3 ms·

Sure maybe society puts them between a rock and a hard place because it requires a car. But how is the dealership forcing them to need a car, or tricking them i

Sure maybe society puts them between a rock and a hard place because it requires a car. But how is the dealership forcing them to need a car, or tricking them into getting a car? They're just selling it to them, the individual is looking at the payments, they knows it's gonna be a stretch and they are rolling the dice hoping they can afford it. The relationship between the individual and the dealership doesn't sound very exploitative to me.

BoorishBears 4y ago
Again you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say dealerships forced them into needing a car, or tricked them into getting a car. I asked you not do a simple thing: reply to what was said, not some non-sensical aberration of it, and you've failed twice. Why is such a simple task so difficult for you? - At the end of the day the dealerships are selling cars that are lemons. The dealerships are requiring in-person on site payments. The dealerships are selling cars well above FMV so that they can hold the loans in-house in a preferable structure that enables the rapid fire cycling of these cars. Many dealerships are failing to disclose GPS trackers. Some have gone as far as harassing buyers and their social circle after repos to try and get more money back. I can't tell if you're being facetious at this point if you seriously think Buy-Here Pay-Here is not an exploitative grift. You don't get to double the profit margin of the people servicing prime customers with fair tactics: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_956_cfa_20120622_162225_asm_comm.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb...