The Western Governments Interest Rate That Keeps Everyone Pinned Down

[Kathryn]

Well, I think renting is not comparable because there isn't really any situation where you'd have to go through a bank to rent; nor do most people possess the massive amount of savings needed to outright purchase any house. And if you cannot build your own out of whatever materials you can get [ie., be all frontier homesteady and have a home for free, minus your own direct labor], then going thru a bank is the only path.

Anyways... what do I propose? Straight up loan amount, plus bank fee, of whatever percent. Interest rates cannot be raised, what you sign at the beginning is what you get with no bs, whatever you pay back goes directly to reducing the entire amount.

And that's all. Nothing else allowed.

So - do you think it's a good idea for a bank to let someone borrow $250,000 - charge a fee (of what amount?) on the front end and then that's it - their rather huge investment is protected by...what again? The house? I can assure you that banks DO NOT WANT HOUSES. They just want to be repaid under the loan agreement.

You know, people have a lot of options.

1. Rent, don't buy. Rent something affordable and save your money till you can actually pay cash for a house. Don't say it can't be done - I've watched people do it over and over again.

2. Maintain good credit, save a big chunk for a significant down payment, then borrow money at a low, FIXED rate. Also, you can choose a payment schedule that allows you to pay off your house in 10 years if you like, or even five, or whatever you choose.

By the way, say you have a fixed rate mortgage. Did you know that if you make one extra mortgage payment a year, you can easily shave off about seven years of payments? Now, imagine if you make two extra payments!

Where I live, you can buy a very nice, comfortable home for under $150,000. Anyone considering buying a home ought to be able to put at least 10 percent down - that's $15,000. Twenty percent will get you an even lower rate. Then you're only really borrowing about $120,000. My gosh, your payments, including taxes and insurance, would be around $800.

You could pay it off in 15 years and your payments would be around $1100.

Honestly, that doesn't sound too onerous to me.

One other thing. The vast majority of Americans have a fixed rate mortgage, not a variable rate.

Is this thread really about mortgages? Or am I missing some other point?

 

[lunakilo]

Is this thread really about mortgages? Or am I missing some other point?

I think it is about whether interests are evil or not.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So - do you think it's a good idea for a bank to let someone borrow $250,000 - charge a fee (of what amount?) on the front end and then that's it - their rather huge investment is protected by...what again? The house? I can assure you that banks DO NOT WANT HOUSES. They just want to be repaid under the loan agreement.

No, they don't just want that. They want the money and the house. Because then you have a product you can collect on twice. There's nothing altruistic about teh way banks do business.
And yes, since I am promoting that idea, I think it's a good idea.
Their 'huge' investment, please. they assume a number of lost loans when they begin business, it's part of their business model, and they get tax breaks for it. They lose nothing in the long run.

2. Maintain good credit, save a big chunk for a significant down payment, then borrow money at a low, FIXED rate. Also, you can choose a payment schedule that allows you to pay off your house in 10 years if you like, or even five, or whatever you choose.

First, the credit score game is created by the banks, and is loaded to make you feel bad. Every time an outside creditor looks at your score.. looks at it, it goes down. What sense does that make? It's a bs scam, created as another illusory method for them to charge you more interest..

Secondly, you are forgetting that you're offering this under the present scam system of compound interest. That's the issue.

By the way, say you have a fixed rate mortgage. Did you know that if you make one extra mortgage payment a year, you can easily shave off about seven years of payments? Now, imagine if you make two extra payments!

That's nice. Most people set up their mortgages though, to be just at the range of their monthly expenses. They cannot do what you say.

Honestly, that doesn't sound too onerous to me.

Because it lacks all the important details about which I'm actually railing.

One other thing. The vast majority of Americans have a fixed rate mortgage, not a variable rate.[/quote]Both types are being foreclosed on. So what type it is isn't the issue. Aside that variable rate ones should be eliminated.

 

[lunakilo]

Secondly, you are forgetting that you're offering this under the present scam system of compound interest. That's the issue.

So what you are saying is that it is not the interest you have a problem with, only the interests on the intersts?
I guess I see your point. I think it is fair that if I borrow money I should give back more than I borrowed, but the extra money I give back is not money I borrower from you, so It probably isn't fair that I pay interest to you of that money.

So how is this? :
If I borrow $1000 at 4% interest per year

1) Each year where I have not repayed my debt 4% of the remaining debd is added to my debt (but NOT to the loan so no interest is payed of thei money)
2) I repay the debt from the intersets first the original loan second
fx first year debt is $1000 interests=0.04*$1000=$40 repayment=$200 gives new debt = $1000-$160=$840 (the first $40 went to paying the interests)
3) If I repay less that the interests my debt will go up but not the loan from wich the interests are calculated
4) I will repay you within an agreed upon time period

Example
Borrow $1000
4% interests each year
Repay $200 each year

Loan Interest Acc. interest Sum
1000 40 40 0
840 34 34 200
674 27 27 400
501 21 21 600
322 13 13 800
135 6 6 1000
0 6 0 1200

Example 2
Borrow $1000
4% interests each year
Repay $38 each year
Loan Interest Acc. interest Sum
1000 40 40 0
1000 40 42 38
1000 40 44 76
1000 40 46 114
...

Of course if I never pay more than the interests I will end up broke
But you could do so for a while if you are in trouble financially, or you could have some maximum amout of accumulated interest (e.g. twice the original loan)

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So what you are saying is that it is not the interest you have a problem with, only the interests on the intersts?
I guess I see your point. I think it is fair that if I borrow money I should give back more than I borrowed, but the extra money I give back is not money I borrower from you, so It probably isn't fair that I pay interest to you of that money.

Right. Also, it's my observation that this compounding interest is in a sense a hidden fee building mechanism. It's actual accumulation is never fully laid out in the preparation process. This is why people often wind up trapped; they plan out their payment lifetime and suddenly, the money they've already sent in has not put any dent in the total.

I understand that in many ways, it's a case of an undereducated public; but it is also a case of aggressive, dishonest business. If the paperwork shows somebody cannot pay these payments, or afford to do so, you deny them the loan. You don't work around this fact and charge them more interest as if it's some kind of privilege. One of the results of the deregulation I made mention of somewhere, is that banks began loaning money to people they KNEW would fail. Part of that failure is the assessment of more charges; they milked defaulters for added fees as long as they could, knowing the situation would arise.

And no matter what they tell you, they do want the property. That property earned them a huge portion, if not more than, its actual legal market worth which they now get to charge someone else for again, AND keep all the money paid towards it. That is win-win. They have whole sub-branches whose only job is to fix and resell foreclosed houses.

 

[lunakilo]

Right. Also, it's my observation that this compounding interest is in a sense a hidden fee building mechanism. It's actual accumulation is never fully laid out in the preparation process. This is why people often wind up trapped; they plan out their payment lifetime and suddenly, the money they've already sent in has not put any dent in the total.

I understand that in many ways, it's a case of an undereducated public; but it is also a case of aggressive, dishonest business. If the paperwork shows somebody cannot pay these payments, or afford to do so, you deny them the loan. You don't work around this fact and charge them more interest as if it's some kind of privilege. One of the results of the deregulation I made mention of somewhere, is that banks began loaning money to people they KNEW would fail. Part of that failure is the assessment of more charges; they milked defaulters for added fees as long as they could, knowing the situation would arise.

And no matter what they tell you, they do want the property. That property earned them a huge portion, if not more than, its actual legal market worth which they now get to charge someone else for again, AND keep all the money paid towards it. That is win-win. They have whole sub-branches whose only job is to fix and resell foreclosed houses.

So again we are back to it is the banks that are evil (which I fully agree with by the way ) and not the actual loaning machanisms.
If you have a fixed rate loan and make your payments and don't get trapped by the evil compounding interest.

And I agree that "in many ways, it's a case of an undereducated public". When a bank advisor can sit and confidently tell a person that taking a loan is a good idea, when in fact it is only a good idea from the perspective of the bank because the loan taker will end up broke; then I see a problem.
If the people who took up the loans understood the risks then there would be no problem in my opinion.

I don't see any problems that can't be solved by rules and regulations and taxing the financial sector of course : European Union financial transaction tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aquitaine]

How are you mate, long time no see.
I've been good, same as always. What about you, why the long absence from here. It's nice to see you back, hope you stick around.

And it's nice to see you finally agree with me on something.

What about the Islamic view that a home is an essential thing in life, why do you disagree with that?

Hahaha! Aye, it's rare to see us agree on things - but it's better for people to disagree and debate each other, it's what brings us closer as a species etc

I've not really had much time to dedicate to RF at the moment, but I do intend to come on here more often, because I miss the good old days when I was on RF atleast once a week ^_^

As for your Islamic comment, I do not deny that shelter is one of the basic requirements for Humans to survive and prosper. In my opinion, every Human alive on this planet should have the following "Primary" requirements:

1) Access to clean drinking Water.
2) Access to clean, safe Food.
3) Access to a safe, structurally-sound shelter.
4) Access to Heating/Cooling.
5) Access to Electricity.

And as a "Secondary" requirement:

6) Access to the Internet
7) Access to a Hammer to smash up their TV's .

One has to remember that I am not a Muslim, ergo I don't "agree" with Islam (or Christianity, Judaism etc)

Kind regards,
Paul Rusco.

 

[Kathryn]

No, they don't just want that. They want the money and the house. Because then you have a product you can collect on twice.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this. They don't want your house, your car, your boat, your motorcycle, or any of the other things you've overextended yourself on. Of course, if you default on the loan, as an absolutely last resort they will take this, because they have no other recourse to offset their loss.

By the way, did you know that if a bank forecloses on your home and sells your home and you have equity in that home, they have to pay you what equity is left after the closing?

Their 'huge' investment, please. they assume a number of lost loans when they begin business, it's part of their business model, and they get tax breaks for it. They lose nothing in the long run.

Honestly, where do you get your information about banking? What do you think has been one of the major problems in the banking industry over the past few years? I'll give you a hint: BAD LOANS.

First, the credit score game is created by the banks, and is loaded to make you feel bad.

Really? What do you mean by this? Do you honestly think that "the credit score came is loaded to make you feel bad?"

I don't feel bad about my credit score. In fact, I feel great about it. And I own a car, a house, have a couple of credit cards, just bought a leather sectional sofa a couple of weeks ago - and guess what, every time I did one of those things, someone ran my credit. No damage. Still looks great.

Every time an outside creditor looks at your score.. looks at it, it goes down. What sense does that make?

Actually, this is not true - it's an urban legend.

Say you're buying a car, or a house, and therefore several lenders run your credit over, say, a week or so. This is a cluster of similar credit inquiries, and it DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR CREDIT.

Now - if you are running tight financially, and therefore you charge everything, rather than pay cash - for instance, you suddenly over a period of a few weeks get loaded up with credit cards, and buy several pieces of furniture on credit - in other words, you suddenly have several open lines of credit, or a LOT of credit inquiries - yes, this MAY hurt your credit score, because it is an indicator that things may not be in good control financially for you.

For instance, a person may have a lot of credit cards but have a low balance, or even zero balance on most or all of them. This may still negatively impact one's credit score - because the credit LIMIT of each of those forms of credit has to be considered in the debt to income scenario. This is because that credit is AVAILABLE to you - and therefore if you ran them all up to their limit, you would be at the max, or actually over, a healthy debt to income ratio.

It's a bs scam, created as another illusory method for them to charge you more interest..

The higher the risk the higher the interest rate.

Here's how interest rates are determined (simplified):

The less risk to the lender, the lower the rate. That's why a house usually has a low interest rate - because the house is used as security for the loan. Also - the more down payment/equity you put down, the lower your rate. Don't have a down payment? You're going to pay a higher rate, because you literally own NOTHING of the house - you have nothing real to risk.

A credit card has a much higher rate because there is nothing securing the loan.

A payday loan has generally the highest rate because not only is there nothing securing the loan - the customer also generally has a poor credit score.

That's nice. Most people set up their mortgages though, to be just at the range of their monthly expenses. They cannot do what you say.

That's their choice. I wouldn't recommend doing that. I didn't do it myself. My husband and I qualified for a $400,000 mortgage. There is NO WAY we would have EVER considered buying a house in that range, because that mortgage payment would be the MOST we could pay. Our mortgage is actually less than half that.

In other words, we didn't buy something that would make it hard for us to pay extra toward our mortgage. We also had a good down payment.

I worked in real estate for many years. I can't tell you how many couples I worked with who insisted on looking at the very top of their price range. Why? Why not be more moderate and look at something you can afford comfortably?

I actually lost customers once or twice because I tried to talk them into looking in a lower price range so they wouldn't be so strapped. For instance, I knew that their ability to pay depended on BOTH of them working, and I knew the wife was trying to get pregnant and may want, or need, to quit her job, which would put them in a financial bind.

But they wanted the most house they could buy. Their choice, but not a wise one.

 

[Kathryn]

Right. Also, it's my observation that this compounding interest is in a sense a hidden fee building mechanism. It's actual accumulation is never fully laid out in the preparation process. This is why people often wind up trapped; they plan out their payment lifetime and suddenly, the money they've already sent in has not put any dent in the total.

I understand that in many ways, it's a case of an undereducated public; but it is also a case of aggressive, dishonest business. If the paperwork shows somebody cannot pay these payments, or afford to do so, you deny them the loan. You don't work around this fact and charge them more interest as if it's some kind of privilege. One of the results of the deregulation I made mention of somewhere, is that banks began loaning money to people they KNEW would fail. Part of that failure is the assessment of more charges; they milked defaulters for added fees as long as they could, knowing the situation would arise.

And no matter what they tell you, they do want the property. That property earned them a huge portion, if not more than, its actual legal market worth which they now get to charge someone else for again, AND keep all the money paid towards it. That is win-win. They have whole sub-branches whose only job is to fix and resell foreclosed houses.

Good article on how to compute mortgage interest:

How To Calculate Mortgage Payments - Interest and Mortgage Formula Calculation

And by the way, of COURSE a bank has to resell a foreclosed house to offset a bad loan.

Look - here's some advice:

Save a down payment of at least 20 percent.

Shop for a house that's BELOW your max loan value so that you can afford to pay more than the minimum each month.

Make at least one extra mortgage payment per year - and also, pay more than the minimum each month. The extra you pay has to go toward the principle, which reduces the compound interest.

Don't take out a 30 year mortgage. Take out a 15 year mortgage instead. Of course, this means that you will probably have to buy a house that's more modest than you may have been considering, but so what?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sorry, but you're wrong on this. They don't want your house, your car, your boat, your motorcycle, or any of the other things you've overextended yourself on. Of course, if you default on the loan, as an absolutely last resort they will take this, because they have no other recourse to offset their loss.

And Im sorry, you're wrong on this because the actual evidence in the field shows that it's true.

By the way, did you know that if a bank forecloses on your home and sells your home and you have equity in that home, they have to pay you what equity is left after the closing?

Did you know that banks also charge you AFTER foreclosure for the lost equity for your sold home? And since in our day, homes NEVER sell for more than they were bought for earlier, well... this is bs.

Honestly, where do you get your information about banking? What do you think has been one of the major problems in the banking industry over the past few years? I'll give you a hint: BAD LOANS.

Who has been the cause of bad loans?

Banks.

I am slightly sure you are a bank worker in a loan office, aren't you? I seem to remember you stating that somewhere.
If my memory serves, then ou are the last person to trust as to how banks are not evil, my dear. You work for them.

Really? What do you mean by this? Do you honestly think that "the credit score came is loaded to make you feel bad?"

It absolutely is.
Tell me: what is the purpose to reduce your score, if a bank LOOKS at it, other than to place further pressure on the person whose score it is?
Don't be ridiculous.

I don't feel bad about my credit score. In fact, I feel great about it. And I own a car, a house, have a couple of credit cards, just bought a leather sectional sofa a couple of weeks ago - and guess what, every time I did one of those things, someone ran my credit. No damage. Still looks great.

Don't care. You work for the system.

Actually, this is not true - it's an urban legend.

Credit Report Inquiries: How Credit Checks Affect Your Credit Score
That's bs.

Say you're buying a car, or a house, and therefore several lenders run your credit over, say, a week or so. This is a cluster of similar credit inquiries, and it DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR CREDIT.

"Small impact" is another term for admitting "impact".

Now - if you are running tight financially, and therefore you charge everything, rather than pay cash - for instance, you suddenly over a period of a few weeks get loaded up with credit cards, and buy several pieces of furniture on credit - in other words, you suddenly have several open lines of credit, or a LOT of credit inquiries - yes, this MAY hurt your credit score, because it is an indicator that things may not be in good control financially for you.

Thank you for at least admitting that what you said was false in a more technical way

But they wanted the most house they could buy. Their choice, but not a wise one.

Since the banks are inhuman, they don't care if this is 'their choice' [a dangerous phrase if in the mouth of a Christian, as it means whatever choice you made is a bad one and you will get what you have coming in spades; it's not a sympathetic statement by any means, it's a condemnation, so beware whenever it rears it's ugly head], the banks have a financial obligation to REFUSE a bad loan situation. But, they don't, and let me tell you why: because it makes them a lot of money and property.

If banks weren't interested in foreclosure properties they wouldn't be making a huge system of lies and delays to insure people get foreclosed on. But since they do, my words are true.

 

[Kathryn]

And Im sorry, you're wrong on this because the actual evidence in the field shows that it's true.


Did you know that banks also charge you AFTER foreclosure for the lost equity for your sold home? And since in our day, homes NEVER sell for more than they were bought for earlier, well... this is bs.



Who has been the cause of bad loans?

Banks.

I am slightly sure you are a bank worker in a loan office, aren't you? I seem to remember you stating that somewhere.
If my memory serves, then ou are the last person to trust as to how banks are not evil, my dear. You work for them.


It absolutely is.
Tell me: what is the purpose to reduce your score, if a bank LOOKS at it, other than to place further pressure on the person whose score it is?
Don't be ridiculous.


Don't care. You work for the system.


Credit Report Inquiries: How Credit Checks Affect Your Credit Score
That's bs.


"Small impact" is another term for admitting "impact".


Thank you for at least admitting that what you said was false in a more technical way


Since the banks are inhuman, they don't care if this is 'their choice' [a dangerous phrase if in the mouth of a Christian, as it means whatever choice you made is a bad one and you will get what you have coming in spades; it's not a sympathetic statement by any means, it's a condemnation, so beware whenever it rears it's ugly head], the banks have a financial obligation to REFUSE a bad loan situation. But, they don't, and let me tell you why: because it makes them a lot of money and property.

If banks weren't interested in foreclosure properties they wouldn't be making a huge system of lies and delays to insure people get foreclosed on. But since they do, my words are true.

I'm not even going to waste my time refuting you point by point because you are not going to listen to a word I say.

What I will say is this:

I used to be a loan officer at a bank. I am no longer working for any financial institution and therefore have no reason to misrepresent the industry.

However, considering I worked as a realtor and then a loan officer, I would say that I have much more insight in the ACTUAL practices and policies of banking and lending than you do. Obviously.

 

[Kathryn]

Don't buy more house than you can afford.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm not even going to waste my time refuting you point by point because you are not going to listen to a word I say.

What I will say is this:

I used to be a loan officer at a bank. I am no longer working for any financial institution and therefore have no reason to misrepresent the industry.

However, considering I worked as a realtor and then a loan officer, I would say that I have much more insight in the ACTUAL practices and policies of banking and lending than you do. Obviously.

I rest my case.

It's certainly not that I'm not listening; Im simply pointing out that you're factually inaccurate [based on what actually occurs and not what is urban legend] and were once part of the very system I'm exposing, and are therefore, less trustable. Would you consider me a valid source of info about the veracity of "liberal" news outlets since I was an employee of the Rachel Maddow show once, and you claimed MSNBC was equivalent to FOX in terms of how dishonest they are?

It's still in your best interests to misrepresent them, since my statements place you among the humans who routinely screwed others out of life savings and places to live, for profit; and being one of such a group is not something someone wants to think about themselves. Even if you never consciously did these things yourself, you were a cog in a system which did so. You enabled it.

 

[Kathryn]

I rest my case.

It's certainly not that I'm not listening; Im simply pointing out that you're factually inaccurate [based on what actually occurs and not what is urban legend] and were once part of the very system I'm exposing, and are therefore, less trustable. Would you consider me a valid source of info about the veracity of "liberal" news outlets since I was an employee of the Rachel Maddow show once, and you claimed MSNBC was equivalent to FOX in terms of how dishonest they are?

It's still in your best interests to misrepresent them, since my statements place you among the humans who routinely screwed others out of life savings and places to live, for profit; and being one of such a group is not something someone wants to think about themselves. Even if you never consciously did these things yourself, you were a cog in a system which did so. You enabled it.

Oh please, spare me the dramatics.

I have a mortgage myself. I have a car note. I have a credit card. If I thought these things were instruments of evil, do you think I'd be a part of them?

I also have an excellent credit score - one that I've worked very hard to build and maintain. This allows ME to use the system to accomplish my personal goals. It's a win/win.

I also pay cash for all but the largest purchases.

I plan to pay my house off in ten years. I think it's quite do able, considering that we bought a house that was far below our "max."

If you maintain a good credit score, you will be able to borrow money at low rates. In fact, interest rates are at their very lowest in DECADES now, so if you need to buy a house, this would be a great time to lock in a very, very low rate.

I'm giving you tips on how to make the system more equitable and on how to borrow money - if you must - at the lowest possible rates. I am also giving you tips on how to minimize your risk. You can take it or leave it - doesn't matter to me.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh, I won't take part in it in any way.

I've discharged all my credit debts, and pay cash via a debit card. I pay cash for ALL purchases. Will never accept another credit card in my life. I'll inherit my house, and at least one other, own the pink slips to two vehicles. My credit score is probably garbage, and I couldn't care less; I've forcibly frozen my credit report and will allow no institution to look at it. it's irrelevant, an evil legacy.

You have what you have because that's all you know, being part of the system. Your accomplishments aren't much to crow about, essentially a slave avoiding the lash thus far Your credit card for example is a time bomb waiting to go off the moment some financial mistake befalls you, something outside your control like age or disease or 'downsizing' yourself or your spouse, through no action or fault of your own; there won't be any mercy for you when it happens, none at all.

Dramatics? lol, please, spare me the propaganda.

 

[lunakilo]

I work in the financial sector too, sort of. I make financial software.
Can I be on the dark side too. Please, please please:sw:


also, what is a credit score?

 

[Kathryn]

I've discharged all my credit debts, and pay cash via a debit card. I pay cash for ALL purchases. Will never accept another credit card in my life. I'll inherit my house, and at least one other, own the pink slips to two vehicles. My credit score is probably garbage, and I couldn't care less; I've forcibly frozen my credit report and will allow no institution to look at it. it's irrelevant, an evil legacy.

If you are debt free, why is your credit score garbage? Sounds to me like you've mishandled debt in the past. Don't fret about it too much - things get better with time and better money management choices on your part. And it sounds like you're well on your way to a more stable financial situation. Congrats!

You have what you have because that's all you know, being part of the system. Your accomplishments aren't much to crow about, essentially a slave avoiding the lash thus far

There you go - more histrionics - oh, and personal insults as well! You're on a roll.

Actually, I have what I have because I've worked hard and made some good financial decisions along the way (as welll as bad ones - which I learned from). I'm not crowing about my accomplishments - but I am glad that I have a good credit score. This score allows me some flexibility that others with lower scores don't have.

For instance, let's take my credit card as an example. I make large purchases on this card, and pay them off in one or two cycles. I earn points and get free stuff, reduced travel tickets, etc. I don't ever carry a large balance on that card. It works for me, not the other way around.

Your credit card for example is a time bomb waiting to go off the moment some financial mistake befalls you, something outside your control like age or disease or 'downsizing' yourself or your spouse, through no action or fault of your own; there won't be any mercy for you when it happens, none at all.

I worked in banking for years - I know how this plays, so please spare me the sermon.

My husband and I have enough money put aside in savings to live on for several years. I know that bad things happen in peoples' lives -in fact, my husband, who is self employed (so if he doesn't work, he doesn't get paid) recently had to have emergency surgery and didn't work for a month. So - he didn't get paid for a month. Now we also have thousands of dollars of medical expenses we didn't expect. And all this just three months after I quit working. Would I have quit working if I had known this would go down? Probably not. Unexpected financial blow, for sure.

It sucks, but it's going to be OK, because we have saved a lot of money for just these sort of situations. Of course I realize that things could get VERY bad - if so, we have a financial plan in place for that as well.

We'd manage. It would be hard, but we'd manage. And I wouldn't be blaming anyone else for my problems. I've made my own decisions and I have to ALWAYS consider the worst case scenario, and weigh the odds. We all do.

 

[Penumbra]

-People shouldn't buy a house that's too much for them to afford. That's not the fault of interest, that's the fault of people.

-I don't particularly think the government should get involved hardly at all when it comes to one party agreeing to loan money to another party. If a bank wants to loan money to a person to buy a house, then sure, go for it.

-For government involvement, I'd say limit it to a few key things like a) making sure financial statements are clear and straightforward, b) potentially setting a cap on max interest rates beyond which they're very unlikely to be paid back, c) put equity requirements and a few other straightforward but strong regulations on banks that participate in federal bank insurance.

 

[dust1n]

I think the mechanisms that keep people down in non-American countries is vast, complicated, and ya, very real. Loaning may be all well ethically (maybe not), but either way, that doesn't matter when your government (as disenfranchising as it is) makes public loans on your behalf, or are forced to by Western financial entities under the same ol' war drum of deregulating markets in foreign countries, allowing western capital to flow into the country, causing speculative bubbles which leave the economies wrecked.

It seems that the market's stability lies in perpetual growth in capital. But capital is derived from finite resources and labor. When the cost of retrieving finite resources is more than the market value of those resources, then what else can happen other than collapse?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

also, what is a credit score?

You cannot be on the Dark Side because yer a forriner

A credit score is a 3 digit 'rating' of your personal credit situation. It's based on a variety of arbitrary rules created by the credit/banking system which describes how eligible you are for more credit - and it's basically meant to be there to make you feel like a lesser human being, if it's not perfect, and, the system is set up so that your score drops over arbitrary and absurd [read: counterproductive] reasons so that you'll panic and work in ways which make you more in debt, in order to make this score rise again.

If you are debt free, why is your credit score garbage? Sounds to me like you've mishandled debt in the past..

My score is garbage because - and if you were a financial worker you'd realize this -
I have not applied for credit in many years, have not taken out credit for a number of years, and have not paid back any credit in a number of years. I've mishandled debt by not having any and bucking the system in its face.

You see, Luna, my credit score will have dropped dramatically if I followed habits which made my own financial situation much better and deprived the banks or creditors of business. According to them, HAVING debts I am not fully repaying makes me a better credit customer. PAYING DEBTS BACK makes me a bad one. HAVING ZERO DEBTS makes me an abysmal one, and since I have zero debts, my score is likely in the toilet. But they [technically, although I am sure there is a manner for them to see without my permission or consent] cannot view it as I've frozen my credit record.

Ask Kathryn. And btw, Kathryn, your response really didn't address the fact taht what I said was accurate in that the credit industry will destroy your family without a blink if what I said, actually happened to you. And you know it will. Plan all you like, it can be swept away no matter how you 'prepare'. Im not asking what nest eggs you have put aside, Im asking you to face the fact that the system you used to work for will eat you alive at the first possible opportunity. It wants to eat you alive.