wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] smidely May 18, 2009 - 12:06PM

  Frankly, my biggest gripe with the liberties taken by Bank of America and the other welfare-based financial services companies is their nasty habit of making our personal credit and social security information available to whichever hackers and "criminal" (whatever THAT means anymore) gangs who sell this info.

  Can't the banks just use the same encryption software that's keeping those Bush torture pictures from reaching the web? What are the rules effecting their practices?

  
  
• [2] ewq May 18, 2009 - 12:11PM

  Wrong track, Leonard.

  CC companies are tracking this info simply b/c (often through 3rd party vendors) they technically CAN.

  It's a technology thang.

  
  
• [3] Hugh from Brookyn May 18, 2009 - 12:12PM

  Well, we already know that the Obama administration is not going to bail out We the People directly.

  So, we just default on our credit cards, then the credit card companies can go to Obama and Geithner and the companies can get the bailout.

  
  
• [4] Tom Gubanich from Fort Greene May 18, 2009 - 12:14PM

  Higher default rates? Maybe 20% to 30% interest rates have something to do with that.

  
  
• [5] Hugh from Brookyn May 18, 2009 - 12:14PM

  "There's a lot of practices that are going to have to change."

  Sure, and those smart credit con artists are already working on new, ingenious, legal ways to stiff us.

  We can be sure, based on their track record to date, that Obama, Geithner, Bernanke & Co. will be ready and willing to aid the credit companies to rob us in new and inventive ways.

  
  
• [6] ericf May 18, 2009 - 12:14PM

  Are the credit card companies fears of consumer defaults likely to become self-fulfilling? That is, are higher interest rates, limit reductions, etc, likely to drive some customers into default who otherwise would pay?

  
  
• [7] KC from NYC May 18, 2009 - 12:19PM

  How many millions of dollars did Citi spend on its "Live Richly" ad campaign? Was not the entire point of that campaign "spend money as if you were wealthy, even though you clearly aren't"? There's a reason credit card companies are our punching bags: because they deserve it, and deserve far worse.

  They're all in Delaware so that they can charge whatever interest rates they want. They have now taken our tax money are are raising our rates. Usury is the ENTIRE POINT of those companies. Let's not soft-pedal.

  
  
• [8] kai from NJ-NYC May 18, 2009 - 12:25PM

  MBNA was a terrible and usurious company with poor business practices. BofA were fools to purchase them without considering the underlying business practice of handing out easy credit to those that should not have had it (me and my friends) on which MBNA was built.

  
  
• [9] simpsonsmovieblew May 18, 2009 - 12:26PM

  relationship between interest rate and payment rate?

  in other words, is there an obligational difference between principal and interest??

  
  
• [10] John LaVallee from Brooklyn May 18, 2009 - 12:27PM

  If the credit card companies are so worried about defaults why are they raising interest rates on customers that pay their bills on time? If they raise interest on people that are on the edge defaults will surely increase. What are they thinking???

  
  
• [11] aew May 18, 2009 - 12:27PM

  (99% legal fyi)

  
  
• [12] Hugh from Brookyn May 18, 2009 - 12:27PM

  How about a debt strike?!

  Clearly, the financial institutions of the US did some strong-arming to get the great terms and the vast billions they have from the Oligarchs.

  So what can We the People do? Voting doesn't work. Obama is just flipflopping on everything.

  A debt strike will wake them up. People have to remind both the government and its massive donors on Wall Street (or Delaware or North Dakota) that this is not just a democracy in name.

  As for usury, the laws barring usury were abolished in the Reagan years. Big surprise.

  
  
• [13] Carl from Long Valley May 18, 2009 - 12:28PM

  RIDICULOUS, criminal and morally reprehensible.

  Why don;t they try LOW interest rates -- AND, charge no interest on the interest and fees that THEY charged you (you did NOT spend it). PLUS, they should be forced to raise the minimum payments amounts to make it more realistic that it might be paid off -- rather than keep people in bondage to them forever.

  I also agree with the comment just on-air that the ususary issue is the heart --GREED drives these companies. Reduce this for the good of the country.

  
  
• [14] Liz in NYC from Manhattan May 18, 2009 - 12:31PM

  Please be aware that if credit card debt is removed from your balance, you still have to pay tax on it. It will be reported as unearned income for that tax year.

  
  
• [15] Tony from San Jose, CA May 18, 2009 - 12:31PM

  Amex "lost" my check and tried to charge me fees. I now always pay online.

  Also, I dropped B of A and switched to a local CU.

  
  
• [16] steve miller from scarsdale May 18, 2009 - 12:34PM

  I'm a very responsible payer with about 5 cards (only use 1 regularly tho). I called up one of my cards to cancel just because I never use it, and they got an agent on the phone who said "What do I need to do to get you to keep this card" - gave me all kinds of bells and whistles and an interest rate below 10%. I'm still not using hte card tho.

  
  
• [17] aew May 18, 2009 - 12:36PM

  1. setting usury rate/limit

  2. correlating monthly payment and final payment of balance

  these two factors (and aren't they the only ones that really matter?) were way too politically hot for the so called consumer card rights legislation

  
  
• [18] Hugh from Brookyn May 18, 2009 - 12:36PM

  "Consumer attitudes have to change."

  Yes. But let's remember that the government and the all the companies making loans have been encouraging us and deceiving us into spending spending spending for decades.

  Remember Bush post-9/11. "Go out and buy."

  
  
• [19] Carl from Long Valley May 18, 2009 - 12:36PM

  Why are there no "GOOD" credit card companies?

  Why isn't there any company that will offer cards without the fine print and high rates?

  
  
• [20] McGill from Montreal May 18, 2009 - 12:37PM

  Section 61 of the \internal Reveune Code defines gross income. Whenever a valid debt is forgiven, the person who is let off the hook accrues gross income. Such income is taxable in the year of forgiveness

  
  
• [21] gt May 18, 2009 - 12:43PM

  strange segment

  
  
• [22] Amy from Manhattan May 18, 2009 - 12:51PM

  On Liz [14]: Yes, but paying the tax costs less than paying the credit card charges--w/their interest continuing to accumulate.

  And Carl [19], meet Tony [15]. My credit card is w/a credit union, & I haven't had any of the problems discussed on this segment. In fact, last time I got my renewed card, there was a summary of terms enclosed (not that I didn't read the whole agreement) that stated clearly that the interest would default to a higher rate if 2 payments were missed, but also that it would revert to the original rate after 3 on-time payments.

  
  
• [23] TFoster from New York May 18, 2009 - 01:57PM

  Amazing that banks and CC co’s are begging us to go paperless (going green!), yet these same companies continue to jam up our mailboxes with unsolicited marketing materials (based on their intense profiling efforts). Would be better for society if they saved those marketing and mailing dollars and cut out the usurious rates. I ran the numbers assuming banks’ rates were limited to some multiple of say 5 - 10X passbook savings rates, say 5%., vs. ~20+% they regularly charge and added on the typical bogus late charges and annual fees they nail us with and looks like as much of a third of the balance (which could top $186 billion per NYT) is related to excessive interest and bogus late and annual fee charges. In fact, many folks who have almost paid for their purchases are left with balances consisting of hundreds or even thousands of dollars of fees and interest. Also, keep in mind that on every transaction, banks charge merchants 2 – 4% (higher for smaller mom and pop merchants). Nothing wrong with making a profit but banks could still do just fine without all the snooping and gouging.