The new credit card legislation that goes into effect today was designed to help consumers from unscrupulous business practices on the part of banks. And while the new regulations offer some improvement for consumers, as usual, it falls short of truly offering consumer protection.
One big shortfall of the new legislation: there is no interest cap. Legislators claim this was a compromise. My question is, a compromise with whom? Because banks base the interest rates on the prime rate PLUS a percentage, I would like to know why that number couldn't be capped? I suspect the compromise had to be with banks or the lobbyists. Who else could oppose a cap?
If the legislators themselves are in opposition to protecting American consumers against rate gouging, I suggest they get out of office, as it is clear they are not there on our behalf. In my opinion, there is no reason any company should be able to charge 25%, 26%, and 27% interest on consumer credit, but they do. This is tantamount to loan-sharking. And often, it's college-age kids or those with poor credit that get raped with these kinds of rates. Any consumer being charged these kinds of outrageous rates has no hope of ever paying off the balance as it continues to accrue day by day.
Banks can also start charging annual fees or non-usage fees if they want. By allowing these types of loopholes, the law simply becomes a shell game for the banks. They will just find new ways to stick it to the consumer. Long before the legislation was enacted they were working on strategies to get around the law. The economic collapse of our country can be placed squarely on the shoulders of big banks.
Yes, there are positives to the legislation. For example, starting today if you transfer a balance at a lower, introductory rate but you already have an existing balance on your account only the minimum payment will automatically be applied to the balance with the lower rate. In addition, any amount over the minimum payment will be applied to the balance with the higher interest rate. This is good news for consumers.
In the past, if you had a balance on your credit card and transferred an additional balance over to your account at a lower rate, all payments would pay down the lower rate first while the balance with the higher rate would continue to compound.
Another piece of the legislation that works in the consumers' favor is that banks can no longer raise rates within the first year the account is opened. They also cannot raise rates arbitrarily on an account just because you missed or were late on a payment on another.
Much like during and after the Depression, I think this recession is going to have lasting repercussions for big banks. Their own irresponsible, greedy, and in some case malicious behavior is going to come back to bite them. It may take some years before consumers are financially in a place for it to happen, but once consumers can get on their feet the backlash will be swift and severe.
Even after the huge taxpayer (yes, big banks, don't forget that) bailout, they went right back to business as usual, continuing to payout huge bonuses, raise rates on consumers arbitrarily, and reduce credit lines for good customers who had never been late on their payments. Essentially, they spit in the eye of every American taxpayer.
Banks that make an effort to treat their customers fairly and with respect will be the ones that survive. Big banks that have forgotten that without customers they have nothing will be the first to go. And they will have no-one to blame but themselves. When they fail, I think there will be a lot of smug taxpayers watching them go down in flames with smirks on their faces.
Showing posts with label taxpayer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxpayer. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Widening Income Gap in America
The idea that economic inequality exists in America is not new. In Paul Krugman’s article “For Richer”, he discusses the growing chasm between America’s poorest citizens and its growing elite. But more importantly, he discusses the political policies that increasingly support this widening gap. It is with these policies that middle America needs to be most concerned.
Initially reminiscing about growing up in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, Krugman notes how the ‘American dream’ was really within reach of all Americans if they worked hard. It was in his words, a “fairly equal society”. Times had changed from the ‘20’s and ‘30’s of what he calls “the Gilded Age”, when generations of families controlled most of the country’s wealth, living lavishly in mansions, with servants and status fit for a king.
But what should concern us all is the fact that these times of ‘American Royalty’, so to speak, are upon us again, and it is getting increasingly difficult for most working Americans to achieve the American dream. The idea that hard work will pay off is no longer necessarily true. And that, sadly, is in large part due to the policies that our government makes to lift up and support our wealthiest citizens, at the expense of the poor and quickly disappearing middle class.
What has changed, though, is who is holding this wealth today. As Klugman demonstrates, roughly 60 percent of the economic gains in our country went to just to the top .05% of taxpayers. When comparing gains overall throughout the taxpayer base, the so-called middle class had economic gains of just 10% from 1979 and 1997 while America’s wealthiest rose 157% (after taxes)! These disparities are alarming. When factoring in the cost of inflation, a 10% gain over almost 20 years actually translates into a loss! And that gain includes the addition of second wage-earners in middle class families. Overall, many families are finding that their debt ratios are on the rise while their standard of living is dropping.
Today’s wealth is no longer controlled by wealthy families through inherited assets, but rather by young CEO’s who are earning sometimes 300 times what the average worker earns! Krugman asks how these salaries can be justified. His theory is that over time, unlike the ‘50’s and ‘60’s when he was growing up, society has accepted the notion that these ‘all powerful leaders’ somehow deserve these enormous salaries. The understanding is that without these types of perks and benefits, corporations will be unable to retain skilled leaders and if they aren’t willing to pay, someone else will.
This type of thinking is obviously flawed, leading to outrage amongst the rest of the working public. This shift in acceptable norms in corporate America will at some point face correction. But it will probably take a huge uprising on the part of middle America before we see any real changes.
Another question, however that Krugman raises is the idea that there was ever a sustainable “middle-class” in the first place. Historically most of the wealth has been controlled by a minority, with huge gaps in income between them and the rest of the public. It wasn’t until after the Depression that economic equality really existed here in the U.S. Krugman questions whether or not this shift back to two general economic classes; the very wealthy, and the relatively poor (or struggling) population isn’t a more normal course of events.
The fact is, the more wealth one holds, the more relative power one holds. And the more power held, the more decisions and policies they can create. And it seems only natural, that in an effort to preserve their way of living, that those policies that are created tend to lean in favor of the policy-makers and the holders of power. It is this shift in wealth that creates the power, which in turn snowballs, creating more and more wealth and more and more power for a select few, leaving the rest of our population holding the bag. Unfortunately, the limited nature of all resources means that in order for some to hold most of the wealth and power, everyone else must lose theirs. It is this sad reality that makes it so critical that these issues not be ignored in our society before we become not one united nation, but a nation divided.
Do you feel that the "Middle Class" is sustainable? Are you finding it harder to make ends meet? If you could speak with your legislators about this issue, what would you want them to know? Do you feel our legislators have lost touch with"average" Americans?
Source:
“For Richer-How the permissive capitalism of the boom destroyed American equality”- by Paul Krugman, New York Times Magazine, October 20, 2002
Initially reminiscing about growing up in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, Krugman notes how the ‘American dream’ was really within reach of all Americans if they worked hard. It was in his words, a “fairly equal society”. Times had changed from the ‘20’s and ‘30’s of what he calls “the Gilded Age”, when generations of families controlled most of the country’s wealth, living lavishly in mansions, with servants and status fit for a king.
But what should concern us all is the fact that these times of ‘American Royalty’, so to speak, are upon us again, and it is getting increasingly difficult for most working Americans to achieve the American dream. The idea that hard work will pay off is no longer necessarily true. And that, sadly, is in large part due to the policies that our government makes to lift up and support our wealthiest citizens, at the expense of the poor and quickly disappearing middle class.
What has changed, though, is who is holding this wealth today. As Klugman demonstrates, roughly 60 percent of the economic gains in our country went to just to the top .05% of taxpayers. When comparing gains overall throughout the taxpayer base, the so-called middle class had economic gains of just 10% from 1979 and 1997 while America’s wealthiest rose 157% (after taxes)! These disparities are alarming. When factoring in the cost of inflation, a 10% gain over almost 20 years actually translates into a loss! And that gain includes the addition of second wage-earners in middle class families. Overall, many families are finding that their debt ratios are on the rise while their standard of living is dropping.
Today’s wealth is no longer controlled by wealthy families through inherited assets, but rather by young CEO’s who are earning sometimes 300 times what the average worker earns! Krugman asks how these salaries can be justified. His theory is that over time, unlike the ‘50’s and ‘60’s when he was growing up, society has accepted the notion that these ‘all powerful leaders’ somehow deserve these enormous salaries. The understanding is that without these types of perks and benefits, corporations will be unable to retain skilled leaders and if they aren’t willing to pay, someone else will.
This type of thinking is obviously flawed, leading to outrage amongst the rest of the working public. This shift in acceptable norms in corporate America will at some point face correction. But it will probably take a huge uprising on the part of middle America before we see any real changes.
Another question, however that Krugman raises is the idea that there was ever a sustainable “middle-class” in the first place. Historically most of the wealth has been controlled by a minority, with huge gaps in income between them and the rest of the public. It wasn’t until after the Depression that economic equality really existed here in the U.S. Krugman questions whether or not this shift back to two general economic classes; the very wealthy, and the relatively poor (or struggling) population isn’t a more normal course of events.
The fact is, the more wealth one holds, the more relative power one holds. And the more power held, the more decisions and policies they can create. And it seems only natural, that in an effort to preserve their way of living, that those policies that are created tend to lean in favor of the policy-makers and the holders of power. It is this shift in wealth that creates the power, which in turn snowballs, creating more and more wealth and more and more power for a select few, leaving the rest of our population holding the bag. Unfortunately, the limited nature of all resources means that in order for some to hold most of the wealth and power, everyone else must lose theirs. It is this sad reality that makes it so critical that these issues not be ignored in our society before we become not one united nation, but a nation divided.
Do you feel that the "Middle Class" is sustainable? Are you finding it harder to make ends meet? If you could speak with your legislators about this issue, what would you want them to know? Do you feel our legislators have lost touch with"average" Americans?
Source:
“For Richer-How the permissive capitalism of the boom destroyed American equality”- by Paul Krugman, New York Times Magazine, October 20, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)