Cash is king, baby.
I’ll go back to writing checks and paying cash for everything, rather than paying a fee to use a credit card. Like many here, I pay my cards in full every month. People like us who do that are NOT the problem, and like others, I will refuse to bail out those who cannot manage their finances.
Will lose mine for sure.
They’ll come up with something that makes you have to have a card to do anything and then charge you anyway..... Sigh
I fully expect this and will be shopping for a credit card company that treats it’s customers fairly. I would say I’m moving to cash only but that’s impossible in todays economy (what’s left of it).
|
If people that are paying their debts on time, every time stick with it, they will be considered wealthy and the wealthy are a danger to this administration. Now the media is starting to talk about $6.00/gal gas. When they start that, it is to get you use to hearing it. Wealth is dangerous because they can stand up to the admin.
Concerning gas.....small cars, as the admin is suggesting, use less gas. This means less profit for the gas companies and less state taxes. They aren’t going to like it so they will raise prices. We are going to get screwed even if we go to smaller cars.
Simple answer - if you can afford to pay off your bill every month, you can afford to go to cash only - just get a debit card for your checking account. The only ‘credit card’ we use to any extent is AmEx for the frequent flier miles. When they go away, we go away.
I’ve finally gotten to the point I can pay off my credit cards each month.
The advantage of using a credit card on major purchases is the extended warranty and right to redress through them.
If they start charging a fee I’m going back to the old fashioned way, checks.
End result will eventually = NO credit for anyone. Either pay with cash or barter with goods or go without.
I have two - and if they write to tell me my rates are going up then I’m canceling them ... I can use my debit card just like a credit card ... only thing that bothers me is my credit score may go down because I don’t have credit cards ...
LOL! Sure they will.
You see, every successful company in America attracts droves of loyal customers by screwing them over as much as possible.
Now let me get this straight: Banks pay depositors between 0% (on the float on no-interest checking) and say 4.5% APR (on CD’s) on deposits. They lend money to credit card holders when they make a purchase, and charge the merchant a fee between 2% and 8% of the purchase amount. Let’s assume a cost of 1% of the transaction in overhead for the electronic transfer of funds (probably realistic on really small purchases, unrealistically high on large). If the purchases are paid for within the grace period, the money is there to loan again the next month. The bank, therefore gets a return of between 12% and 84% just from merchant fees on accounts paid in full—and a rate of profit between 7.5% and 84%. If the borrower doesn’t pay the balance within the grace period, they charge anywhere form the prime (at which it is supposedly profitable to lend money to borrowers one is quite certain will repay the loan) plus a few points, up to interest rates around 37%.
None of this changes under the recent bill, and banks are telling us they can’t make a profit under those conditions without being able to retroactively impose interest rate hikes, define ‘default’ as a single late payment, and not use double cycle billing, without imposing annual fees or abolishing grace periods? Please!
What would they do if Congress imposed an actual anti-usury law and capped interest rates on all loans at, say, the larger of the average rate payed to depositors + 8% or the CPI + 12%? Unlike most of what is ‘justified’ by the interstate commerce clause, regulating interest rates and lending terms on loans make across state lines is most assuredly within Congress’s Constitutional powers.
Maybe it’s bad policy to regulate lending practices in this way, but the idea that banks ‘have to’ stick it to their good customers if the most radical (and arguably abusive) means they have of dealing with their bad customers are taken away is rubbish. As argued above, merchant fees alone suffice to make it profitable to have credit card customers who pay their balances in full, and if the bank is lending to so many customers who going into default that the non-defaulting balance carriers paying, say 19.5% don’t make relending depositors money profitable, then they deserve to fail for making bad business decisions and issuing cards to too many deadbeats.
From each acording to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx saw it coming a long, long time ago; Obama has made it our new reality.
They can't really do that, because the good customers will just stop using their cards - causing the banks an even bigger headache.
I am fairly sure that a Credit Card company will not force me to subsidize people who can not handle credit. If they try, I will simply cancel the card and pay with cash.
If only I could cancel my tax payments to the government, when the government does something that I do not agree with. I wish the Supreme Court would actually do their job and strike down spending bills that are unconstitutional. I won’t hold my breath though.
JoMa
Nothing more than current spin from a bunch of dirt bags. Competitive markets, the one that provides the most for the lowest amount gets the business. Time to restrict credit card company's to a five state geography market area.
I cut my credit cards up after watching Dave Ramsey.
If anyone decides to stop using certain cards altogether, instead of dropping them, ask them to reduce your credit line on the cards to a few hundred dollars.
If you start cancelling a number of cards, it will negatively affect your credit scores. If you reduce the limits, and then just keep them for emergencies, it will not. Just make sure that you know if you have to make at least one purchase a year on them too, because if you don’t, your credit score will get dinged.
It’s funny how many folks here agree that informing people of credit card providers intentions is a horrible thing. The applications are meaningless to most who sign. Most high school graduates cannot comprehend the lawyer language on the back of the forms, even if they can read it with the purposely poor contrasted type.
Is that their fault they sign? Well of course it is.. Does that mean it’s a good thing to deceive people of lesser means, personally I do not think so. The arguments here seem somewhat dishonest themselves. It kind of reminds me of the almost undecipherable phone bills we have all been receiving these last years.
Instead of threatening their good customers with higher prices and reduced benefits the credit card companies might consider hard work and an honest wage for their services.I wonder what their bonus structure is?
I am by no means anti free enterprise but, why is deceit and other trickery held to esteem?
bookmark