Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Phil Harris :: Townhall.com Columnist
Boiling Frogs
by Phil Harris
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


To tell you the truth, never once have I been tempted to boil a frog for any reason, but it would not surprise me if thousands delight in the practice. You know… those folks who like to bury cats up to the neck and then run them over with a lawn mower.

Don't get me wrong. It's not as if I have a spongy place in my heart for frogs, so if you love to kick back on Friday night with a beer and a plate of steaming frog legs … knock yourself out. Edna, my maternal grandmother fed me frog legs when I was about five years old; leading me to believe it was chicken until they were down the hatch. She was lucky, because she could have gotten them back in a big hurry.

In any case, perhaps you have heard the little factoid, that if you drop a frog into a pan of hot water, it will jump out like a bolt of lightning. However, if you put the frog in a pan of cool water, and then slowly increase the heat, it will stay there, dumb and happy, until it boils to death.

I hate to break it to you, but we are all frogs. America is a big pan of water, the heat has been steadily increasing, and just like our green friends, we are heading for a boil. Some of us are sitting in a cooler part of the pan, so the cooking has not become an issue worthy of concern; however, others have noticed that their skin has begun to slough off.

If we are the frogs and America is the pan of water, then exactly where is the heat coming from? The answer, of course, is something that every one of us must deal with to one degree or another. Those who no longer deal with it have already boiled beyond repair. I am speaking of our banking (finance) and insurance industries, two of the most powerful forces in our lives.

Perhaps it will seem odd for a conservative fellow to be harping about "the man." Nevertheless, this is something that has been gnawing on my common sense detector for a long time, because frankly, it just makes no sense at all when you step sideways and peek around the curtain. Yet we have all been taking it, some segments of our population more severely than others have, but it affects everyone in some manner.

Let us examine the banking (finance) business first. The lion's share of financial consumers are not suffering to the degree that others are, but everyone has the potential to walk in these shoes on any given day. There are simply no guarantees in life, that if your life happens to be dancing along, carefree, that it will continue that way.

If you fall into the category of being a credit risk, somewhere on a sliding scale of credit scores, you will experience a few degrees of heat. This is simply one of those areas, which makes no common sense at all. If you are at risk for having potential difficulty in meeting your obligations, the industry believes that the only logical thing to do is to make it even more likely for you to fail, by giving you credit at a higher rate of interest.

The man says, that we must charge a higher rate of interest because the risks are greater. Unfortunately, this is one of those self-fulfilling edicts. A family, already struggling to stay on an even keel will have larger payments; in some cases double, what "credit worthy" families must endure.

There is no doubt; many are simply irresponsible with credit, buying this and that without regard for how they will pay for it. Yet for a great many, the credit problems have come due to circumstances other than irresponsibility.

You may believe that the logical thing for these people is to make due without debt; however, the sad fact of American life today is that for average folks, buying a home or a later model car is very difficult to accomplish without debt. A five-hundred dollar car, instead of a ten-thousand dollar car, might seem the answer; however, employers are not inclined to tolerate frequently late arrivals, no matter the wisdom of living within a cash budget. Inexpensive used cars are inexpensive for a reason; namely, that they are incapable of providing reliable transportation.

How many Americans today could save enough to purchase a home with cash? When homes sold for five, ten, or fifteen-thousand dollars, such was a real achievable goal. Work hard and save for six or seven years and hooray, mission accomplished. Today, with rents approaching or exceeding the level of house payments, there just is not much cash left over for the mattress.

So just to be clear, I smell a rotten fish in the idea that higher payments make sense in providing credit to people who have difficulty making payments already. Logic screams for the opposite position, to make it "easier" for people who are already struggling.

Perhaps a more "logical" solution would be to provide more affordable credit, while removing some of the freedom to screw it up. Evaluate the paycheck, the portion which can be used for credit purchases (cars, homes, school, whatever), and deduct the payment directly from the payroll.

People need cars, but they do not need Hummers. People need homes, but they do not need six-thousand square feet on the beach. The more credit worthy you are, the more flexibility you have to manage your own budget and credit decisions.

While we are on financial institutions, I cannot move on without talking about fees. This same mentality exists in dealing with checking accounts and credit card accounts. If you happen to screw up keeping track of your checking account, it is possible to get into trouble very quickly.

For many people, there is not a lot of leeway in available funds. If something becomes fouled up, a veritable nightmare can begin. For example, say you think you have a hundred bucks in the bank, and so you write eight checks to pay bills, buy bread and milk, pay for school lunch, or whatever. In reality, you forgot that last week, you had to pull eighty dollars out of the ATM to have your broken car towed from the side of the highway.

The grocery check comes in for $10, and all is well. The other seven checks come in behind it. The school lunch check was $20, and bang, the bank does you a favor by paying it, but they charge you $28 to punish you. Now you have a -$38 balance. The other six checks hit, and the bank decides not to pay those, and they send them back, but not without deducting (6 x $28) or $168 from your balance, which is now -$206, just to make sure you learn your lesson.

Now payday is five days away, but you have $220 in a savings account. You move it over to the checking account to bring things above zero, which leaves you with $14 as a balance. Unfortunately, the trash company sends their bounced check through again, which is $16. The bank sends it back again, but deducts $28 from your account, putting you at -$14, below zero again.

So what have we witnessed here? There is obviously a problem, and you should have kept better track of your account, but my logic detector is buzzing at the thought that the solution to a lack of funds to cover a customer's mistakes is for the bank to suck even more funds from the account, right in the middle of the crisis.

Credit cards are much the same. You are near your credit limit, you screw up and forget to make your payment on-line before 2:00 pm EST (you made it at 5:00 pm instead), and bang… the credit card issuer socks your account with a $38 late fee. Of course, this puts your balance above your credit limit, and bang… the credit card issuer socks your account with another $38 fee.

Of course, you have now violated the terms of service, which forces them to increase your interest rate from 14.9% to the default rate of 32.9%. If you keep your account current for the next six months to a year, your account might be eligible for a standard interest rate. Well, you do not have to take such abuse, because you can simply pay off the stupid card and take your business elsewhere. Yeah… that must be why you were carrying a high balance on your card account, because you had a load of cash sitting in your checking account, and you simply love the idea of paying interest.

Insurance (no offense to insurance industry workers) is a scourge on our souls. What drives me completely bananas is that we pay enormous premiums for various insurance policies, and then we end up paying for whatever it is anyway.

Take health insurance for instance. For a time, I was paying upwards of $800 per month to insure my family, which is more than $9000 per year. We barely had reason to see the doctor, but the few times we did, I still had to pay because of the deductible and the co-pays.

This seems especially infuriating when things are running a little tight anyway, and all of a sudden, I have to write a doctor check for two or three hundred dollars, after having paid the insurance company some $27000 over the past three years.

The explanations for all of these assaults on logic have roots deep in the bedrock of our free enterprise system. Unfortunately, there is a distinct odor of gouging, and these monstrous industries are doing it because they can.

I am not against profit, and I certainly disdain government over-regulation of business or personal freedom. Nevertheless, I have to believe that at some point, the frog suddenly realizes that he has been boiled, and surely, that must really piss him off.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil.

Be the first to read Phil Harris' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Cash is King
OK. Nobody likes to pay the fees, but if you play with snakes you're going to get bitten sooner or later. It's easy to say that if the gov't cracked down on employers who pay illegal immigrants and there were no paychecks for illegal workers, that the immigrants would stop coming. Likewise if debtors stopped using credit, the creditors would not be in business. It's slavery in either circumstance. Think about it next time you want to go into debt just to impress somebody with your new acquisitions--you're like an indentured servant to your creditor.

It is a whole lot easier to live within your means if you remain in the world but not of it.

right on, brother
Seriously, ain't this the truth. I've recently lived in Europe (Austria). They actually let you go into minus at their banks ("checking" account). You will pay interest on your negative balance from day one, but there is none of this charging $20 per overdrawn transaction and them running the check again, etc. I don't even know what the interest is, either, but I bet it's not very high. And while you're overdrawn you can still withdraw. Naturally, this assumes that you have a job and can pay them back. I've actually been in minus before to the tune of a couple grand. Fee? Maybe a couple hundred bucks over a couple years.

silly me
I thought this column would be about france

Whine whine whine
Ever heard of Dave Ramsey? Listen to his radio show or go to his web site. Bottom line: Give up adolescent spending habits and become an adult.

Whine?
Dave Ramsey hates debt of any kind, but he would be the first to agree that the credit companies and banks are virtual "crooks".

The complete lack of common sense regarding the punitive behavior of these money changers has nothing to do with "whining". It smacks of predatory business practices, and it has grown from tolerable to absurd over the last twenty years or so.

A new fee
Retired recently, thought I would have time to lesiurely travel. Nope, have to schedule in the credit cards. Thought I would overpay and not have to worry. Nope, the ropeey dopey nanny state says the cc company has to return the excess, so the cc cos don't count it as a payment and the fees continue. So beware. Has anyone found a way arround this? Outside of Politicians I mean.

Ever heard of personal responsibility?
The rules are not that difficult to abide by. Don't write checks for more money than you have. Don't take out loans for things you can't afford. These are rules that conservatives push on the government and then complain about them for people. There should be one set of rules, not 2. Live within your means.

It's curious...
... that each of the industries is heavily regulated. Could it be that allowing the government to regulate industry leads to these inequities?

In every case I am aware of, the public hue and cry for regulation of one or another industry is the result of a failure of government, not a failure of the free market system. Usually it begins with the failure of our government to provide fair and accessible court systems.

My finances are my responsibility
I can't spend money I don't have. Period.

A credit card is simply the guarantee of an instant loan. When I use it, I'm indebting myself by promising to pay the money I owe within a specified amount of time. The bank issuing my credit card pays the seller who permitted me to use it, so now I owe the bank. If I don't pay what I owe according to the terms I accepted when I commenced using the credit card, the bank will charge me interest on the unpaid balance. The onus is on ME, NOT the bank, to ensure that I have enough money to repay the debt I'm incurring.

I have a serious problem with financial institutions which offer credit cards indiscriminately. They do so, of course, in hopes of making a profit from the interest on all those unpaid balances which they hope will accrue when the undisciplined hordes choose instant gratification over prudence--giving these same institutions an iron-clad excuse for denying or restricting future credit. But once again, the onus is on ME, NOT the bank, to spend only the money that I have.

I do not have a “right” to credit. I have to earn it, by demonstrating responsibility in meeting my financial obligations.

Unforeseen financial crises can certainly occur, but I can minimize their impact. I can make a budget and stick to it, taking into account money that might be needed for emergencies. I can keep a close eye on what's coming in and going out of my checking account so that the checks I write don't bounce. I can read the fine print associated with all my financial transactions, especially the fine print disclosing my bank's petty little fees. I can buy whatever insurance is appropriate and affordable for my specific situation, including whatever insurance I think necessary to protect me and my family when I take on long-term debt, such as a mortgage. In short, I need to think realistically, not wishfully.

Finally, I can accept the fact that financial institutions aren't charities. They wouldn't exist if they couldn't turn a profit. Accepting this, I can just do all I can to make sure that their profits don't result from my own carelessness. Caveat Emptor: Let the buyer beware.

mamadoc
I think the point was, not about responsibility, which is of course the indisputable "correct" approach to credit and finances. The point is, about the predatory nature of financial institutions, and the destructive actions that they take.

If for whatever reason, someone screws up and makes a mistake with their checking account, which last I checked was something that humans are prone to do (make mistakes), they can quickly move from oops to ruin.

The practice of banks to suck enormous sums from their account, causing a cascading reaction of even more bounced checks, each generating more fees, makes no sense at all.

It is the equivalent of taking a driver who failed to obey the speeding laws, throwing them to the ground, and mashing their head into pulp with your boots.

It may surprise you to learn, mamadoc, that a great number of American families live (even responsibly) on very narrow margins. They do not have hundreds or thousands of dollars in other accounts, with which to correct problems.

Should they have been more careful? Sure, but to have on a simply mathematical error, the entire financial stability of a family destroyed, does not make any sense.

If you make a mistake and walk down the "wrong" street some night, do you deserve to have your throat slit, because you were irresponsible? There is no reason to justify financial capital punishment for income-challenged folks who make mistakes either.

Fees have become a huge percentage of the profit for financial institutions these past several years... in some cases, representing as much as 40% of net earnings. That tells me that there is a concerted effort to set people up for disaster, all the while preaching financial responsibility with one side of the mouth, and rooting for customers to screw up out the other.

Lets help people mitigate the damage caused by their errors in planning, budgeting, or math skills, rather than sucking the life blood from the stump of their severed heads. There is responsibility needed on both sides of the equation, and creditors and banks are simply hiding behind their fine print, and laughing their heads off at how easy it is to take candy from the babies.




Profit margins...
All you have to do is check the profit margins of banks to know that they are operating as a cartel instead of an industry.

M.G.B
How irrelevant is your post? The topic is personal finances, not FNC and Ron Paul.

Get a clue, doofus.

merry_go_boy
What's with the link to a defense of Ron Paul? What does this have to do with the subject of Harris's column? I'm sick and tired of the Ron Paul apologists hijacking TH to push their religion on the rest of us. No, I'm not advocating censorship -- but it would be nice if the RP cult members could at least restrict posting their propaganda to columns where they might actually be making a relevant point.

Mr Harris is right on target
I would also press for mandatory classes in money management in schools. Education is the best defence. Having been financially irresponsible, but now back into solvency, I think a balanced approach is a great idea. Harris has some great ideas, and couple that along with fiduciary responsibility education, would go a long way to insuring prosperity for all.

I remember a term used by banks:
"OVERDRAFT PROTECTION". Started, it seems to me, to get people to put their money in via electronic deposit. If they knew what your paycheck was going to be +/- a few, they knew how much odp they could attach to your account.

After moving across country, I tried to open one of these. The bank officer had "Never heard of such a thing." Several banks later, I found out NONE of them had (or would admit to knowing.)

Next I tried something like "PASSBOOK COVER" (Not sure of the term...) which would automatically pull money from a savings account into the overdraft of the checking account. NHOSAT again.

And, by the way, my current bank will allow me to withdraw $20 from an account that only has $19 in it. (If I notice and IMMEDIATELY put it back, it is only $38. The next day, when they open, it becomes $76.) I asked them NOT to do that and they "could not comply with my request."

Needless to say, I'm looking for a new bank...

I don't see any answer to Mr. Harris'
problem. I was raised by financially unsophisticated parents, and had to learn some of the economic facts of life the hard way.

But I can't see anything wrong with a lender charging higher risks more. And I also know the history of regulated businesses is that over time, the regulators rely so much on the regulatees, sometimes providing retirees with employment, that their main function is to provide the regulated industry with monopolistic powers. I don't see how more regulation is going to fix this.

I hate
Banks. So I save my money and pay cash. I own my home and have no credit cards. We could put these bloodsuc*ers out of business real easy.

YellowGuy
I was not defending the predatory practices that some banks and issuers of credit cards employ, and I sympathize with those who get caught in that downward spiral—particularly when it's triggered by one unfortunate error.

What I was basically saying is that knowing that these practices exist motivates me to stay vigilant. I don't know enough about the money and banking industry to understand WHY these practices exist and are permitted to flourish, and Harris’s column pretty much indicates that he doesn’t, either.

I do know that a bank that has no "non-performing" loans (bad loans) on its books is likely to invite regulatory scrutiny, as this is an indication of possible discrimination in the granting of loans. Maybe the lending institutions, feeling the necessity of making SOME bad loans, seek to make up the lost revenue in other ways. I agree that some of those “other ways” appear to cross ethical lines—but again, I don’t know the ins and outs. I can only try not to run afoul of them.

I have lived on the margins, and know what that’s like. I can’t envision circumstances that would have induced me to apply for a credit card during that time. Knowledge of what the margins are like is what keeps me pretty careful now.

Insurance and presonal finance
The responses I read here appear to ignore the greater problem mentioned in the column: health insurance costs. You can be the best at handling credit cards and whatnot and be cut to the bone with a sizable medical problem, such as prostate cancer, heart stints, clinical depression, long term health needs and being laid off in a matter of a year. The going rate for medical insurance after real medical needs for the insurance, if you can find an insurance company that will insure you at all, is about $2K per month for husband and wife and everything you see a doctor for not covered (except, we hope, catastrophic emergency care). The prescription medications are not fully covered, the office visits and lab work is not fully covered. It is very easy to crash financially under even what at first appears to be ordinary circumstances that a "smart and savvy" even highly responsible family should be able to manage. This month our insurance premium through my husbands employer is $2250, our prescription meds are near $600 and that is going through the insurance and using Costco pharmacy. The insurance we have does not allow buying at the 90 day supply rates offered by some organization. And, there is a bill for close to $1000 to be paid for our share of services for three mammograms and a procedure for a very small cists. We don't have coverage for dental because the plan offered is not accepted by dentist we trusted, so we have $5000 in dental services for basic care and for oral surgery and a dental implant. Moreover, the insurance does not cover vision care, today we are picking up glasses, about $800. So, I don't much appreciate platitudes about managing your finances and being responsible with credit cards, bank charges, and the rest. This is a real problem that the insurance companies should step up to the plate (not the trough)and work to change their own policies. I do not want another of "that woman's" advancement of socialized medicine and I don't want the pharmaceutical companies taken over by government. I think those things could be in the future if self-regulations does not happen.

This should not be allowed
Someone explain to me why this is allowed:

About 4 years ago I received my paycheck drawn on the company I worked for's Bank of America business account. I took the check to a nearby Bank of America branch and presented it for payment. The teller asked me if I had a Bank of America account. I told her I did not. The teller then informed me that there would be a five dollar "fee" I would have to pay in order for them to cash the check! I pointed out (politely but with enough volume that anyone in line or at another teller's window could hear) that the check was a Bank of America check and I would not pay Bank of America five dollars to cash their own check. I further explained what a low unethical scheme I thought it was. Of course I walked out and drove to my credit union and deposited the check into my account without paying five dollars for the privilage. More recently I sold a car to a girl and accepted a check from her father (risky I know) drawn against a Bank one account. When I presented the check to my nearby Bank One branch the teller asked that I have a seat at a counter/desk area and someone would come "help" me. Soon thereafter a very pleasant woman sat down accross from me and said she would be handling the transaction. I handed her the check ($2500) and told her I just wanted to cash it. She tapped around on her computer keyboard (I assume she was making sure the account hand enough money in it) and after studying the screen for a minute or two informed me that there were several ways in which we could "make this work. Are you a Bank One customer?" To which I looked around and replied "yes, I do believe that's where I am." "No", she said (not getting my attempt at humor) "what I meant was, do you have a Bank One account?" I told her I did not. Her responce to that was to point out the easiest and CHEAPEST way to handle things would be for me to use the check to open a Bank One account. Through the kindness of their hearts they would give me $500 of the check in cash IF I opened a savings/checking account with the rest. I explained to the Bank One employee that I had no need nor intention of opening a Bank One account. I could tell this presented a problem by her facial expression. The bank employee then told me Bank One's policy is to not cash personal checks that are in excess of $2000 so "what WE can do is open an account for you with the $500, no excuse me it will be $475 since there will be a $25 fee for cashing the check..." at which point I cut her off and asked her to repeat what "she had just said. Keeping in mind I have already made clear that I am not opening ANY type of account with Bank One." As with the Bank of America teller I maintained a very polite tone while at the same time conveying my extreme displeasure at being railroaded and robbed. Fortunately the Bank One employee saw the wisdom of my words and quickly called a superior on the phone and received approval to do what they should have done in the first place and just cashed the darn check for it's entire amount! No "fees". No opening an account. Bank One knew the account was valid and contained enough money in it to cover the check. In that situation a bank or credit union should be required to cash a check without charging fees or anything else.

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem writes:
I had that same thing happen at a Key Bank here in Colorado wanting to charge me 5 dollars to cash a check written on an account by one of their customers.

I did not accept the bank "policy" and demanded they honor a legal check.
Guess what, I got my money and paid them nothing to get it.

What?
Hey -- gouging happens, but it seems to me that Harris is belittling personal responsibility.

What?
..."Hey -- gouging happens, but it seems to me that Harris is belittling personal responsibility."


Read it again, and you will notice that your assumption is incorrect. Personal responsibility is vital, but so are ethical business practices. The credit industry has exchanged integrity for an easy profit center.

Increasing the interest rate as punishment for a lapse in attention, from 14.9 percent to 38.9 percent would be an effective tool in discouraging sloppy account management by wealthy deadbeats. Applying this punishment to a lower-middle income family, because they were late on a payment only serves to rape and pillage.

Think about it, and put aside the fact that it isn't wise to run an $8000 credit card balance. But the fact remains that many people do and are able to manage a $180 payment. But a simple mistake, such as paying late by one day, will not only incur fees, but will also bump that account to the "default" interest rate of nearly 40 percent interest. That will turn that $180 payment into a $360 payment or more.

This is not the stuff of wisdom, from our regulating government, but rather, it is a blessing on assault and battery, via fees and interest rates.

There are wise decisions by people, and there are poor decisions by people. Nowhere in that mix should there be laws which effectively push people to ruin. If we applied the same standard of responsibility to our House and Senate, every one of those scoundrels would be paying us for the privilege of holding elected office.

Don't kill families because they screwed up, and say that it is justifiable homicide. That is in effect, what is happening in the credit industry today, and they are doing it with the blessing of regulators.


The reason...
...merry-go-boy gave the link to Ron Paul is because Mr. Paul is the only candidate promising to address the issues discussed in Mr. Harris' article.

The fact is that banking is a uniform nightmare because it is regulated.

The fact is that medical care and medical insurance are expensive because the industry is regulated.

Throughout man's history whenever government grants special privilage to an industry that industry becomes politicized. The result is an industry rife with perverse incentives and isolation from the market forces that normally control prices.

Bug's Life
Especially concerning insurance premiums, why don't the frogs do an 'ant' as in Bug's Life, and rebel en masse? When I first bought a car, I received some good advice. The insurance companies are betting that you won't get into an accident. You are betting on your fear, that you would get into an expensive accident, which is statistically unlikely. Except for government requirements to have auto insurance (which is undersntandable since the general population is demonstrably irresponsible), it would be more financially sound to save/invest the money and not send premiums through the hands of a third party insurance company.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

Correcting the real assault on logic
Mr. Harris,

While I understand your anger at the outrageously high fees charged by banks for short-term overdrafts as well as the nearly usurious rates on credit cards, your article’s primary complaint about higher loan interest rates for riskier borrowers is nonsensical and intentionally misunderstands free markets.

You argue that people with less means should be given credit at rates no worse, or even better, than rates given to more credit-worthy borrowers because somehow it is the banking system’s job to “make it ‘easier’ for people who are already struggling.”

If two people came to you asking for loans (not good enough friends that you’d simply loan them money at no interest rate), would you not consider the risk of your not being repaid when making your decision about what interest you would charge if you decided to make the loan at all? If your answer is that you would offer the same interest rate to anyone to whom you agreed to make a loan, and that you’ll agree to loan money to people with bad credit histories or more substantial likelihood of not being able to repay the loan, then you are not in a business, but instead you are a charity. Unlike you, banks have shareholders and taxpayers and other depositors to protect.

Interest rates are nothing more than the cost of money. And the higher the chance that you’ll never get something back when you loan it out, the higher the cost for the loan must be.

If 5% of loans to lower-income borrowers default versus 1% of loans to higher-income borrowers, of course the banks must charge a higher rate for the higher risk on loans to lower-income people. Not only is it logical, but it is the only way (short of refusing to make the loans, which I presume you would find even worse) of protecting depositors, shareholders and taxpayers from ending up holding the bag.

As far as ways to reduce loan risk, such as direct withdrawals from paychecks, that is fine as far as it goes, but it still does not help with the risk of someone losing his job and then not having the resources to repay a loan. So, while a program like that might be worth lowering an interest rate slightly, it will never be enough to lower the rate to that of a higher-income borrower.

Yes, there is occasionally a “distinct odor of gouging” in some areas, like certain bank and credit card fees. However, consumers know the rules of the game when they go in, and if they’re not prepared to play by them, they shouldn’t play.

More importantly, regarding your article, the primary “assault on logic” is yours: Higher loan rates for lower credit quality borrowers are not only logical, but they are necessary and appropriate.

Caveat Emptor, unfortunately
Lest anyone feel too smug about always paying on time there is a joker in the deck that not everyone knows about. You can pay your bills on time or even early and still, as we did, get socked with a late fee on an early payment. Your payment is not credited to you until it is **posted** regardless of when it was received and if it sits on someone's desk too long then YOU get hit with the late fee. I found out from being a subscriber to **Consumer Reports** which frequently publishes warnings about unfair practices and advises which credit cards to avoid. As CR has reported about the "cc" companies, they really **are** out to get you. In fact, one cc that advertises about others are like a band of Huns on a rampage was sued by the state of MN for doing business just like the ones they criticize.

Credit cards have another benefit though. In order to get the shuttle reserved from the airport to home we had to pay in advance by cc but when our flight was late and the last shuttle had left we had to make other arrangements to get home. However, the shuttle company insisted on charging for the ride we didn't get; the credit card company persuaded them to take it off our bill.


Looking from whose perspective?
"If you fall into the category of being a credit risk, somewhere on a sliding scale of credit scores, you will experience a few degrees of heat. This is simply one of those areas, which makes no common sense at all. If you are at risk for having potential difficulty in meeting your obligations, the industry believes that the only logical thing to do is to make it even more likely for you to fail, by giving you credit at a higher rate of interest."

Maybe from your perspective this hurts the person with worse credit, however, the point of charging higher interest to people of worse credit history is an insurance policy to recover lost money from those high risk people who defaulted on their loans. The investors are entitled to their money back at minimum, so for them to even "risk" loaning money to someone who has a tarnished or poor credit history they must be compensated otherwise you will howl that it is unfair that investors won't take the risk at all by not loaning them any money.

BTW-no one put a gun to their heads to ask for money in the form of a bank loan, nor did the credit card companies for that matter. Credit card interest rates are also on a sliding scale of risk. You are not entitled to force anyone to give you money without compensation, otherwise this is called theft/fraud. All such loans have stipulations which the "borrower" agreed to BEFORE taking the loan.

As far as bouncing a check, many people have from time to time made a math error or had a timing issue on deposits and withdrawls, it's a fact of life. However, it is not the Bank's responsibility, but your responsibility to see to it that you have enough money to cover your promises of payment. Your carelessness, personal problems, or lifestyle choices are not their responsibilty. If you have a problem with math or timing or living from paycheck to paycheck, choose a bank that offers overdraft protection in the form of revolving credit. Don't expect that service for free, if you need a couple of extra bucks now and then make the appropriate choices in life. Life is about choices, choose wisely.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.