Does this include loan sharks or just credit cards?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Does this include loan sharks or just credit cards?

---

Pay day loans will sky rocket... Is that what you want Bernie? Having said that forever debt is not a solution.

Aggies1322 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

BREAKING: Senator Bernie Sanders announces he will work with Trump to cap the credit card interest rates at 10%

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 15, 2024

You know the state of the Democrat Party is bad when the far left loon is more moderate than the average thought leader on the left.

I for one would love to see this policy in place. Usury is wicked.

---

You know that means that the average American will no longer have credit available to them, right? An unsecured credit product to everyday Americans comes with a ton of risk.. the banks will no longer take that risk if the govt caps what they can charge. Horrible policy imo.

---

This. 1,000,000 times this.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Quote:

---

You know that means that the average American will no longer have credit available to them, right? An unsecured credit product to everyday Americans comes with a ton of risk.. the banks will no longer take that risk if the govt caps what they can charge. Horrible policy imo.

---

Back away from the ledge.

First of all, CC companies do not make their money on the "28%" interest. They make their golden egg on the transaction fee at swipe, so jot that down. You think you're pulling one over on Visa by paying your balance off every month?

Further, creditors lose billions on bankruptcy. This would reduce the amount of loss dramatically. In reality this would result CCs reducing the limit they allow to be borrowed.

---

I know exactly how money is made - but there is a necessity to price based on risk. How do you justify charging a billion dollar valuation company 9.5% on their RLOC, that is secured by all assets and then charging 10% on a credit card to the person who has 60% DTI?

Does lower interest rate prevent more bankruptcies? CC companies don't lose all the money instead of just some via lower interest rates.

Will CC companies really balk at making 10% and stop making CCs completely or only more stringent in who they provide the CCs to?

When does the idea get called racist by the media?

Is it a good thing that Americans won't be saddled with debt they can never pay off? Or is a hamster wheel rat-race everybody buying everything economy a good enough trade off?

Is it even the fed govt jobs to do this? They have too much power already. Maybe this is something that could be supported at a state level and not at the fed level? We allow laws against usury which is determined by "what feels right" so this just shifts that usury line…

lots of moving parts and seemingly no easy answer…. If doing this helps garner in more support for Rs for the future, maybe it's one step back to go two steps forward for the country as a whole..?

Lol a hero of the nutty left wants to work with Trump now. The cognitive dissonance must be mind bending for dems about now.

Logos Stick said:

---

No one is forced to take out a 28% unsecured loan.

---

agreed.

lots of people do take them out though and this would potentially impact that ability (which some think is a good thing and some think is not)

"What's Bernie gonna do? Wave some magic wand?"

- Barack Obama

Gilligan said:

---

Explain to me why credit card companies need 18% or higher to function?

---

Why is it the government's job to decide what a private business can do?

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

No one is forced to take out a 28% unsecured loan.

---

agreed.

lots of people do take them out though and this would potentially impact that ability (which some think is a good thing and some think is not)

---

Whether you think it is a good thing or not, it is not for the govt to decide price ceilings.. this board (rightfully) lost it over Kamala's price gouging plan. What would you classify this as? You're going to handcuff banks on pricing instead of grocery stores, and that is okay?

Aggies1322 said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

No one is forced to take out a 28% unsecured loan.

---

agreed.

lots of people do take them out though and this would potentially impact that ability (which some think is a good thing and some think is not)

---

Whether you think it is a good thing or not, it is not for the govt to decide price ceilings.. this board (rightfully) lost it over Kamala's price gouging plan. What would you classify this as? You're going to handcuff banks on pricing instead of grocery stores, and that is okay?

---

i specifically said "Is it even the fed govt jobs to do this? They have too much power already." And admittedly am more on the fence. If anything, I called it "a step back" (as in against it).

Apologies, I was mostly using your post to make a point to the broader thread. I could've made that more clear, that's on me.

Aggies1322 said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

No one is forced to take out a 28% unsecured loan.

---

agreed.

lots of people do take them out though and this would potentially impact that ability (which some think is a good thing and some think is not)

---

Whether you think it is a good thing or not, it is not for the govt to decide price ceilings.. this board (rightfully) lost it over Kamala's price gouging plan. What would you classify this as? You're going to handcuff banks on pricing instead of grocery stores, and that is okay?

---

Exactly. If you replaced "Trump" with Kamala or Biden in the OP's tweet this board would be (rightfully) losing it. The government has no business telling a private company what to charge.

Yesterday said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

Explain to me why credit card companies need 18% or higher to function?

---

Their objective is not to function, it's to make a profit and be competitive with numerous credit companies, not just credit cards. They have to cover all of the defaults first, then the fraud, then the benefits and finally the overhead. After all of that they want to make people who invest in them rich. That's what business does.

Why can't Apple or Nike operate at lower margins? They can, but that's not their role. As long as there is a lot of competition there is nothing wrong with trying to become rich.

---

They are the leading cause of their own #1 problem.

You see that, right?

Please tell me you see that.

It's important you acknowledge this fact.

10% above prime may be doable. 10% max is crazy for an unsecured loan. Credit card companies do make money on both ends which helps, but that's also why we get rewards points ect. I also agree that 30% is usury.

We have a bad national relationship with credit card debt. And it is a way for a lot of poor people to stay poor longer. I wouldn't mind fewer people qualifying for a more sane interest rate. But this number is silly talk.

Aggies1322 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

BREAKING: Senator Bernie Sanders announces he will work with Trump to cap the credit card interest rates at 10%

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 15, 2024

You know the state of the Democrat Party is bad when the far left loon is more moderate than the average thought leader on the left.

I for one would love to see this policy in place. Usury is wicked.

---

You know that means that the average American will no longer have credit available to them, right? An unsecured credit product to everyday Americans comes with a ton of risk.. the banks will no longer take that risk if the govt caps what they can charge. Horrible policy imo.

---

That's a shame. Maybe they can be responsible and use a debit card.

Mas89 said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

BREAKING: Senator Bernie Sanders announces he will work with Trump to cap the credit card interest rates at 10%

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 15, 2024

You know the state of the Democrat Party is bad when the far left loon is more moderate than the average thought leader on the left.

I for one would love to see this policy in place. Usury is wicked.

---

You know that means that the average American will no longer have credit available to them, right? An unsecured credit product to everyday Americans comes with a ton of risk.. the banks will no longer take that risk if the govt caps what they can charge. Horrible policy imo.

---

That's a shame. Maybe they can be responsible and use a debit card.

---

Whether you like it or not, you will see $500-600 billion of liquidity leave the market overnight. If you don't think that causes recession, I'm not sure what to tell you. Supporting govt overreach to enact your personal finance opinions, is the wrong way to go about it.

Aggies1322 said:

---

Apologies, I was mostly using your post to make a point to the broader thread. I could've made that more clear, that's on me.

---

10-4.

My general starting point is let the free market place work itself out ("a willing but not forced buyer from a willing but not forced seller" (paraphrasing) - which requires some laws and court intervention at times - monopolies, etc.). And also its not the feds job to do most things, and the states can do more policy things.

I just can see many seemingly competing thoughts/policies. We allow usury laws so should those be completely done away with or can that line be moved? Is that only a line that should be drawn at the state level (my gut says yes) and not a federal line (then how do we handle national banks - should they be forced to use the states rates (again, I tend to defer to more states/localities).

And how does this affect the overall market place? Do the CCs really dry up? How much higher interest rate are the payors paying because the CC companies have to account for bankruptcies? Would the rate go down for the payors if CC companies don't account for that? Etc. Etc. I tend to think that this would "work itself out" as the public desires as shown by the free market, but that would need be at a state level. We can continue to watch places like California enact all the terrible laws and see how bad they are and why they should never be enacted anywhere...

I am admittedly on the fence but would overall tend to think this is not a fed issue but should be a state issue.

If CCs are capped at 10% then it's going to be really difficult to get a CC if you have really bad or no credit.

Credit limits will also stagnate and some people may see their's reduced.

Secured CCs may start increasing their share of the market.

Good intentions but government is not the vehicle to fix poor fiscal responsibility culture.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Yesterday said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

Explain to me why credit card companies need 18% or higher to function?

---

Their objective is not to function, it's to make a profit and be competitive with numerous credit companies, not just credit cards. They have to cover all of the defaults first, then the fraud, then the benefits and finally the overhead. After all of that they want to make people who invest in them rich. That's what business does.

Why can't Apple or Nike operate at lower margins? They can, but that's not their role. As long as there is a lot of competition there is nothing wrong with trying to become rich.

---

They are the leading cause of their own #1 problem.

You see that, right?

Please tell me you see that.

It's important you acknowledge this fact.

---

I'm not here to guess what you're insinuating. Post your argument.