. But I never carry a balance.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 4:14:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 4:18:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
If your choice was another 10% interest on top of your 18% would you still vote that way? There are tons and tons (and tons) of idiots who run their credit because they are given it. The arguement that the CC companies are giving it to me might fly on the DU but not here where most claim that personal responsibility is important.



No one is arguing to give people less credit. If anything a lack of credit reporting would mean anyone could get credit. But using it as a metric of gauging risk, credit scores suck.

Yes they could get their interest payments, but it the fool with the high account balance never pays off anything then CC companies still loose money.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 4:23:31 PM EDT
I don't like credit scores for one reason. Way way too many things are reflected in your credit score. Places that dick you over can give you a negative score if you refuse to reconsile in their favor. It is too difficult to reconsile your credit if you had your Identity stolen (it's a PITA). If you go and shop for things that requre a credit check, they ding your score (BS). Also, and I think this is a bigger problem, CC companies are worse than the credit score people. I hate them. They charge outrageous interest (have gotten offers for 30%........sheesh.....declined BTW). Also, the latest ruling that says that people can't declare bankruptsy (not spelled right...for you spelling whores out there) and ditch their CC payments, even though they are basically accepting a shitty credit score and having to sell off all of their stuff to justify not being able to pay their loans. I'm sorry, both parties are to blame (the CC company, and the user), but the CC companies have way more clout than the individual user, and therefore the user gets the shaft.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 4:35:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fla556guy:
I don't like credit scores for one reason. Way way too many things are reflected in your credit score. Places that dick you over can give you a negative score if you refuse to reconsile in their favor. It is too difficult to reconsile your credit if you had your Identity stolen (it's a PITA). If you go and shop for things that requre a credit check, they ding your score (BS). Also, and I think this is a bigger problem, CC companies are worse than the credit score people. I hate them. They charge outrageous interest (have gotten offers for 30%........sheesh.....declined BTW). Also, the latest ruling that says that people can't declare bankruptsy (not spelled right...for you spelling whores out there) and ditch their CC payments, even though they are basically accepting a shitty credit score and having to sell off all of their stuff to justify not being able to pay their loans. I'm sorry, both parties are to blame (the CC company, and the user), but the CC companies have way more clout than the individual user, and therefore the user gets the shaft.



The Credit Card Companies have no blame. No one is forcing you to get a credit card and max it out. Hopefully the new law regarding bankruptcies will help the collectors get the money that they are owed so that those of us who are responsible with the credit card will get better benefits.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:19:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 10:37:15 PM EDT by Kent]

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
The Credit Card Companies have no blame. No one is forcing you to get a credit card and max it out.



The CC companies are EVERY BIT as much to blame as their defaulting clients.

You're right -- no one is forcing those people to max out their cards, but, in the same manner, NO ONE is forcing the CC companies to give lines of credit to those same people either. Those companies can choose who they think is a good risk.

If they choose to give a Mastercard to every goofball that has a pulse and a 313 credit score, then those companies *should* lose some money when, *surprise!*, that guy doesn't pay up. THEY chose to risk the extension of credit (with the possible reward of earning a staggering 27.99% interest on their money), so THEY should accept the loss when the risk comes back to bite them. If you are in the business of extending credit to HIGH-RISK individuals, then it's your own damn fault when you lose your money.

The new bankruptcy laws are 100% for the benefit of the CC companies, and since it only REDUCES the risk of the CC company, and removes protections formerly afforded to the consumer, you will see that, going forward, the CC's will just be able to be even MORE careless regarding to whom they extend credit.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:25:41 PM EDT
Nothing brings out the closet Socialists and Liberals like a Credit Card thread.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:36:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By fla556guy:
I don't like credit scores for one reason. Way way too many things are reflected in your credit score. Places that dick you over can give you a negative score if you refuse to reconsile in their favor. It is too difficult to reconsile your credit if you had your Identity stolen (it's a PITA). If you go and shop for things that requre a credit check, they ding your score (BS). Also, and I think this is a bigger problem, CC companies are worse than the credit score people. I hate them. They charge outrageous interest (have gotten offers for 30%........sheesh.....declined BTW). Also, the latest ruling that says that people can't declare bankruptsy (not spelled right...for you spelling whores out there) and ditch their CC payments, even though they are basically accepting a shitty credit score and having to sell off all of their stuff to justify not being able to pay their loans. I'm sorry, both parties are to blame (the CC company, and the user), but the CC companies have way more clout than the individual user, and therefore the user gets the shaft.



The Credit Card Companies have no blame. No one is forcing you to get a credit card and max it out. Hopefully the new law regarding bankruptcies will help the collectors get the money that they are owed so that those of us who are responsible with the credit card will get better benefits.




ha hahhaa, hahahaha, hahahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH­AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, sure that's going to happen. The CC companies are going to reduce their rates. No, see the way it works is they charge the higher risk customers, higher rates. The low risk customers already get lower rates.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:45:10 PM EDT
I wouldn't say that credit reporting agencies should be illegal...

But i'll be damned if the credit system nowadays doesn't suck. Creditors rely waaaaaaay too much on that damned score.

My parents made lots of dumbass decisions when they were younger, and hence had crappy credit scores until recently. So they were no good for helping me to establish credit.

I ended up finally having to 'buy' credit through secured credit cards and other nonsense. It amazes me. Having no credit score is actually worse for you than having a bad one. No one will give you any credit unless you've had credit before... But no one will give you credit.

Oh well. I have credit now, and am making the right choices, so it's no skin off my nose these days. But damn if it isn't getting difficult these days to get started.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:48:07 PM EDT
I can't believe no one has mentioned the real problem with the big three. They have no interest in maintaining correct information. Ever try to get misinformation fixed? They just don't give a damn.

The one time I have ever tried to borrow, I was turned down. TRW had me listed as single. I've been married for over 50 years. All three had my first name misspelled. Everyone misspells my first name, but I thought they would have gotten it right. My address was wrong on all three, and I've lived at the same address since I moved-out of my parents house in 1948. The only credit card I've ever had didn't show-up on the report since at that point Bank of America had never sent information to one of the agencies to get it listed. I tried to get the misinformation corrected, but since they trade information the incorrect information kept replacing the correct information. I finally gave-up. I hope I never have an emergency that requires me to borrow money, because I doubt I'll be approved even though I've paid every bill in my entire life on time and in full.

An easy fix to the system would be to make the credit reporting agencies liable for the misinformation they intentionally publish. Then they would have an incentive to start correcting information.z
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:49:13 PM EDT
I don't have a credit history, so this stuff is going to be a bitch when the time comes for me No reason why it should have to be that way. I think once a person gets a credit card, they should be started out at a particular score (not zero) and their behavior with the card should affect if that score goes up/down. They shouldn't use this stuff to keep first-time buyers from getting loans and buying stuff. What are you going to do if you're 21, just got your first credit card and suddenly have to buy a new car because your current one crapped out, but you're denied a loan because you're a FNG to the credit game ?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:58:59 PM EDT

What are you going to do if you're 21, just got your first credit card and suddenly have to buy a new car because your current one crapped out, but you're denied a loan because you're a FNG to the credit game ?

I've been with six relatives and the children of two friends that bought their first car without credit or a cosigner. All of them had just graduated college, and the GM, Toyota, and Mitsubishi dealers all had special deals for them. In the case of Mitsubishi, recent college grads got the same rate as the people with the best credit. The one catch was that the minimum loan period was longer than they usually wanted since the bank wanted to keep the payments as low as possible. Don't just assume that since you have no credit you'll have trouble buying a car. If you have a pulse, you can pretty much be approved for any reasonable new car loan. Times have really changed.z
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:14:14 PM EDT
It's not just financial aspects that are affected by your credit. Employers will sometimes check an applicants credit. My husband almost missed out on a job because of an error on a credit report. That was the only reason the employer wasn't going to hire him. I was able to fix it, but it took six weeks. Thankfully he was still able to get the job.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:19:57 PM EDT
I have excellent credit - yet I'm completely against the manner in which the credit reporting agencies and the debt agencies operate.

If you don't hate the system, you haven't had to deal with it.

I'm all for personal reponsibility and wise financial choices, but people who have immaculate financial status but little credit history have a horrible rating, while a new homeowner let's say, with alot of credit card debt will rate tops if he's making his payments on time. Who's the bigger risk?

I also hate how easy mistakes can cripple your score. I lost 100 points right at my home closing because of an error on my report (same guy's name, same city, but an account at a bank I don't even hold), and could not reconcile it quickly or easily enough to avoid a great deal of cost to myself. That's bullshit, and when they're wrong and you lose money - who is accountable? Not them.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:21:50 PM EDT
Here's the problem I have. I've been self employed since I was 19, paid cash for every vehical I ever bought. Never got a credit card as I didn't see the point. At 25 I was looking to buy a house.....declined everywhere I went. Make good money, have bank statements and tax forms going back 6 yrs and it's still not enough.

Not a single bad mark on my credit. Declined simply for "Lack of credit history". I didn't even have a damn credit score

Only solution to my problem? Started getting cradit cards I don't need and buying shit I would normally pay cash for. Got a couple small loans from my bank for shit I didn't really need. Now 3 years later I have a credit score of around 670 the last time I checked. Will probably finaly be buying a home this summer.

The system is fucked.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:37:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Martin3:
The system is fucked.



You're confused. Read all the responses above. It's your own fault for not paying cash for the house.....and no one forced you to take out those credit cards.

The system is flawless, says the peanut gallery.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:58:33 PM EDT
My gripe with the credit score bullshit is the "other uses".

I don't owe anybody. My home is paid for. So are my cars. I use my debit card, and live within my means.

But I get punished for that. My insurance company insists that my credit scores are low, so they need to charge me a higher rate. I am not borrowing from them - in fact I pay the entire year's premium up front.

Currently we have several private companies that provide this "service", with databases full of horseshit. The last time I checked my credit report from Experian, they had me owning a home in a state I have never set foot in. I wrote them several letters, before it got resolved.


I never favor government intervention, but we need to do something. Centralize the records? A Public Credit Comission (like the PUC)? I don't have the answers, but I sure don't like the current form either.

It goddamn well should not be a determining factor in the price of goods or services you purchase outright.


Lem
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:03:26 AM EDT
A few changes could make it a lot better, imo.

First, require notification on any new account being placed into the report (loan/collection/etc).
Second, if a company reports any information, it must report ALL information--no more 'we only report bad folks' companies (though debt collectors would still be pretty much all bad).
Next, the scoring formula used to calculate any score a reporting agency gives out should be delivered to anyone denied credit.
Last, if a person reports potential fraudulent activity, an immediate freeze for 14 days should be placed into effect (and noted if the report is pulled). To continue beyond that point a written request would have to be submitted.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:04:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Martin3:
Here's the problem I have. I've been self employed since I was 19, paid cash for every vehical I ever bought. Never got a credit card as I didn't see the point. At 25 I was looking to buy a house.....declined everywhere I went. Make good money, have bank statements and tax forms going back 6 yrs and it's still not enough.



Try FHA. They do alternate credit history stuff.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:33:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 12:34:03 AM EDT by Badseed]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Whassamatta, get turned down for a loan?





"Jerk", comes to mind.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 12:54:58 AM EDT
Many good responses.


If one were independently wealthy and had no CC or no loans for say ten years, they would have a horrible score!



and by Martin3


Here's the problem I have. I've been self employed since I was 19, paid cash for every vehical I ever bought. Never got a credit card as I didn't see the point. At 25 I was looking to buy a house.....declined everywhere I went. Make good money, have bank statements and tax forms going back 6 yrs and it's still not enough.


I was in virtually the identical situation that Martin was in.

Years ago, self employed, young with zero credit. Had assets that were quite substantial. Attempted to purchase a vacation house via a mortgage. The dumbasses could see that we had enough cash reserves to buy the nearly 200k property outright, plus our primary house free and clear, plus all of the equipment.

We could NOT get a mortgage simply due to a "no credit history" position.

We ended up paying cash for the vacation house, and promptly thereafter purchasing vehicles on credit and utilizing several credit cards.

Now, nearly 20 years later, everything is hunky dory. We have an extremely high credit score, but it has cost us many thousands in interest payments for various trinkets that we otherwise would have paid cash for.

On a side note, one of our businesses involves rental properties. We check the credit score of every prospective tennant. When a tennant's report comes in with no paper trail, even I question the validity of said prospective.

Freakin hypocrite am I.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 4:32:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kent:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
The Credit Card Companies have no blame. No one is forcing you to get a credit card and max it out.



The CC companies are EVERY BIT as much to blame as their defaulting clients.

You're right -- no one is forcing those people to max out their cards, but, in the same manner, NO ONE is forcing the CC companies to give lines of credit to those same people either. Those companies can choose who they think is a good risk.

If they choose to give a Mastercard to every goofball that has a pulse and a 313 credit score, then those companies *should* lose some money when, *surprise!*, that guy doesn't pay up. THEY chose to risk the extension of credit (with the possible reward of earning a staggering 27.99% interest on their money), so THEY should accept the loss when the risk comes back to bite them. If you are in the business of extending credit to HIGH-RISK individuals, then it's your own damn fault when you lose your money.

The new bankruptcy laws are 100% for the benefit of the CC companies, and since it only REDUCES the risk of the CC company, and removes protections formerly afforded to the consumer, you will see that, going forward, the CC's will just be able to be even MORE careless regarding to whom they extend credit.



You have got to be kidding. Ever heard of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 4:56:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kent:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
The Credit Card Companies have no blame. No one is forcing you to get a credit card and max it out.



The CC companies are EVERY BIT as much to blame as their defaulting clients.

You're right -- no one is forcing those people to max out their cards, but, in the same manner, NO ONE is forcing the CC companies to give lines of credit to those same people either. Those companies can choose who they think is a good risk.

If they choose to give a Mastercard to every goofball that has a pulse and a 313 credit score, then those companies *should* lose some money when, *surprise!*, that guy doesn't pay up. THEY chose to risk the extension of credit (with the possible reward of earning a staggering 27.99% interest on their money), so THEY should accept the loss when the risk comes back to bite them. If you are in the business of extending credit to HIGH-RISK individuals, then it's your own damn fault when you lose your money.

The new bankruptcy laws are 100% for the benefit of the CC companies, and since it only REDUCES the risk of the CC company, and removes protections formerly afforded to the consumer, you will see that, going forward, the CC's will just be able to be even MORE careless regarding to whom they extend credit.

When you get a credit card there is a bunch of terms such as intrest payment, late fees, ect. You enter an agreement with the credit card business. This agreement isn't cooerced. The credit card company issues credit cards not with the hope that they can help you buy needed items or pay for a vacation. They are in business to make money. Gasp! By getting a credit card, the company agrees to loan you the money if you pay them the amount back + intrest. If some moron doens't follow those simple terms it is their fault and they then get to learn the hard lesson of personal responsiblity. The sooner people learn that they are in their particular situation through their own personal choices and bad decisions, the sooner this country will get back on the right track. The culture of "It isn't my fault that I am broke" is sending the country to the gutter.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 4:57:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 5:03:54 AM EDT by uglygun]

Originally Posted By swingset:
I have excellent credit - yet I'm completely against the manner in which the credit reporting agencies and the debt agencies operate.

If you don't hate the system, you haven't had to deal with it.

I'm all for personal reponsibility and wise financial choices, but people who have immaculate financial status but little credit history have a horrible rating, while a new homeowner let's say, with alot of credit card debt will rate tops if he's making his payments on time. Who's the bigger risk?

I also hate how easy mistakes can cripple your score. I lost 100 points right at my home closing because of an error on my report (same guy's name, same city, but an account at a bank I don't even hold), and could not reconcile it quickly or easily enough to avoid a great deal of cost to myself. That's bullshit, and when they're wrong and you lose money - who is accountable? Not them.



Your post was the first that I have read that illustrates my problem with things.

Before the market for homes nearly doubled in my area, I was looking to get a home. With my credit history I had a strong mid to high 700s score. Had some high balances but the bank was still willing to give me a large loan, larger than I was ever expecting.

My situation at the time was such that I was definitely at higher risk of defaulting in some way should something unexpected happen, lose my job or get in an accident effecting my ability to work.

Is it a risk to the bank giving me the home loan? Naw, they get the interest and principle that I'd been paying on, PLUS they could take the house back and have it as an asset in a booming market. The bank would be stupid NOT to want to grant a loan to me, they are probably hoping and preying(yes I meant to use an E) on it.

The concept of having to use credit inorder to improve your stupid credit rating is rediculous. It's ludicrous that one of the recommendations I have seen for people trying to buy a home is that those people try to follow a formula to boost their credit rating through careful use of their cards.


Then there's the whole credit card company bullshit where every 6 months I have to call them up to tell them to stop fucking raising my credit line because I seriously DO NOT need a 15k dollar credit limit on a single card.

And the concept of closing lines of credit, say having 4 credit cards and trying to get it down to only 1 or 2 good cards, that can negatively impact your score by closing those lines of credit even though you do it in good standing with the company.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 4:59:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
I'm all for personal reponsibility and wise financial choices, but people who have immaculate financial status but little credit history have a horrible rating, while a new homeowner let's say, with alot of credit card debt will rate tops if he's making his payments on time. Who's the bigger risk?



That example is not an accurate depiction, though. What a lender sees is person A has zero history, they know nothing about him. He could be a millionare who never had a credit card. He could be an illegal immigrant who will skip country when the debt collectors come by. He could be a fake ID used for fraud. Person B has a house and a car that could be repossesed if the borrower defaults. Who is the bigger risk?
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 5:12:22 AM EDT
The entire concept of the CRAs is wacked. I own 4 cars free and clear, have no credit cards, and only a few student loans. I am applying for a mortgage and have been shot down by several lenders because I did not have “enough” of a credit score. One lender told me if I wanted to get a loan “go buy a new car and get a couple credit cards, charge a few grand on each of them and pay there minimum charges for 6 months, that will boost your score up!”. So having an extra 25 to 30 thousand dollars of debt is going to make me better able to pay a mortgage. The entire concept, as I see it, is to force you to take on such a massive amount of debt that you will have a hard time ever repaying it and promote a deficit lifestyle.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 5:35:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:
Nothing brings out the closet Socialists and Liberals like any thread on AR15.Com a Credit Card thread.

Link Posted: 2/2/2006 5:46:01 AM EDT
Credit reports are much more important than just a score in making credit decisions. It will show your payment history, how much credit you have avilable and how much you are required to pay monthly on debt, if you have any judgements, bankruptcys, tax liens, very important on making a credit decision. Sure we could do away with them like 30-years ago, rates would be higher and there would be alot less credit available and it would be a slower process.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 6:03:00 AM EDT

I normally don't respond without reading the whole thread but,

I believe that the credit score is a pretty good thing for several reasons.

First people are starting to understand how important taking care of their credit is.

Second if you have a good score you can go anywhere and get credit not just a bank or business that knows you.
Hell I can go to NY, and buy whatever I want on credit, from a company or bank that has never heard of my ass. I think that is pretty good thing.

The problems are,

Some companies only report BAD things and not the good things. ( I think this is improving for banks but not companies like Doctors offices. They only report people who don't pay not the majority who do) That is wrong.

The system should be to set up that EVERYONE undrstands exactly what affects your score positively AND negatively. There is too much confusion rom the consumers and even the people reading the report.
It should be simplified.

JMHO
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 6:13:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kent:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
The Credit Card Companies have no blame. No one is forcing you to get a credit card and max it out.



The CC Gun companies are EVERY BIT as much to blame as their defaulting murdering clients.

You're right -- no one is forcing those people to max out their cardsbuy guns, but, in the same manner, NO ONE is forcing the CC Gun companies to give lines of credit sell guns to those same people either. Those companies can choose who they think is a good risk.

If they choose to give a Mastercard gun to every goofball that has a pulse and a 313 credit score, then those companies *should* lose some money when, *surprise!*, that guy doesn't pay up. THEY chose to risk the extension of credit (with the possible reward of earning a staggering 27.99% interest on their money), so THEY should accept the loss when the risk comes back to bite them. If you are in the business of extending credit to HIGH-RISK individuals, then it's your own damn fault when you lose your money.

The new bankruptcy laws are 100% for the benefit of the CC companies, and since it only REDUCES the risk of the CC company, and removes protections formerly afforded to the consumer, you will see that, going forward, the CC's will just be able to be even MORE careless regarding to whom they extend credit.



How do you feel about the little changes in red?????? Two totaly different items, but both require a PERSON to misuse them. Personal responsiblity is the end issue, or lack there of.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:04:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 11:09:08 AM EDT by GotGuns]
I don't like the new bankruptcy laws, and I hate the fact that anyone can get a line of credit. Regardless, that doesn't excuse people from not paying their debt. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

Anyways, back on topic. There is a very good reason for credit reporting agencies. It allows creditors to make a sound decision so that they aren't giving someone $200,000 dollars for a home when they work at McDonalds, owe $40,000 in auto loans and credit card bills, and haven't paid their bank for the 20 checks they bounced last week. Because of credit reporting, responsible people can be given credit with lower rates because irresponsible people aren't dragging the system down.

Sure, there are circumstances where the system doesn't work, but it is infinitely better than not having a system in place at all. Nothing works for everyone.

ETA credit scores are simply a risk analysis. If you don't have a credit history, they don't know if you are likely to pay your bills or not. Good faith does not exist when loaning out money anymore.
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 11:57:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 12:05:57 AM EDT by Kent]

Originally Posted By Wraith:

Originally Posted By Kent:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
The Credit Card Companies have no blame. No one is forcing you to get a credit card and max it out.



The CC Gun companies are EVERY BIT as much to blame as their defaulting murdering clients.

You're right -- no one is forcing those people to max out their cardsbuy guns, but, in the same manner, NO ONE is forcing the CC Gun companies to give lines of credit sell guns to those same people either. Those companies can choose who they think is a good risk.

If they choose to give a Mastercard gun to every goofball that has a pulse and a 313 credit score, then those companies *should* lose some money when, *surprise!*, that guy doesn't pay up. THEY chose to risk the extension of credit (with the possible reward of earning a staggering 27.99% interest on their money), so THEY should accept the loss when the risk comes back to bite them. If you are in the business of extending credit to HIGH-RISK individuals, then it's your own damn fault when you lose your money.

The new bankruptcy laws are 100% for the benefit of the CC companies, and since it only REDUCES the risk of the CC company, and removes protections formerly afforded to the consumer, you will see that, going forward, the CC's will just be able to be even MORE careless regarding to whom they extend credit.



How do you feel about the little changes in red?????? Two totaly different items, but both require a PERSON to misuse them. Personal responsiblity is the end issue, or lack there of.



I don't disagree at all with your stand on (lack of) personal responsibility being a core issue. I was trying to say that the CC's are EQUALLY at fault for offering credit to high risk people. Certainly, the people signing the agreements need to honor them, but don't you agree that the CC company *also* has at least *some* responsibility to reduce their losses by taking steps to determine who is credit-worthy before extending credit?

My biggest issue is not that the CC are trying to enforce legal contracts, but that they are petitioning the Govt to reduce consumer protections in an attempt to cover the CC companies' own lack of judgement.
(After re-reading my original post, I probably could have been more clear in that regard. Sorry about that...)
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:29:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:
I can't believe no one has mentioned the real problem with the big three. They have no interest in maintaining correct information. Ever try to get misinformation fixed? They just don't give a damn.

The one time I have ever tried to borrow, I was turned down. TRW had me listed as single. I've been married for over 50 years. All three had my first name misspelled. Everyone misspells my first name, but I thought they would have gotten it right. My address was wrong on all three, and I've lived at the same address since I moved-out of my parents house in 1948. The only credit card I've ever had didn't show-up on the report since at that point Bank of America had never sent information to one of the agencies to get it listed. I tried to get the misinformation corrected, but since they trade information the incorrect information kept replacing the correct information. I finally gave-up. I hope I never have an emergency that requires me to borrow money, because I doubt I'll be approved even though I've paid every bill in my entire life on time and in full.

An easy fix to the system would be to make the credit reporting agencies liable for the misinformation they intentionally publish. Then they would have an incentive to start correcting information.z




I have to agree here. When my family moved from our old home to the new one, things were fine. Then my brother moved out shortly after and MY mail started getting forwarded to HIS house. After over a dozen visits to the post office over several months to try and correct the problem, it was finally fixed (for the most part). Then I got my free once a year credit report. All three of the agencies had fucked up information regarding my address, the period of time I lived at each one, my brother's address was listed as mine, etc.

Any of you ever tried to fix a problem with the big three? Good fucking luck. I could barely get through to TransUnion but finally managed to speak to a human. Experian doesn't even allow you to speak to a human. Equifax doesn't seem to list a number to call for such issues. All three agencies have such a purposely and systematically complicated and difficult process to "correct discrepancies" that most people don't even bother. Much like how gun laws are so complex and confusing many people who otherwise would buy a gun drop the idea due to all the bullshit.

Now, every time I want to apply for a loan I have to take a copy of my current credit report with me and explain to them all the discrepancies.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:42:10 AM EDT
in other words,

"should my failure to pay debts be hidden from potential creditors?"

the answer is no.

(and my credit sucks. i'm just realistic about the morality of the thing.)
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:45:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:
An easy fix to the system would be to make the credit reporting agencies liable for the misinformation they intentionally publish. Then they would have an incentive to start correcting information.z



best statement in the thread. would only take a couple of lawsuits to demonstrate that the reporting agencies are not unassailable.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:00:56 AM EDT
I'm not big in favor of regulating them, but I would like to see regulations regarding who can transfer personal information without your explicit consent.

We need better privacy laws.
Top Top