3 ms·
Nothing about this is exploitative. Poor people have a very high chance of not paying these debts, so they are charged a much higher fee over time instead of be
by MadManE 12y ago
Nothing about this is exploitative. Poor people have a very high chance of not paying these debts, so they are charged a much higher fee over time instead of being able to pay a lump sum.
These are not necessities for living. iPads, couches, and lamps are luxuries in varying degrees. These people can always make the choice to simply not buy them.
- notahacker 12y agoThe cost of collecting from delinquent debtors does have to be taken into account. Here's the profit margins of the rent-to-own industry leaders in context (from their lobby group) http://www.rtohq.org/legislative-resources/rto-vs-retail-a-profit-comparison/ http://www.rtohq.org/legislative-resources/rto-vs-retail-a-p... Massively overcharging poor people for products they probably shouldn't buy is a profitable endeavour, but only in line with the margins made by budget retailers usually regarded as offering good value-for-money
- MadManE 12y agoThis is a good point that I forget about. People seem to assume that just because the prices being charged are insane (and they are), then the business must be lighting cigars with $100 bills. There is a reason that the prices are so high. It's not just the "evil capitalists".