So instead of charging usury rates for cc...

Post #332,730 by beepster 9/17/10 11:35:30 PM Reply	So instead of charging usury rates for cc... ...now its ok to do it on the checking accounts instead. Gotcha. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,734 by mhuber 9/18/10 12:31:02 AM Reply	How many bankrupcies? are these fees going to cause, compared to the number caused by CC practices that would be considered fraud in any other context? --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #332,761 by crazy 9/18/10 7:40:31 PM Reply	Yes, it is You want to move your checking account to another bank? Open a new account on your next paycheck, and you are done. Want to avoid a jump in your CC interest, which in turn triggers a late fee, which in turn triggers a credit ding, which in turn triggers all your other card to invoke your bad report clause and up your interest rate from a teaser to 25%? Too f'ing late, they already charged you and now you are simply struggling to not go over the limit, which would do it all again, but now invoke repeat offender late fees. It's a different story, with different costs and leverage.
Post #332,768 by beepster 9/18/10 11:08:48 PM Reply	All solved by... reading the fine print. Which noone did on the cc agreements, nor will they do on the checking accounts. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,777 by mhuber 9/19/10 2:53:13 AM Reply	Which fine print? The credit card companies had the right to change the fine print at any time without notice. And they did so frequently. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #332,782 by beepster 9/19/10 11:01:09 AM Reply	No, they didn't they would send a change in the mailing of the bills. And you had the option every time to cancel the account. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,785 by crazy 9/19/10 11:45:17 AM Reply	Please detail the cost to "cancel" You really can't compare the issues until you quantify the costs. And you are cherry picking on the notice issue. I can do the same. If someone gets their bills electronically (no paper option is pushed) and pays through direct withdrawal (again, pushed hard), then the only communication left is a stream of emails, monthly worthless spam that you are trained to ignore. If they get it the old fashioned way, in the mail, the packet is constructed to push the ads (affiliate marketing pays huge) and downplay the terms change information. I know, I've mailed these things, and I was part of the backroom design. They adhere to the bare legal minimum in font and language. If the lawyers approved it (and even sometimes when they don't), the thing gets mailed. So, notification is horrible. But even if it wasn't, so what. The power balance is too large. If one side can change the terms of a contract at any time, it's not a contract. If only side can, then it is slavery.
Post #332,789 by beepster 9/19/10 11:58:08 AM Reply	You're cherry picking the wrong guy. I read them all. Every word. Every email. Because I know the notification is horrible and that they are trying to screw me. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,780 by crazy 9/19/10 8:18:45 AM Reply	No it's not As already stated, they changed the terms of the "agreement" without you agreeing. You simply have to be carrying an outstanding balance, and once you hit that point, you either instantly owe them more money than what is in your budget, or you have to come up with someone else to loan you the money and move it, which might cost far more at that point. And one of the ways they changed it was if you screw up a payment to someone else, then that can trigger a problem in all your current accounts. Think about it. If I have 3 CCards, various home bills, etc. 1 has a $5K limit with $3,000 on it. 1 CC has a 6K limit and $5,800 on it. The other has a $1,000 limit and $500 on it. If I have a car repair issue or other financial emergency need, maybe that month I juggled bills. Maybe I used $1,500 from the 5K card, pushing close to the edge. I paid everything but toward the $1K card. Hell, I know I can pay that $500 off next month, but this month, I just have to juggle. I get dinged by $1k card. Both my 5K and $6K cards had a 9% limit. Not too bad, but not to good. The ding happened, the 2 cards raise interest to (oh, I don't know, I've seen these "offers" move up to 29% when a ding happened, it was just insane. But let's say this one goes to 20%, still to damn high. I won't bother with the ripple, the compounding (feel free to do the math), the additional fees, the additional bad credit dings, the multi-company spiral effect as each one screws you since they all know they have you in a shitty position. So at this moment, I have about 11K of outstanding balance which is now at 20%. With no ability to get better than 25% on a new account since now I have a bunch of ding on multiples, even though I paid them according to the agreement I made. But that agreement evaporating when the CC company changed the terms on their website. And based on the old law, I needed go to the site and reread it (on demand, when it changed, with change notice buried in an email that I didn't read because it looks like standard bank spam mail), and if I didn't agree with it I needed to close my account. But of course, by the time that happens, the charges have hit, my budget has a hole of a few hundred dollars a month, and it is only getting worse. Beep, give it up. You are on the FAR wrong side of this issue. Unless your side is "keep my taxes, fees, and everything else as low as possible, and if you need more money, feel free to screw the people (who can't afford it) (for thousands of dollars) that don't read the non-existent small print since it will keep me from paying an extra $10 a month." Oh, that's right, you won't be paying it. You'll keep your balances high enough if you use that bank. You have the money. A portion of the population will decide it is not worth it and move to another bank. That bank may be less convenient (locations, macs, etc), but you get what you pay for. And a portion will pay the $10 a month, while keep their balances low. Which is FAR better than what happened before. I'm still trying to determine if you are in standard Devil's advocate mode or if you really believe this shit. If you respond, please give individual examples (like I did) to show why the historical laws would be better for the population in general.
Post #332,787 by beepster 9/19/10 11:55:33 AM Reply	The side I'm on is the side that says BOA is going to move those practices to checking and other accounts as much as they can...they're going to use the excuse of legislation in doing so, and people are going to keep complaining about how unfair it is that things like this keep happening to them. (oh, when did THAT fee get instituted ($39 overdraft, $2 for ATMs not on our network in addition to what the ATM charges cost, pick a new fee to add here...all communicated via an additional flyer in your bill that looks like SPAM so you won't read it..to your peril) On the CC side, you always had an option. Keep the balances down to realistic levels. Close the accounts. Please don't tell me that the mountain of consumer debt ran up happened because everybody had "emergency car repairs". It came from people losing the discipline that their parents had about spending what you have and not more..using the cards sparingly and paying them down religiously. Do you know how many times I've cycled cards? Miss one payment by one day and the rate jumped...account closed, lowered rate...paid for at the slowest possible rate OR change it back. IOW, call them, negotiate. It works. Does this mean that I never got hit? Nope. It does mean that I limited the pain as much as possible. It has zero to do with how much money I keep in any bank, which is apparently alot less than you think it is and alot more about focusing on whats important versus what isn't...and working alot of deals. (which is my job..and I am good at it) So, shorter answer, is I'm on the side that says you were taken advantage of...for behavior that you should NOT have displayed...so I am not willing to blame 100% of the problem on the credit card companies...which are now consolidated into huge conglomerate banks thanks to your government, who passed a huge new set of legislations to "protect you" from yourself that will cost you money, which you will happily spend because you think that it is less than you would have spent otherwise. And you are taking this as a defense of what exactly? Credit card companies? Please. And yes, it is all about keeping as much of my money as I can. I earned it. I want to pay as little tax as possible, as few fees as possible and piss away as little as possible. Spend as little as possible on the things that I want and finance only necessities. Does this mean I expect to pay zero taxes. No. Government provides things to me that have a value. Does this mean that I want to pay for waste, inefficiency, thievery, studies about homosexual frogs, your senator's pet project...no. My last straw in NJ that drove me out was the pay to play in Atlantic county right after the Camden Co auditors found 26M of irregularity in the school budgets, ON THE FIRST DAY of the audit. The next day I started looking for out of state jobs, and eventually uprooted my family and moved to FL. You see, for a while I rationalized NJ by saying to myself "I'm paying for better schools." and "My gas is cheaper and the pump it for me", and "My family is close"...and finally it got to the point that I could no longer rationalize paying the highest taxes so that my governor could pay his gay lover 250k per year to look good. Is that saying that FL is better? Not necessarily...but alot less of my money is at play in that game. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,791 by drook 9/19/10 12:43:41 PM Reply	It's not mine working alot of deals. (which is my job..and I am good at it) So finance is your job. And you're good at finance. What a shock. So it's okay to you that companies retain lots of people (like you) who are good at finance to screw the vast majority of the rest of us who don't have time to make it our full-time job. To put it another way, from what you've just said the only acceptable way to ensure that people aren't screwed is for each of them to devote themselves to working deals and protecting their finances. If we all do that, who's going to do the actual work? -- Drew
Post #332,818 by beepster 9/19/10 11:14:37 PM Reply	Its not finance its working deals. But thats no matter. And the point is just that, the vast majority of people SHOULD pay attention to their money, and they don't. Your parents most likely did. Its not a job...its just smart. And it sounds to me like you think it should NOT be your job to pay attention to your money. And you wonder how it became so easy to take it from you. Good lord. How is THAT the fault of some company? Again, this is not a defense of the industry. The practices were designed to take advantage of the situation, and they did. But they had very willing participants...and still do. And you seem to think thats ok. Somehow, if I throw 1000 singles into the street in NYC...you seem to think that I should be able to walk out there and pick all 1000 back up....or there should be vast government intervention to get even with the people on the street who picked up my money and walked away...and I should have no culpability in the matter whatsoever. But never mind, the credit card companies made everybody buy those iphone accounts and 60 inch plasma tvs and designer shoes. What was I thinking. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,820 by drook 9/20/10 12:32:17 AM Reply	Digital thinking ... isn't -- Drew
Post #332,823 by crazy 9/20/10 7:17:23 AM 9/20/10 7:19:08 AM Reply	He's close to right Do you remember the Cosby show where he was a doctor? His son's best friend's father owned a junk yard, and his son was dropping out of school to go work there. Dad did a math lesson, step by step, of what it costs to live VS how little he'd make. But the real kicker was when the kid explained he didn't even need to learn math. The example the dad used was by stealing his money via a quick scam. If the kid didn't know math, and watch out, he'd be fucked. Simply part of life. No Beep, I don't claim that the vast majority of people out there aren't lazy, stupid, and trying to get something for nothing, which in turns opens them up to this level of manipulation. Like little kids wandering the neighborhood, looking for a free swim in a neighbor's pool. And the neighbor doesn't have a fence. And the neighbor has big signs, saying, C'mon, swim here. The pool is cool. It feels good. Is has a great deep end. The really good swimmers don't have to worry. But there's only a few really good swimmers, the rest suck. Their parents didn't teach them to swim, a key life skill. It wasn't part of their culture. The pool is a deadly attractive nuisance in this case. Just like the framework of rules or lack of rules concerning the credit card issue. Except CC companies then used this framework to extract the maximum amount of cash it could from this group of people. Why are you unable to see the huge difference of the balance of power on the CC side VS the checking account fee (and any other fee related to cash you already have and can move at will, VS cash you owe someone else (and the fact the the entire industry at that exact moment would be putting the squeeze on you)). That's my point. If you can see it, and simply don't care, ok. Then there is no point to continue this, since that is a personal choice. But if you can't see it, then, why? What the hell is wrong with you? Ok, so they aren't kids, and they "should know better". But they are sheeple. You know this. So then the question becomes, are they worth protecting? And at what cost? Edited by crazy Sept. 20, 2010, 07:19:08 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #332,827 by beepster 9/20/10 8:21:47 AM Reply	So why do I have to be content.. and expectant that "they are sheeple" and that on a continuing basis we have to create a rule set and the damned nanny state to take care of them? Believe, as a parent, you know the deal re: tough love. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,829 by crazy 9/20/10 9:44:46 AM Reply	Because there are a lot more of them than you And the only reason you get to keep your hard earned money is due to a social contract that is being broken. The social contract includes the laws that keep them from killing you and taking your stuff. There has to be a balance of some sort.
Post #332,830 by beepster 9/20/10 10:08:54 AM Reply	So now they were killing people? Nice over reach. So instead of working to promote the common good by improving the skills of the population, we default to the proposition that they are hopeless and big mother government needs to coddle them forever. "I'm not down with that". Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,792 by Another Scott 9/19/10 12:45:31 PM Reply	As long as they disclose, it's Ok? The Credit CARD Act of 2009 was unnecessary? http://www.creditcar...edit-card-act.pdf (33 paage .pdf). A summary - http://www.creditcar...card-law-1282.php : Consumer protections will be phased in over the next 15 months with the earliest starting Aug. 20, 2009. By that date, all card issuers must begin giving 45-day advance notice of significant changes in card terms. That is also the deadline for giving consumers at least 21 days (instead of the current 14) to pay their monthly credit card bills. (See an interactive timeline of how the bill became law and when its provisions take effect.) The bulk of the consumer protections -- limiting when interest rates can be increased, banning universal default and double-cycle billing, and restricting credit cards for minors, among others -- take effect Feb. 22, 2010. The timing of the law was a major point of contention during Congressional debate on the bill. Consumer advocates argued families struggling in the recession needed help sooner while banking lobbyists pushed for more time to implement changes in billing, operations and computer systems required by the law. Provisions for restoring interest rates to previous levels if cardholders show six months of good behavior do not start until Aug. 22, 2010. Making gift cards valid for at least five years and requiring that fees are reasonable also take effect by August 2010. Federal rules approved by regulators in December 2008 overlap with the new law and cover many but not all of the same practices. Those federal rules take effect July 1, 2010. Other provisions of the bill include: * Fines of up to $5,000 for card issuers that violate the act. * Banning universal default and double-cycle billing. * Prohibiting over-limit fees unless consumers agree to allow transactions that exceed their credit limits to go through rather than be denied. * Fees for late payments, over-limit charges or other penalty fees must be reasonable and related to the violation. * Extending the life of gift cards and gift certificates so that they cannot expire within five years of activation. Banning dormancy or inactivity fees on gift cards unless there has been no activity in a 12-month period. * Banning credit cards for people under the age of 21 unless they have adult co-signers or show proof that they have the means to repay the debts. College students must get permission from parents or guardians to increase credit limits on joint accounts they hold with those adults. The new law will ban those free pizza and T-shirt giveaways -- popular on many college campuses -- if students sign up for credit cards. Colleges, universities and alumni associations would have to disclose the nature of contracts they sign with credit card marketers allowing access to student and alumni contact information. * Requiring that card issuers disclose how long it would take to pay off credit card balances if cardholders make only minimum payments each month and how much users would have to pay each month if they want to pay off their balances in 36 months. [...] Personally, I don't think that disclosure of onerous, usurious, and blatantly unfair terms in legalese in a 4 point font is enough. There have to be reasonable limits on fees and costs that banks can impose on consumers. Theoretically being able to "take your business elsewhere" isn't sufficient. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,819 by beepster 9/19/10 11:22:50 PM Reply	I don't have any problems with this and frankly it didn't change much...except shutting down double cycle billing. And again, anyone that signed up for a card that used double cycle didn't read the agreement. They were too happy to send away for that card that guaranteed they would be accepted. Who's fault is it if I'm a sucker? I did like the minimum gift card life though. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,824 by Another Scott 9/20/10 7:23:30 AM Reply	You didn't answer: As long as they disclose, it's Ok?
Post #332,828 by beepster 9/20/10 8:25:44 AM Reply	Too broad, so no. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,838 by drook 9/20/10 4:17:03 PM Reply	But I thought you liked digital think? -- Drew
Post #332,840 by beepster 9/20/10 4:42:27 PM Reply	If that is your attempt at a dig ...it missed. Not a fan of "gotcha" posts... And I had already stated getting rid of double cycle billing was a good thing.. So no, the blanket of "as long as they disclose, its ok" didn't even hold to my existing post. That does NOT change the fact that anybody who signed on to a card program like that (and double cycle billing was disclosed) was an fool and that fool and his money were soon parted. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,825 by crazy 9/20/10 7:25:54 AM Reply	So now I'm confused on your stance, other than you are annoyed and foaming a bit, but I don't know what you are annoyed about. Is there something in the new law that annoys you? If so, what? If not, what the hell are you annoyed about?

Welcome to IWETHEY!