6 ms·

>>And the money that is being garnished is to pay back the creditor for the money and/or services that the debtor received. It's called justice. I wouldn't des

by smtddr 12y ago

>>And the money that is being garnished is to pay back the creditor for the money and/or services that the debtor received. It's called justice. I wouldn't describe a big CC corp bringing a citizen to near-financial-ruin as "justice". While you are probably factually right and all the legal procedures more or less followed, this article still highlights a problem with our current system. That it drains people who are already weak. Kicks 'em when they're down.

themartorana 12y ago
Exactly. Justice is hardly found in making it impossible for someone to pick themselves back up. It also seems odd to sue someone who may be behind on payments, but hasn't resorted to bankruptcy court to completely eliminate those debts (save college loans, which is a whole other thing). It's hardly surprising that people who have never been down on their luck are the first to turn a blind eye or scolding glance towards a fellow human who has fallen from grace. I'm not advocating for people not being responsible for their debts, but I am advocating for a caring society that helps people back up, not one that puts a boot on their throat. Also, just a personal grievance, is any bank garnishing wages from a tax payer that took tax payer money during the bail-out.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
hnal943 12y ago
Of course the option is to not extend them credit at all so they avoid these Faustian deals. Of course, denying poor people access to credit is going to be politically unpopular.
- jaynos 12y ago
  Not to mention, bad for the bottom line.
- smtddr 12y ago
  And a financial disaster for CC companies because, let's face it, the whole credit system is significantly supported by exploitation of less fortunate people. If situations like this article describes didn't happen CC companies would be missing a lot of profit.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  >Of course, denying poor people access to credit is going to be politically unpopular. The real problem is that denying poor people decent wages has been popular for too long - which is why they're poor. You can't run a sane, stable society by economically disenfranchising most of the population.
danielweber 12y ago
Almost 20 years ago I interviewed with Capital One. They were drawing graphs of people's debts like it was calculus class, and asking me to come up with strategies to maximize consumer debt. It's a little bit on me that I didn't say "this is evil" and walk out, but I was much younger then and the job market for developers wasn't anywhere near as good as it is today.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  This. The c-card companies have actuarial/mathematical models that make it possible to estimate the profitability of the debt/default/lawsuit process from start to finish - where finish can mean bankruptcy, a lien on property, or garnished wages. Consumers don't understand that this is what they are signing up for, and the c-card companies certainly don't make it clear that defaults are a key contributor to their profitability. There's at least one UK c-card company that charges interest rates of up 99.9% to high-risk customers. They know damn well that with a rate like that even a tiny debt is going to explode within a few months and give them the option to get a charge on someone's home, force them to sell, and pocket the original value of the debt, plus interest, plus legal costs.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    HN - where plain facts can get you downrated. [sigh...]

by smtddr 12y ago

themartorana 12y ago

Exactly. Justice is hardly found in making it impossible for someone to pick themselves back up. It also seems odd to sue someone who may be behind on payments, but hasn't resorted to bankruptcy court to completely eliminate those debts (save college loans, which is a whole other thing). It's hardly surprising that people who have never been down on their luck are the first to turn a blind eye or scolding glance towards a fellow human who has fallen from grace. I'm not advocating for people not being responsible for their debts, but I am advocating for a caring society that helps people back up, not one that puts a boot on their throat. Also, just a personal grievance, is any bank garnishing wages from a tax payer that took tax payer money during the bail-out.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

hnal943 12y ago

Of course the option is to not extend them credit at all so they avoid these Faustian deals. Of course, denying poor people access to credit is going to be politically unpopular.

jaynos 12y ago
Not to mention, bad for the bottom line.
smtddr 12y ago
And a financial disaster for CC companies because, let's face it, the whole credit system is significantly supported by exploitation of less fortunate people. If situations like this article describes didn't happen CC companies would be missing a lot of profit.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
>Of course, denying poor people access to credit is going to be politically unpopular. The real problem is that denying poor people decent wages has been popular for too long - which is why they're poor. You can't run a sane, stable society by economically disenfranchising most of the population.

danielweber 12y ago

Almost 20 years ago I interviewed with Capital One. They were drawing graphs of people's debts like it was calculus class, and asking me to come up with strategies to maximize consumer debt. It's a little bit on me that I didn't say "this is evil" and walk out, but I was much younger then and the job market for developers wasn't anywhere near as good as it is today.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
This. The c-card companies have actuarial/mathematical models that make it possible to estimate the profitability of the debt/default/lawsuit process from start to finish - where finish can mean bankruptcy, a lien on property, or garnished wages. Consumers don't understand that this is what they are signing up for, and the c-card companies certainly don't make it clear that defaults are a key contributor to their profitability. There's at least one UK c-card company that charges interest rates of up 99.9% to high-risk customers. They know damn well that with a rate like that even a tiny debt is going to explode within a few months and give them the option to get a charge on someone's home, force them to sell, and pocket the original value of the debt, plus interest, plus legal costs.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  HN - where plain facts can get you downrated. [sigh...]