The legislature enacted this, it wasn’t by the Governor’s fiat. Do you have a problem with representative democracy? This was the decision of the people, via their elected representatives.
Payday lending isn’t automatically predatory. Of course the APR on a payday loan is astronomical, it’s a short term loan to people that generally have poor credit. But the borrowers don’t care about the APR, they only care about the total fee they have to pay. A payday loan at a “non-usurious” rate wouldn’t be worth making unless you could acheive some serious volume business, but most payday lenders I’ve seen have basically been neighborhood concerns.
As for the tax filing businesses, yeah, it would be great if people didn’t live check-to-check and had a basic grasp of the time value of money, but if you need money RIGHT NOW then you might be willing to pay for that service. There’s nothing wrong with having that option.
Your last point presents a false dichotomy. Payday lenders can be regulated to prevent certain abuses and still provide a valuable service to the type of borrowers your average bank won’t deal with. It’s not an all or nothing proposition. You recognize that banks don’t serve these folks, yet you’re against payday lenders. Can you think of a good alternative?
What’s more likely, that Virginia’s legislature collectively developed a conscience and decided to play the benevolent nanny, or that banking interests lobbied for legislation that hamstrings a competitor to their industry?
Nonsense. Payday lenders are big business.
Of course I do, when the government invokes threat of force to prevent voluntary transactions from occurring between consenting adults. Are you suggesting that as long as 50+% of the voting populace ‘wants something’, they can have it? I thought that is what our Constitution was designed to protect against.
50+% of California voters repudiated gay marriage via Prop 8. OK by you?
I wouldn’t call $10,000 annual profits per location big business. I bet a fast food restaurant could make more than that.
A privately owned business announces their earnings to the media? In such a manner as to make it seem that, “Well, gee, we don’t really make any money.” I’m sorry, my skepticism meter just broke.
If it’s unconstitutional, take it to the courts. That’s the way it works.
Prop 8 was decided by a vote of the state. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t have a problem with it being lawful. That’s what the people wanted.
There are all kinds of voluntary transactions between consenting adults that are outlalawed.
I think the fact that they’re closing up shop is as clear an indicator as any of what little money they’re making. If they’re secretly raking in all this money, why leave? And how much do you think they charge on these loans? They might be able to charge $40 on a $500 loan.
As always, I agree with you 100%.
Once the current crisis is over and banks start lending again, you ***will ***(yes, that’s a guaran-damn-tee, folks) hear somoene (prediction: Al Sharpton) crowing about the lack of “access to financing” available to poor people in Virginia.
Of course there are. It’s a travesty. Why would you support more of them? Why would you elect officials who legislate more of them?
They are only closing 19 of their 64 shops. Please recalibrate your skepticism meter.
Where do you get $40 from?
The new cigarette taxes finally convinced my mom to quit smoking. Could add years to her life. I’d been trying to convince her for years.
We never got involved with check cashing loan sharks. I’ve always been able to figure out ways to deal with financial problems without them. Sold blood plasma to buy food or lived on potatoes and pot noodles for stretches before but we did okay.
I’ll tell you what though when I have kids it isn’t gonna be till I’m rich enough to never give them problems like that. See I was lucky though. For whatever reason I happened to be smart enough to know pay day advance scams are bad.
With the predatory interest they charge it’s easy to get in a cycle depending on them. Like smokes kind of. Each hit means you’ll need another pay day advance boost to make it through the next month. Just like cigarette addiction means every cigarette you smoke keeps you addicted so you’ll need the next one, which makes sure you need the next one etc.
Now why would someone enter a cycle like that? Is it a smart choice? Fuck no. That’s the problem, payday advance places exploit people’s vulnerability and ignorance.
So to return to your argument about gay marriage.
Do you believe equal treatment under the law is the same level of importance as buying defective and dangerous products? Which these scams pretty much amount to.
I mixed up the companies in the article.
$40 I just pulled out of my ass because it’s going to depend on the state. For a more concrete example, looking at Check 'n Go’s website, they charge $55 on a $500 loan in Florida, while in Texas they charge $125 (:eek:).
Are you arguing that payday lending is fraudulent? That they are somehow enticing someone into entering into a contract via nefarious means, by misrepresenting the terms and conditions of the deal? That’s the definition of a scam, isn’t it? You seem to know all about this. I’d like to hear more.
Consumer satisfaction with payday lenders is usually quite high relative to other high-interest loans like credit cards. One reason for this is that the ‘deal’ is usually exceedingly clear: Borrow $100, pay back $115 in two weeks. Or something like that. It’s very easy to understand. This contrasts with credit cards, which often have loads of fine print, or confusing fee structures, or payment allocation methods that put the consumer in the worst possible place.
Customers need to get into their car, or walk down the street, and walk into a payday lending store to conduct business. That’s a pretty conscious decision, don’t you think? Or is that also somehow a ‘scam’?
In fact, this is also one of the reasons consumer satisfaction is so high. Many of these underbanked consumers are intimidated by traditional banks, but like the face-to-face transaction capability of a local bricks and mortar lender.
So no, I don’t buy that they are being ‘scammed’. Not in the least. They are making an extremely conscious, voluntary decision to borrow money with terms and conditions that are quite clear.
You, on the other hand, seem eager to deny them this choice, as well as deny employment to payday lending employees, because you apparently Know What Is Best.
What else is on your list of Knowing What Is Best for the Little People, who apparently can’t make decisions for themselves? Prohibition of alcohol? R-Rated movies with foul language? Staying up late on a school night? Driving too fast and passing on the right?
Why don’t you run down some of your personal habits for the rest of us, and we’ll see if we can find something objectionable. After all, I can also claim We Know What is Best. It’ll be fun. It’ll be a contest to see who can outlaw the most voluntary transactions that occur between consenting adults.
I assume you could find a cite saying many smokers are happy with there smokes too, and that’s true to some extent, and I bet I could a nice bunch of cites about gearheads who want do away with mandatory pollution control systems on cars. The point being we live in a society, we have a duty to each other because we don’t live in glass bubbles.
I’m not for arbitrarily banning things. I believe weed should be legal as long as beer and tobacco is. It’s not as dangerous as either of those.
The thing I don’t get is why the fuck are so many people in a position to even need these services? Doesn’t it strike you as a break down of the system? The working poor aren’t lazy. Most of them just weren’t trained how to approach life right. I spent my early 20s unlearning bad habbits from my poor family. Still unlearning them. Those habbits are why they’re poor. They could all be expressed as the “smoke it while you got it” school of money management.
See when you’re poor simple things like a pop, new clothes, washing machine/trip to laundromat, food that resembles food, etc. are luxuries. Think about that for a minute. It puts you in a different mindset. Sure you should buy gas with that $20, but your stomach is growling and you’ve been eating mac and “cheese” dinners for the last 3 weeks because it’s all you could afford. The thought of another plate of it makes you queasy. You just want one good meal. The future is an abstract thing but your growling stomach is very real.
Different mindset. You can’t get ahead in that mindset. You won’t think logical. It pushes you to live for today while it’s good, because that’s rare.
People need to get the word out about how to get ahead. We need to restructure society so people can, and they’re educated how to.
I sympathize with your position. I really do. I hate being told what I can and can’t do, but there is a duty to protect people from themselves. Many of them were just raised that way and don’t know any better.
I ask you this simple question. Why would someone willingly be in a position to have to rely on these services?
Sure, banks aren’t serving this demographic, but the payday loan places aren’t serving them, either. At least, in other than the “To Serve Man” sense. Getting rid of the payday loan shops isn’t giving the poor a hand up, but it at least means not kicking them while they’re down.
Doesn’t really matter why they need them, or why they want them. The way the system works was described pretty well by IdahoMauleMan. There’s nothing fraudulent going on; no scam involved. Payday loan places are extremely clear about what’s owed and when. No fine print, no loopholes. You borrow $100, you owe $115 in two weeks.
A duty to protect people from themselves? I disagree. That’s a pretty broad, subjective spectrum, and I’m not interested in my lawmakers putting themselves in a position to decide what’s best for, and what’s not good for, the individual. I’m against mandatory seat belt laws, I’m against a flat out ban on indoor smoking, and I’m against legislating where consumers can and can not borrow money and at what rate.
If John Smith wants to drive without a seat belt and risk injuring himself, that should be his choice. If a restaurant wants to allow indoor smoking, I see no reason why they can’t make that decision on their own. If John wants to borrow $100 today and repay me $500 next week, that’s his prerogative. “Protecting people from themselves” should not be a part of the lawmaking process.
That doesn’t matter to me at all with regard to whether or not these services should be legal. It’s not my job to judge why someone needs something, or to judge whether they’re too stupid to know better. This type of service is nothing more than two parties engaging in a consensual transaction.
Well, then…we better ban it. After all, if you don’t understand something, it should be banned. Shouldn’t it? Isn’t that that bar for restricting voluntary transactions? If The Tao’s Revenge doesn’t understand why two consenting adults would engage in a voluntary transaction, it should be banned?
I don’t understand why anybody stays up after midnight and spends time drinking and smoking cigarettes in a bar. It seems to be extremely unhealthy behavior, doesn’t it? Let’s ban it.
I don’t understand why anybody would bear children out of wedlock when they can’t support them financially. Let’s ban that, too.
How about bottled water? Now THAT’s a scam. Most of it is no different than what comes out of your tap, for free. Let’s ban it.
How about betting on roulette in Vegas or Atlantic City, where it is a mathematical certainty that you are in a losing position, relative to the House? That seems silly to me, too. Let’s ban it.
You know what? I think you’re onto something here. This philosophy is growing on me. If I, IdahoMauleMan, cannot personally understand why somebody would do something, I am going to insist that it be banned.
I understand your position much better now.
I think society should protect people like John from people like you.