Posted on 05/09/2019 11:05:26 AM PDT by Steve1999
Rates about that, lowers revenues. Too onerous. Taxpayers avoid paying or use loopholes.
Rates below that, diminishes revenues because they don't bring in enough taxes.
His Laffer Curve showed that the prime tax rate was 17% across the board.
ML/NJ
Control the price of everything, cuz stuff is like, too expensive, ya know?
There must have been some real dumb bunnies at AMEX. In 2011, I got an offer to piggy back a new Amex card to my AA rewards MC. I got 20K free miles with basically no strings attached and no yearly fees as long as I pay the yearly $50 MC fee.
“Sometimes there are expenses, medical, transportation, etc, that leave people little choice. They are called unforeseen emergencies.”
That’s what short-term savings are used for — which is different than long term savings of 10-20%. Little choice? We all have choices on how much to spend and save. Unfortunately some people refuse to save and live within their means.
Of course they will. And AOC and Bernie get to call them "racist", again. See how it works?
while 15% certainly looks like plenty of interest,
the simple fact is that banks wouldn’t be able to extend the credit to less people (that is, more folks wouldn’t be able to get credit cards)
I suspect that a lot of them would be Bernie/AOC voters, too?
The banks’ choice would be between less profit and no profit.
At the end of the day they’d grumble, but acquiesce.
Noooo.
The people paying 28% are funding my travel points.
More specifically, some delegates to the Constitutional Convention evidently had friends who owned banks and knew that their banking friends didn't want federal interference in how they ran their banks. So delegates decided that giving feds power to regulate banking was an unjustifiable means to exercising any of Congress’s peacetime Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
President James Madison later reluctantly signed bill to establish a temporary national bank. But it was arguably a Section 8 war-related, debt clauses-justified bank to help put country back together after War of 1812 (War Is Hell!).
Establishment
Federal Reserve unconstitutional too imo. The states probably would have given popular President Wilson a banking amendment to the Constitution if he had asked for one. I wouldn't be making this post if there was an express banking power clause in Section 8.
But Civil War southerner Wilson led Congress to establish feds without required constitutional consent of states imo.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Why not 10%?
What they don’t get is that if you cap it, it means those high risk people simply won’t qualify for cards.
It’s not a reduction of interest rates, as much as it is a ban on people who have high risk getting offered any credit at all.
As unsecured debt, the risk of default is exceptionally high.
High rates are the result.
Nobody makes you use a credit card, it’s a short term loan, and a privilege, not a right. The banks charge the same rates for other unsecured loans. What’s the difference?
We need to bring in the Mafaia to show us how to control the I-want-gimme complex.
Don’t laugh this one off. If you took a poll I bet this is going to garner wide majority support.
They’ll acquiesce but stop issuing credit cards to those people who are the higher risks of nonpayment default etc. This is mown or knowable to anybody in congress with an IQ above single digits. Answer : the sponsors do not give a damn about credit availability — they’ve got theirs and the bill will give them a few more PC political headlines
Ms. Economics Major with no Cortex ought to know that when you force a lower price on a credit product, less credit is extended. This is EXACTLY the same as mandating a higher minimum wage - the effect will be to harm those who are already in the most vulnerable position.
Bernie is just a senile, old Socialist, you expect this kind of crap coming out of his pie hole.
Perhaps this is a young crowd but there were caps on credit cards during (and probably before) the Jimmy Carter years. I recall the caps were on the order of 12% while money market funds were paying 17%. Free money for all.
What’s a credit card interest rate? Never met one.
“...while money market funds were paying 17%...”
I remember that. Having money in a money market was like having a well-paying part-time job.
I miss those days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.