Pay Day Loans = Legallised Loan Sharks...?
Discussion
P-Jay said:
...you'd have to be stupid to actually use them.{/quote]Possibly, but then:
{quote=Gordon Gecko]A fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place
{quote=Gordon Gecko]A fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place
P-Jay said:
...So are they making - I'm guessing by the explosion in lenders in this market huge profits - from exploiting the stupid, and you don't have a problem with that?
I know a bloke, who has a wife and kids depending on his earnings, and lives in a £220k house whose just been financed into a brand new £60k 'German' car. If you start with payday loans, where do you stop?Soovy said:
0a said:
Nobody forces people to borrow from these companies.
Disagree - the people who have to borrow from these companies do.The existence of these companies is an extra credit option. If people are so irresponsible that they cannot cope with this, then there is no hope for them dealing with money or credit at all.
I have used one of these companies when I overspent in my first job and needed to pay a bill. I paid it back and didn’t do it again.
If an individual isn’t able to do this then they need to see CAB or the CCCS regarding their financial situation.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
At the fear of stereotyping, there did seem to be a preponderance of smokers. The problem with being a male advisor at the CAB, is, because most advisors are female, male advisors tend to get the more forthright clients. So maybe my experience does not reflect the overall situation. There is unquestionably a 'not my fault' culture among the clients/punters I dealt with. I heard the phrase 'I'm entitled' on an almost hourly basis. However, there are also people who have just fallen through the cracks and they have stories which would melt the heart of the most ruthless critic. The problem as always, is who determines who are genuinely deserving of help and the 'chancers'. Given the history of people at the bottom of the pile, I imagine the delinquency rate must be very high. Also if a bank thinks it's okay to charge customers of years standing £25 for any overdrawn sum, then why is it not reasonable for these lenders to charge £10 for a one week £100 loan - are their admin costs any less than a high st bank.
If these lenders are selling on their customers details to third parties – surely this is a data protection issue and illegal – easy remedy
Edited by ianash on Monday 6th February 18:06
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The idea in the suggestion was you make most of your profit on the administration fee, not the interest. You would set an administration fee according to your costs and the probability your borrower would rip you off or would otherwise not be able to repay the loan.P-Jay said:
Take this example:
Young guy, 21 years old, first job, minimum wage takes home about £850 a month and is somehow in this day and age trying to make his way in the world.
His fridge breaks down - he's potless with 10 days till payday so left with a choice - eat takeaways for 10 days which he can't afford, go overdrawn without agreement and pay £100 in 'fees' or take out a payday loan for £100 to buy a cheap fridge.
They agree it on the spot because their business model is based on giving money to anyone with an e-mail address and a bank account - he takes the £100 and buys a fridge.
Payday comes and they take £110 - £125 from him.
I don't have a problem with that; it's a high-cost but affordable way out of an emergency.
The story was about people borrowing on payday loans rather than credit cards, though - your example chap is new to the credit market rather than a switcher.Young guy, 21 years old, first job, minimum wage takes home about £850 a month and is somehow in this day and age trying to make his way in the world.
His fridge breaks down - he's potless with 10 days till payday so left with a choice - eat takeaways for 10 days which he can't afford, go overdrawn without agreement and pay £100 in 'fees' or take out a payday loan for £100 to buy a cheap fridge.
They agree it on the spot because their business model is based on giving money to anyone with an e-mail address and a bank account - he takes the £100 and buys a fridge.
Payday comes and they take £110 - £125 from him.
I don't have a problem with that; it's a high-cost but affordable way out of an emergency.
What's actually happening? Are all credit card users becoming responsible and paying down their debt while simultaneously people who've never had a credit card are getting payday loans? Surely that must be the case rather than people who had cards switching to loans.
P-Jay said:
But you'd have to be stupid to actually use them.
Stupid or desperate. If someone is living hand-to-mouth and is hit with an unexpected expense they can't avoid, being able to borrow short term (even at a very high rate) may mean that they can get to work for the rest of the month and not lose their job. The thing most likely to throw people expenses like that is a car, and while it is easy to say that a car is a luxury and the poor ought not to build their way of life around having one, for people in rural communities it can often be the only realistic option.otolith said:
Stupid or desperate.
Yes, that is the only explanation IMO.But it still leaves the fundamental question why, when so much in the modern world is regulated "to protect the public" the frankly disgusting activities of these companies are allowed to continue.
As for those who suggest there's not much profit in it, how do you think the constant TV advertising campaigns get paid for?
Ozzie Osmond said:
Soovy said:
Personally I think they offer a decent service at a fair price.
Comedy. Pure comedy.As has been pointed out on here the actual cost of using these services is far less than going overdrawn without authorisation at your bank.
Frankly if people are to dumb and spend what they cannot afford the responsibility is theirs... I mean what next blaming "Bargin Booze" for alcoholism?...Chip Shops for obesity?... Both things that can be found in poorer areas and are over used by the inhabitants of those areas much like these companies are.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Yes, that is the only explanation IMO.
But it still leaves the fundamental question why, when so much in the modern world is regulated "to protect the public" the frankly disgusting activities of these companies are allowed to continue.
As for those who suggest there's not much profit in it, how do you think the constant TV advertising campaigns get paid for?
So you bring in regulation and cap interest rates - result, all the companies cease business. You still have the demand from people who have nowhere else to go. The Govt's crisis loans have usually been used up (they are capped by area)and the only people prepared to lend are the doorstep lenders. So you have now shut down a legitimate lending source and replaced it with the real gangsters. I don't see how this has improved matters. I wait to be educated.But it still leaves the fundamental question why, when so much in the modern world is regulated "to protect the public" the frankly disgusting activities of these companies are allowed to continue.
As for those who suggest there's not much profit in it, how do you think the constant TV advertising campaigns get paid for?
Ozzie Osmond said:
otolith said:
Stupid or desperate.
Yes, that is the only explanation IMO.But it still leaves the fundamental question why, when so much in the modern world is regulated "to protect the public" the frankly disgusting activities of these companies are allowed to continue.
If, for example, someone needs to fix their car or pay their bus fares in order to get to work for the rest of the month, it is better that they take the loan than lose their job.
Ozzie Osmond said:
otolith said:
Stupid or desperate.
Yes, that is the only explanation IMO.But it still leaves the fundamental question why, when so much in the modern world is regulated "to protect the public" the frankly disgusting activities of these companies are allowed to continue.
As for those who suggest there's not much profit in it, how do you think the constant TV advertising campaigns get paid for?
I am willing to lend money to you. I won't break your legs or pimp out your daughter or wife. I won't send the chaps round with Mr Bat. I operate within the Law, accepting that you are a bad risk as you have exhausted all other options.
If you want to borrow 500 quid from me for two weeks, it will cost you 50 quid. So you give me 550 quid in 15 days once you've been paid. Simple.
You can apply if you want, you don't have to. Your choice. You can fill in the form online when you're ready. Or not. You choose.
NOTHING wrong with it. NOTHING.
Your problem is that you love to paint the punter as the poor downtroden serf, beaten down by capitalism. It's so very trot.
These companies offer a service, of which you can avail yourself if you wish to. No force. No coercion. Nothing.
I'd be prepared to wager that they have saved some people from having their knees busted or granny's gas cut off. When no one else would help. Not the banks, not people's families.
But don't let the truth get in the way of student politics and name calling, eh comrade?
Edited by Soovy on Monday 6th February 19:48
Soovy said:
Why is it disgusting?
I am willing to lend money to you. I won't break your legs or pimp out your daughter or wife. I won't send the chaps round with Mr Bat. I operate within the Law, accepting that you are a bad risk as you have exhausted all other options.
If you want to borrow 500 quid from me for two weeks, it will cost you 50 quid. So you give me 550 quid in 15 days once you've been paid. Simple.
You can apply if you want, you don't have to. Your choice. You can fill in the form online when you're ready. Or not. You choose.
NOTHING wrong with it. NOTHING.
Your problem is that you love to paint the punter as the poor downtroden serf, beaten down by capitalism. It's so very trot.
These companies offer a service, of which you can avail yourself if you wish to. No force. No coercion. Nothing.
I'd be prepared to wager that they have saved some people from having their knees busted or granny's gas cut off. When no one else would help. Not the banks, not people's families.
But don't let the truth get in the way of student politics and name calling, eh comrade?
^^^^^ This! I am willing to lend money to you. I won't break your legs or pimp out your daughter or wife. I won't send the chaps round with Mr Bat. I operate within the Law, accepting that you are a bad risk as you have exhausted all other options.
If you want to borrow 500 quid from me for two weeks, it will cost you 50 quid. So you give me 550 quid in 15 days once you've been paid. Simple.
You can apply if you want, you don't have to. Your choice. You can fill in the form online when you're ready. Or not. You choose.
NOTHING wrong with it. NOTHING.
Your problem is that you love to paint the punter as the poor downtroden serf, beaten down by capitalism. It's so very trot.
These companies offer a service, of which you can avail yourself if you wish to. No force. No coercion. Nothing.
I'd be prepared to wager that they have saved some people from having their knees busted or granny's gas cut off. When no one else would help. Not the banks, not people's families.
But don't let the truth get in the way of student politics and name calling, eh comrade?
Edited by Soovy on Monday 6th February 19:48
I mean heaven forfend that people have to operate a level of personal responsibility that extends beyond... ooo shiny want!
Ozzie Osmond said:
otolith said:
Stupid or desperate.
Yes, that is the only explanation IMO.But it still leaves the fundamental question why, when so much in the modern world is regulated "to protect the public" the frankly disgusting activities of these companies are allowed to continue.
The shylock isn't even interested in dealing with the stupid or the desperate. It's not about IQ or reason the cash is needed. It's about CONVENIENCE.
A CONVENIENCE store sells a can of coke for twice the price of a giant supermarket chain. Do you think THEY'RE 'frankly disgusting'. A chippy sells a bag of chips for 6 times the price you can make them for yourself. Is that disgusting too? What about a mortgage at 10 TIMES base rate? Or a five grand handbag?
Why do you think people pay 5 or 10% to a casher to take their cheque? Or pay £2 for a coffee they can make themselves for 20p? Or hire a taxi when they could wait for a bus or walk?
groak said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
otolith said:
Stupid or desperate.
Yes, that is the only explanation IMO.But it still leaves the fundamental question why, when so much in the modern world is regulated "to protect the public" the frankly disgusting activities of these companies are allowed to continue.
The shylock isn't even interested in dealing with the stupid or the desperate. It's not about IQ or reason the cash is needed. It's about CONVENIENCE.
A CONVENIENCE store sells a can of coke for twice the price of a giant supermarket chain. Do you think THEY'RE 'frankly disgusting'. A chippy sells a bag of chips for 6 times the price you can make them for yourself. Is that disgusting too? What about a mortgage at 10 TIMES base rate? Or a five grand handbag?
Why do you think people pay 5 or 10% to a casher to take their cheque? Or pay £2 for a coffee they can make themselves for 20p? Or hire a taxi when they could wait for a bus or walk?
Soovy said:
These companies offer a service, of which you can avail yourself if you wish to. No force. No coercion. Nothing.
But don't let the truth get in the way of student politics and name calling, eh comrade?
Imagine,But don't let the truth get in the way of student politics and name calling, eh comrade?
- We are in the desert
- I have a spare bottle of water, cost me 99p at Tesco
- You have no water and will die tomorrow
- I can sell you my spare bottle of water which will save your life
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff