1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.
ObjectivityIncarnate
- 0 Posts
- 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.
That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.
You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.
No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.
And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?
This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.
Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.
The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.
Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.
Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol
22·11 months agoThe fact that a worker who barely makes ends meet pays 10-20 times the taxes Amazon pays is… Fascinating in a dark way.
That is absolutely not a fact, lmao.
It can’t be free.
What you’re actually saying is that “childcare should be communally funded by taxes”.
I’m not on board with that unless it comes with limits on reproduction, especially for those who pay zero taxes.
Stop creating more human lives when you can’t even independently support your own.
What if the wealth you possess was created by you? Wealth isn’t zero sum, it’s created all the time (and at a rate literally not achievable simply by underpaying employees, to pre-refute the expected response). The implied premise of ‘because they have it, we don’t have it’ just doesn’t hold any water.
Also, it doesn’t really make sense to call it ‘hoarding’ when it’s largely/all invested in businesses that run within the economy. To hoard something is to keep it isolated–investments in publicly-traded companies can never truly fairly be called “hoarding”. You could only fairly call the funds kept in back accounts etc. unspent ‘hoarded’.