4 ms·

Yes you are correct, which is why credit card companies should simply not allow for large balances to be accumulated. You are forgetting that prying on the irre

Yes you are correct, which is why credit card companies should simply not allow for large balances to be accumulated. You are forgetting that prying on the irresponsible is the entire point.

Alupis 3y ago
They generally do not. If you are low-income and/or have poor credit history, your approved credit will be relatively small. Even with a $500 credit line, people miss payments. Often it's the folks with huge credit lines and carry balances that never miss payments... > You are forgetting that prying on the irresponsible is the entire point. The credit card market is not inherently bad. Many (most?) people use it responsibly, even if they carry a balance. We don't need to make it harder on responsible people just because some people are irresponsible and don't care to become responsible.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  No one ever said credit cards are inherently bad so I'm not sure what you're responding to. Anyway, credit cards are already harder to get without good credit. And yes it should be harder for people to get credit cards, but that's not in the incentive of the companies which is why they issue them anyways.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    This policy seems to cover all credit cards, including those store-branded cards that sign up people with zero credit history and generally offer small limits. People miss those payments too. > but that's not in the incentive of the companies which is why they issue them anyways This is a good point. I do not agree we should do anything about it though. People need to learn responsibility, and it's not the government's job to prevent them from being irresponsible.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you're going on about with government preventing irresponsiblity.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        FTFA: `Millions of Americans could soon see lower credit card bills after a federal rule that caps late fees at $8 a month was finalized on Tuesday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which estimates that the change will save households $10 billion a year.` This is the government enabling more irresponsibility.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        No
        Alupis 3y ago
        [flagged]
        endisneigh 3y ago
        Capping fees nor saving households money is enabling irresponsible behavior lol. By your logic increasing the feeds is enabling more responsible behavior which is also false. All the government is doing is simply reducing the fees.
        Alupis 3y ago
        Who is saving money here? Responsible households, or irresponsible households? Who misses credit card payments? Responsible people? > All the government is doing is simply reducing the fees. Wrong. The government is reducing the consequences of being financially irresponsible. When something has less negative consequences, can we expect to get more or less of it?

Yes you are correct, which is why credit card companies should simply not allow for large balances to be accumulated. You are forgetting that prying on the irresponsible is the entire point.

Alupis 3y ago

They generally do not. If you are low-income and/or have poor credit history, your approved credit will be relatively small. Even with a $500 credit line, people miss payments. Often it's the folks with huge credit lines and carry balances that never miss payments... > You are forgetting that prying on the irresponsible is the entire point. The credit card market is not inherently bad. Many (most?) people use it responsibly, even if they carry a balance. We don't need to make it harder on responsible people just because some people are irresponsible and don't care to become responsible.

endisneigh 3y ago
No one ever said credit cards are inherently bad so I'm not sure what you're responding to. Anyway, credit cards are already harder to get without good credit. And yes it should be harder for people to get credit cards, but that's not in the incentive of the companies which is why they issue them anyways.
- Alupis 3y ago
  This policy seems to cover all credit cards, including those store-branded cards that sign up people with zero credit history and generally offer small limits. People miss those payments too. > but that's not in the incentive of the companies which is why they issue them anyways This is a good point. I do not agree we should do anything about it though. People need to learn responsibility, and it's not the government's job to prevent them from being irresponsible.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you're going on about with government preventing irresponsiblity.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      FTFA: `Millions of Americans could soon see lower credit card bills after a federal rule that caps late fees at $8 a month was finalized on Tuesday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which estimates that the change will save households $10 billion a year.` This is the government enabling more irresponsibility.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        No
        Alupis 3y ago
        [flagged]
        endisneigh 3y ago
        Capping fees nor saving households money is enabling irresponsible behavior lol. By your logic increasing the feeds is enabling more responsible behavior which is also false. All the government is doing is simply reducing the fees.
        Alupis 3y ago
        Who is saving money here? Responsible households, or irresponsible households? Who misses credit card payments? Responsible people? > All the government is doing is simply reducing the fees. Wrong. The government is reducing the consequences of being financially irresponsible. When something has less negative consequences, can we expect to get more or less of it?