>>>>>>>We're subsidizing deadbeats in housing on the backs of the responsible, why should credit cards be any different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looked at another way the 'deadbeats' are subsidising you (and me): The credit card companies can only afford to give us free credit by gouging those who cannot pay in full with almost extortionate interest rates.
>>>>>
>>>>>The deadbeats get the same benefits provided by the CC company, no subsidization there.
>>>>But the 'deadbeats' don't get the same benefits - they are charged a higher interest rate. I understand the CCC's logic but it doesn't change the fact.
>>>>
>>>>>If it was only the every-month payors then I'd agree with the analogy.
>>>>If you pay in full then the interest rate it irrelevant. If it was 100% it wouldn't matter.
>>>>
>>>>>The new laws prevent CC companies from holding deadbeats to the Terms all cardholders already agreed to. They've forcibly changed the rules so now CC companies must react. Since they are to be limited on how they raise rates on the deadbeats, and must reset their rates 6 months following a minimum payment, the CCs now must find other ways to recoup those losses.
>>>>
>>>>If the debtor just walks away the company's loss is the same regardless of the interest rate. Unless you mean their loss of income based on the high rate they were able to charge.
>>>>
>>>>>>Why would it not be fairer if everyone who used a credit card was charged a reasonable lower rate of interest from the time the purchase was made?
>>>>>
>>>>>Wouldn't it be fairer to hold everyone accountable for their own actions, namely agreeing to the Terms and choosing to use the cards? Once again we're looking at big brother dictating to private business in the name of "fairness". Good grief!
>>>>
>>>>Hasn't the government always dictated, to a certain extent, the behaviour of the banking sector. Seems to me that, with de-regulation, the problem was that the didn't dictate enough.
>>>>
>>>>Who are these 'deadbeats' anyway - someone who's inadvertently got into debt? Someone who's not too bright? Someone who has not received an adequate education? IAC, it's obviously their own fault so they should stew in their own juice.......
>>>
>>>Sure. Average humans are morons who need in government control from cradle to grave. Correct?
>>Not average humans. Some humans. What would you do about/for them?
>>
>>>The only omission in this grand scheme of civilization is that government machine is pushed by humans (i.e. morons) and accordingly it doesn't work properly; i.e. if right people would be in charge then ...
>>
>>Jeez, I thought America was supposed to be a democracy!
>>
>>>Could you explain, btw, how is it possible (assuming your natural indignation about moron issue) to get in card debt inadvertently?
>>
>>You are, technically, in debt from the time you make a transaction on a credit card.
>
>It does not make me a victim, imo. In commonsense terms, debt means paying interest. No interest, means free loan.
>
>>Not many people these days buy their home for cash but go into debt on the assumption that they will be in work long enough to pay off the mortgage ( I know - this is regarded as a secured loan but the principle is, pretty much, the same)
>
>You don't pay attention. I said 'card debt', purposedly, i.e. I knew that mortgage will be brought in.
Fair enough. But the concepts are not entirely divorced.

>
>>But best laid plans of mouse and men (and morons) oft gang awry
>>
>>Do you really think that Banks should lend vastly inflated, unsecured, amounts to people who they know are high-risk. How does that make the Bank's less moronic than the recipients?
>
>I think it is Bank's business and, in case they are moronic, their business will go to Chapter 7/11. Novel concept?
No. Almost as many Banks have gone bust as the people they were trying to gouge.....