4 ms·
> If consumers aren't willing to risk paying late fees, just don't use credit cards. Half of all people are worse than average at that sort of planning ahead.
by tbrownaw 3y ago
> If consumers aren't willing to risk paying late fees, just don't use credit cards.
Half of all people are worse than average at that sort of planning ahead.
- _heimdall 3y agoI don't think that's something the government can regulate away.
- latency-guy2 3y agoShould they be subsidizing that behavior on the backs off of the half that do not?
- _heimdall 3y agoSorry, I don't follow. Who is the "they" here? If it's the government, no they shouldn't be subsidizing this (or anything else IMO). If its banks, they can subsidize whatever they want as long as their customers are willing to allow it.
- int_19h 3y agoIf the end result is a society full of destitute people with all the associated problems it brings for everyone in said society, then yes.
- plz-remove-card 3y agoI agree but the government could try and solve this problem at the source by mandating the teaching of personal finance in public schools. It may not actually do much good, but we should at least _try_ it. Then again, the federal government is rarely successfully at addressing problems at their source so I won't hold my breath.
- Dylan16807 3y agoBut the government can make it harder to take advantage of people.
- _heimdall 3y agoThat's really just a game of whack-a-mole unfortunately. There's no way to regulate away all ways a person can be taken advantage of. There isn't even a way for regulators to clearly distinguish between a person being taken advantage of and a person knowingly agreeing to something. Late fees are a great example actually. I know my bank charges late fees and I know its roughly $35. This new federal rule deems that as me being taken advantage of, but I was okay with the fee as-is. The government somehow decided what was an exorbitant fee and how much it should cost banks to deal with past due payments when a customer is late. How can they really decide that, and why should they try?
- Dylan16807 3y ago> That's really just a game of whack-a-mole unfortunately. There's no way to regulate away all ways a person can be taken advantage of. That's okay, it's fine to hit a few big ones when it's convenient. > There isn't even a way for regulators to clearly distinguish between a person being taken advantage of and a person knowingly agreeing to something. > Late fees are a great example actually. I know my bank charges late fees and I know its roughly $35. This new federal rule deems that as me being taken advantage of, but I was okay with the fee as-is. The government somehow decided what was an exorbitant fee and how much it should cost banks to deal with past due payments when a customer is late. How can they really decide that, They didn't decide you in particular were being taken advantage of. Just that it's statistically causing people to be taken advantage of. And what's wrong with them deciding $35 is too much? The change doesn't hurt you. > and why should they try? To whack some of the moles! Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
- nonethewiser 3y agoNor should they honestly. Lets not subsidize irresponsibility. Thats not to say there shouldn’t be a reasonable cap on late fees. It is to say that even if the government could save people from all the consequences of their negligence, they should not.