- #71
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
The problem is a government that makes these lendors the last resort.turbo-1 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is a government that makes these lendors the last resort.turbo-1 said:There is a BIG difference. When high-interest loan business ring practically every military base, it's hard to argue "chance projection". The military recognizes this as a problem and warns service-people and veterans about avoiding them.
http://www.fortbraggmwr.com/acs/privorgs/Solicitation%20Information%20for%20Website/Military%20Scams.pdf
(3). Predatory lenders market to the military through their ubiquitous presence
around military installations and/or through the use of terms to affiliate
themselves with the military. Increasingly the Internet is used to promote loans
to Service members.
turbo-1 said:I have not seen a single title-pawn establishment that is not near a military base
I understand. Maine is extremely rural and poor, and we have no shortage of pawn shops, rent-to-own shops etc. Still, I had never seen a title-pawn shop until I got down south, and found tons of them around military bases. The two documents that I linked above (both from government sources) indicate that the military is concerned about the effects of predatory lending practices on security and military readiness. Not good.jtbell said:Title- and paycheck-loan shops are ubiquitous here in South Carolina, including my small rural city which is 60+ miles from the nearest military base (Fort Jackson outside Columbia). Like most other rural towns in SC, we have a lot of people who live from paycheck to paycheck and sometimes come up short. The local TV stations run lots of commercials for these companies, especially late at night (e.g. the reruns of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" which I automatically record at 2 AM to watch the next day).
Sorry, but DUH, do you think the military would be happy that their servicement can't handle their finances?turbo-1 said:I understand. Maine is extremely rural and poor, and we have no shortage of pawn shops, rent-to-own shops etc. Still, I had never seen a title-pawn shop until I got down south, and found tons of them around military bases. The two documents that I linked above (both from government sources) indicate that the military is concerned about the effects of predatory lending practices on security and military readiness. Not good.
I never said that such businesses don't exist apart from the military bases.Evo said:Payday loan places are everywhere here, to say that they are more prevalent around military bases is nonsense. They are prevalent where there is a population that needs them. Most times, the fee they ask is much less than the penalties, fees, and time and troble they help to avoid.
Late on rent & won't get paind for a week and a half. You can get a payday loan for $500 for two weeks for a fee of $75. Being 6 days late on rent $250 penalty. Which is cheaper?
Car getting repossessed? Same $75 fee and you keep your car. I have no idea how much it would cost you in penalties to get your car back (if you even can), but I'm sure it's hundreds of dollars.
Sorry, but DUH, do you think the military would be happy that their servicement can't handle their finances?
Title loans and pawn shop commercials fill the late night tv here and we don't have military.
turbo-1 said:That doesn't mean that they don't exist in areas away from military bases, and they probably do, but they are very heavily concentrated around large bases. They are perfectly situated to confiscate assets on the titles that they hold when military personnel are transferred or deployed on short notice, and don't have the time or resources to repay the pawn and recover their titles. Judging from the concentration of title-pawn shops near some large bases, it must be a very profitable business-model. They are VERY prevalent in Georgia, which allows them to charge up to 300% APR.
turbo-1 said:I never said that such businesses don't exist apart from the military bases.
turbo-1 said:Have you ever been to cities that are dominated by military facilities? If so, you will know that that these business are established to suck money out of out of our military personnel. You will also see (in the deep south, especially, IME) a preponderance of "title-pawn" companies that are set up to steal the assets of people who might have to ditch things of value to provide for their families before they are deployed overseas. There is a whole industry built around exploiting the members of our armed services. Do you not know this?
These companies are designed to make profits from poor people. Our military does not pay well, and signing bonuses encourage military personnel to over-extend and get deeply into debt, so these companies cluster around military bases to prey on our service-people. Is this a great mystery? What motivates such nay-saying in the face of so many government studies to the contrary?Vanadium 50 said:If things are as you say, why are these companies building so many stores away from military bases? Are they just stupid?
And as I pointed out they can save poor people a ton of money.turbo-1 said:These companies are designed to make profits from poor people.
Evo said:And as I pointed out they can save poor people a ton of money.
What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?
No more off topic posts, back to thread or closed.
I think you're using the word socialist (and commie) rather differently than most. It's socialist for government to use force to restrict or interfere (as a third party) with private transactions, not for government to exercise control over its own transactions, that it is a party to. For military employment, or any government employment, government is a party to the transaction, not an interfering third party.Proton Soup said:...it's just that the military folk are kept artificially poor, and much of this is because for all our capitalist rhetoric, we like to keep a socialist (perhaps commie?) army.
Evo said:And as I pointed out they can save poor people a ton of money.
They're definitely not cheap, but it's pretty silly to list their fees in terms of "APR", for a loan for just a few days. Very little of that fee is analogous to interest.Mech_Engineer said:I mentioned it for this reason- only fiscally irresponsible individuals utilize them! The resulting interest rates they charge can be in the range of 1000% APR or higher (even credit cards rarely go above 40%)!
Mech_Engineer said:The "american dream" these days (to my disgust and probably our eventual downfall) is "how much debt can be leveraged with my income" rather than "how much money can I save with my income." People shop for a car based on what the monthly payment will be, rather than the total cost of the vehicle after it's paid off; it's the same with houses. Until you're using 90% of your income to pay for the minimum loan payments on your two cars, house, entertainment system, kitchen appliances, 4 credit cards etc. etc. it doesn't hit you; and once it does your income is stretched so thin you're barely staying afloat. No saved money for an emergency fund, no medical savings. One small hiccup and you're sunk.
The same will happen with the government- we're leveraging debt based on our income, but the bills are starting to take a not insignificant portion of it. Unless we do something about it, the entire country will go into bankruptcy like an individual that overleveraged themselves.
Al68 said:They're definitely not cheap, but it's pretty silly to list their fees in terms of "APR", for a loan for just a few days. Very little of that fee is analogous to interest.
Including lender fees in a quoted APR just doesn't make sense when the lender fee is the bulk of the total.
Al68 said:As far as terms like "prey" and "steal", it's a mutually voluntary transaction between adults. The person getting the loan has determined that the transaction is beneficial to him. Nobody else's opinion matters in a free society, unless that person is a child, or treated as a child due to mental disability, or if force or fraud is involved.
WhoWee said:The only way to cover this gap is to cut spending and raise taxes. The longer the gap widens - the more people tat will ultimately face large tax increases - again IMO.
Mech_Engineer said:You're assuming of course that a tax raise will increase federal income- which IMO isn't proven (in fact it appears to currently be the opposite).
WhoWee said:I'm in favor of EVERYONE paying a little more IF the spending is cut (everyone take a little less also) - no more EITC either.
Al68 said:I think you're using the word socialist (and commie) rather differently than most. It's socialist for government to use force to restrict or interfere (as a third party) with private transactions, not for government to exercise control over its own transactions, that it is a party to. For military employment, or any government employment, government is a party to the transaction, not an interfering third party.
And (assuming a volunteer force) the terms of the contract are mutually agreed on by all parties to it, which makes it decidedly non-socialist.
Vanadium 50 said:I've split this off to its own thread.
Is the tax system popular? It's fair to say its more popular with the 47% of the population that's paying no income tax than the 1% of the population that pays 35% of the income tax.
Assuming you're referring to government hiring people directly instead of contracting with a private company, that's right. Government choosing not to do business with a private company isn't socialist.Proton Soup said:i find this very interesting. because it implies that nationalizing military contractors is not socialist. and neither would be nationalizing companies that provide any other government services.
Mech_Engineer said:I'm in favor of everyone paying a share as well. Not so much to increase the federal income, as to change the political voting landscape back to one of "leaving money in your pocket" rather than "putting money in your pocket."
cobalt124 said:(Bold mine). This is one of the things I was trying to get at. Why isn't the system more like that, surely it would be simpler and cheaper to implement.
mheslep said:I like the idea of completely replacing the individual federal income tax with a direct federal tax on the state governments, so that the federal government only taxes the individual indirectly, as opposed to the other way around the way as it is now. This should have the effect of greatly simplifying the tax code as seen by an individual, and allowing the abolition of the IRS while slightly expanding state collection staff. In general the federal government should be relegated to performing tasks that only it can do, and leaving the rest to the states and local governments.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YzVlNjA3NzE5ODk0NWYwYWY2NGU4YjM1ZDBiMjk5MTI=
Jasongreat said:Whats the difference of taxing the individual through the federal government, or taxing the individual through the states for the federal government?
Vanadium 50 said:It makes the federal government more responsive to the states. Whether this a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.
Exactly. And for the individual, he/she does not have to deal with a leviathon one size fits all nation wide tax system. The state income tax systems are, visibly, simpler for the individual.Vanadium 50 said:It makes the federal government more responsive to the states. Whether this a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.
mheslep said:Exactly. And for the individual, he/she does not have to deal with a leviathon one size fits all nation wide tax system. The state income tax systems are, visibly, simpler for the individual.
WhoWee said:Again until Federal mandates (like Medicaid) force policy.
Oops, I thought we were talking about payday loans. That's what I was referring to as silly to talk about the fee in terms of APR. It does make sense to talk about APR of a car title loan, assuming it's for a relatively longer term, like 6 months or a year.Mech_Engineer said:You might be right, but it's a fair comparison if only to show what the fees are compared to a credit card or personal bank loan. Ironically, these loans should be relatively low-risk to the company because they demand collateral for the loan (hence the term, "car title loan") but the net interest rate charged rivals a loan shark...Al68 said:They're definitely not cheap, but it's pretty silly to list their fees in terms of "APR", for a loan for just a few days. Very little of that fee is analogous to interest.
Including lender fees in a quoted APR just doesn't make sense when the lender fee is the bulk of the total.
I agree that a national sales tax would be better, but it would still be involuntary. Would you say that if one chooses to work for money then they are choosing to pay taxes on it?Jasongreat said:I think a national sales tax would be the best. If one chooses to buy stuff, one chooses to pay taxes on that stuff. It is basically the way the US government was originally financed, through tariffs, with no individual tax per se.
This is regression in the extreme, though. Poorer people have to spend their pay and they would pay almost all of a national sales tax. Rich people don't have to spend their income and expose themselves to taxation. Even better for them, much of their income is not categorized as income.Al68 said:I agree that a national sales tax would be better, but it would still be involuntary. Would you say that if one chooses to work for money then they are choosing to pay taxes on it?
The advantage would be (personal finances) privacy restoration (to a degree) and the inability of government to "divide and conquer" since we would all be in the same boat. And it would be hard for politicians to deceive people about how much taxes are paid by different categories of people.