Toto, I don't think we're in China anymore - US companies adopting social credit score system

[thedude4bides]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

All your points have been addressed , you are now just repeating yourself.  Repeating yourself will not change what you have said or the make it any less flawed with regard to this conversation.

CC's are not inherently evil.  Rewards are great.  Non-zero risk is not a reason to avoid an activity... financial or otherwise.

 

Glad we're done here.  This was fun;)

[leadeater]

@thedude4bides I have never advised anyone at any time to never use a credit card,  you have not quoted me saying this. You can however quote me saying that I do not personally use a credit card which is not advice that others should do so.

 

1 hour ago, thedude4bides said:

Preaching to the choir here... I've said all along I pay zero interest, zero fees, and earn rewards.

This isn't about you...

 

If you understand the risk, are happy with how you handle your finances then that is all you need to say. There isn't a counter point I would want to raise against that or could. However if you try and raise rewards as something that mitigates or lowers the risk I will raise counter points to that. You don't have to defend your spending habits.

 

Also you shouldn't really add text in to a quote, type below it. If you only want to address a specific line highlight it and a quote text icon will appear so you can do just that section.

[thedude4bides]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

@thedude4bides I have never advised anyone at any time to never use a credit card,  you have not quoted me saying this. You can however quote me saying that I do not personally use a credit card which is not advice that others should do so.

 

This isn't about you...

 

If you understand the risk, are happy with how you handle your finances then that is all you need to say. There isn't a counter point I would want to raise against that or could. However if you try and raise rewards as something that mitigates or lowers the risk I will raise counter points to that. You don't have to defend your spending habits.

 

Also you shouldn't really add text in to a quote, type below it. If you only want to address a specific line highlight it and a quote text icon will appear so you can do just that section.

Haha, no, I wasn’t saying that because it’s about me... it’s just that those are the conditions under which one would successfully make use of a service that would otherwise have downsides.

 

Can we shake virtual hands and part as friends?

 

 

[Unixsystem]

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

And you can get in to credit card debt without any of these things being the cause

None of these are a requirement for getting in to credit card debt.

 

There is a specific risk to using credit cards, you can raise as many other risks as you like but none of them are relevant to the issue. You're on a wage paying job that requires you to submit time sheets to get paid, you have a credit limit of 5000, your balance is at 3000, you get sick and are unable to work for two weeks and due to amazingly calculated working hours by your employer you don't have any entitled sick leave left so you don't get any pay for 2 weeks. You could of had 5000 credit or close to to pay bills and medical expenses and cover you until you can work again but you only have 2000 and it's not enough, now you are getting interest charges because you had active balance from a week or more ago which now gets you past the 21 day mark.

I know I wasn't going to keep commenting but you actually gave a concrete example so screw it, let's go. 

 

Before I can even address the argument proper, there are two glaring flaws with your premise:

Spoiler

First off, carrying around a $3000 balance on a $5000 limit is nuts. You specifically pointed out that we are talking about someone who was previoualy managing their credit responsibly, and no one in their right mind would do that. $3000 on everyday purchases in a month is already a ton (especially since most bills and utilities have separate fees that make paying those with credit a bad move), so anyone who is spending that much is probably well enough off that they would have a much higher credit limit.

 

Even if they don't, it would be much safer to spread that balance across multiple cards, or pay down the balance more often throughout the month. I bought a 1080ti last year, and despite my balancing having been at less than $1000 out of a $9000 limit I still went in to my account that night before I even installed the card to pay off $600 of the balance just to make sure it didn't get higher than it needed to be. 

 

However, we are talking about an absolute worst case scenario here. So let's say I just got home from buying $3000 worth of oversized comedy dildos at the store (a mandatory monthly purchase in this hypothetical world). As a responsible adult, I go on my phone while carrying the massive santa-sized sac inside to pay off the credit charge that I just made when suddenly I trip over and drop the bag of dicks on my leg, pulverizing it instantly. 

Spoiler

Second issue is that generally, at least in my experience, medical bills go out by mail up to a week after any given medical expense, and usually have a due date somewhere around a month after the appointment/procedure in question, although that may be different depending on hospital/insurance/country. That's the reason I was using auto repair analogies previously; those tend to put you under a lot more pressure to pay now or else you're SOL on driving anywhere. From most of the doctor bills I've had, it would be a complete non-issue in terms of the credit balance because I would have weeks before I needed to pay anything. 

 

To keep with the original scenario, though, let's say that 911 doesn't exist in this world and the only hospital within limping distance is that sketchy one that doesn't allow patients to leave until they pay their bill. Problem solved. 

Now with the scenario made more plausible, we can get to the actual contents of the argument:

 

So I'm lying there, handcuffed to my stretcher, a 24 inch shaft of rubber entangled and embedded with the tattered remain of my femur. The doctor comes in and tells me that I haven't met my insurance's Dong Damage Deductible for the year and as a result I am going to need to pay the full $2500 for the clone leg transplant and it will take a full 2 weeks to grow, so I won't be able to work (unfortunately I'm a professional jumping jacker) 

 

Now I know that I have a $3000 balance on my credit card, but because I am a responsible individual I double checked that I definitely had enough to cover my purchases before making them (I had $3000.01). Unfortunately that's obviously not enough to cover the medical bill, and because savings are outlawed in this universe I only have my bank account to rely on. 

 

Here's the fault in your entire argument: you are assuming that I now have $500 in my bank account and a $3000 credit card bill to cover, but you are skipping and entire step. Just because someone hands me a bill doesn't mean the money is automatically deducted from my bank account. I still have enough to cover the credit card bill, I just have an additional bill on top of it. There is no reason that I can't just go and pay off the credit card bill in full right now. Then I am left with no credit card balance, $0.01 in my bank account, and a $2500 medical bill. And due to the transaction ordering issues discussed earlier in the thread, it would be a bad idea to try and put that medic charge on the card without giving a few days for the transactions to all clear. 

 

Spoiler

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you absolutely need to pay off that credit card balance second one while you're still sitting on you're hospital gurney. Depending on the date that these events take place, you will have anywhere from 21-50 days to get that balance paid off before it matters. My point was that the money that you have in your bank account should be mentally earmarked for paying off the credit card loan. You can leave it sitting in your bank account for weeks if you need to, but for all intents and purposes that money is already spent; it should not and can not be spent on anything else, including the medical bill.

 

This is also how anyone using a credit card should view their bank balance at all times. You shouldn't look at it as buying stuff on the credit card and then going in and paying it off at the end of the month. It should mentally be that every time you buy something on the credit card, you are sectioning off a chunk of your bank account to cover it. Regardless of what the number says at the top of your bank balance, some percentage of that will have already been spoken for by the end of the month, all you're doing when you "pay the bill" is hiting the button that makes the number go down to it's "real" value. That's why I recommend one of the apps like Mint that just take in all your accounts and give you the "real" balance of how much money you have left to spend, already accounting for your credit balance.

 

Well that's no good, I'm still screwed, right? Yeah, I am, but as it turns out this debate isn't about whether or not it's bad to run out of money, it's about whether or not running out of money is worse with a credit card than it is to run out with a debit card/cash. So, let's take the same scenario from that perspective:

 

When I go to the government run schlong store I pay with my debit card instead of credit. It drains $3000 from my bank account. I get home, my leg gets quite literally fucked and I go to the doctor where I get my medical bill. I'm left with $0.01 in my bank account, a $2500 medical bill and no credit card balance. The situation at this point is completely identical whether I initially had a credit card balance or not. No matter what you are going to go into some form of debt. 

 

But that doesn't mean they are equal overall, since we still haven't covered possible options for what I could do next:

Spoiler

I could borrow money from friends/family/MySpace followers - basically anything that is outside the established financial system. In this case, credit makes zero difference. 

 

Winner: Tie

Spoiler

I could take out a traditional loan, or negotiate a repayment plan with the hospital directly. In the US at least, credit score plays a major role when it comes to negotiating loan terms, so if I've been properly using a credit card as my primary payment method for a while then my credit score is pretty much guaranteed to be higher than if I didn't. 

 

Winner: Credit or Tie (depending on regional use of credit score. 

Spoiler

If I'm making all purchases on credit cards, then chances are that I have more than one, so I could use a secondary card to cover the immediate medical expenses while I use one of the above methods as a longer term solution. Technically you could do this even if you tended to use debit on a day to day basis, but chances are that your credit limits are going to be a lot lower on a card that is rarely used. 

 

Winner: Credit

Spoiler

Although the primary credit card is out of commission for a few days while waiting for the balance to clear, once it does you have an empty card to work with to potentially pay other bills/get food/whatever.

 

Now this does involve incurring some amount of potential debt since you don't necessarily have financing in place to cover it. However we are talking about a worst case scenario here, the alternative with a debit card is an empty bank account. If I'm on my own and need to eat, I'll take the potential of some interest payments. 

 

Winner: Credit

Spoiler

Lastly, rewards. We are talking about someone who is not just broke, but is in the red on their budget. If we are talking $3000 a month in expenses (which admittedly is a whole lot), you are talking minimum $30 a month in points. $30 may not be much, but that could be a tank of gas or several weeks of ramen dinners. It's absolutely not going to be the make or break factor in this situation, but considering that the alternative is literally nothing, I'll take the the extra $30+. 

 

And to be clear, I've never seen a checking account that offer rewards. I'm sure they exist, but I have to assume they probably have higher minimum balances or are otherwise built to cater to people who are better off than in this hypothetical scenario. Even if they aren't, the fact that credit cards carry some implicit potential for interest means that I doubt any debit based reward system is going to be as lucrative as a credit based one. 

 

Winner: Credit

To be clear here, am I saying that if you were in this situation with only a debit card that you'd be screwed? Absolutely not. You could come out just fine with only your bank account, and you could have your life ruined despite having a credit card. The point is most ways a credit card is functionally identical to a debit card, and in some admittedly smaller ways it is superior. No matter how ridiculous I try to make the scenario, I cannot come up with a single way that diligent credit card use will leave you worse off than using just credit. 

 

TL;DR: Anyone can absolutely ruined by unexpected financial burdens that strike when you are least prepared for them. However, in that scenario a system where you intelligently keep a balance and use your credit card for daily purchases cannot harm you, and in certain situations may benefit you. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

So I'm lying there, handcuffed to my stretcher, a 24 inch shaft of rubber entangled and embedded with the tattered remain of my femur. The doctor comes in and tells me that I haven't met my insurance's Dong Damage Deductible for the year and as a result I am going to need to pay the full $2500 for the clone leg transplant and it will take a full 2 weeks to grow, so I won't be able to work (unfortunately I'm a professional jumping jacker) 

An illness as simple as influenza can prevent you from working for two weeks, among other non hospitalization illnesses and injuries. So you have to go to the doctors to make sure you are actually ok and correctly diagnosed, you'll probably also get a secondary chest infection and require antibiotics. Luckily here these things are not expensive since our public health care pays for them, I'm not exactly assuming these are super expensive in the US either.

 

2 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

Now I know that I have a $3000 balance on my credit card, but because I am a responsible individual I double checked that I definitely had enough to cover my purchases before making them (I had $3000.01). Unfortunately that's obviously not enough to cover the medical bill, and because savings are outlawed in this universe I only have my bank account to rely on. 

 

Here's the fault in your entire argument: you are assuming that I now have $500 in my bank account and a $3000 credit card bill to cover, but you are skipping and entire step. Just because someone hands me a bill doesn't mean the money is automatically deducted from my bank account. I still have enough to cover the credit card bill, I just have an additional bill on top of it. There is no reason that I can't just go and pay off the credit card bill in full right now. Then I am left with no credit card balance, $0.01 in my bank account, and a $2500 medical bill. And due to the transaction ordering issues discussed earlier in the thread, it would be a bad idea to try and put that medic charge on the card without giving a few days for the transactions to all clear. 

Well considering I have specifically mentioned that 50% of the US do not have any savings you can sure bet this was the example I was using because I also mentioned that the credit card was paid off only from wages and not from non existent savings. And yes those were purely made up numbers of no real relevance, feel free to substitute in values you feel are more realistic, you don't even have to use ones where you run out of credit either just ones that result in not clearing the credit card balance.

 

You might be fine with savings you might have, others might be fine because they are on salary so sickness does not impact pay directly, others however may not. If you have no savings, rely on your pay to cover your credit card balance then you're not going to be able to or easily pay down any balance until you get your pay. On a cycle of accruing credit balance followed by paying it off after you get paid you're at most at risk from pay fluctuations, as well as unexpected expenses which to be fair you can cover on your credit card with the 21 day period or another loan. You're still easily in danger of falling in to credit card debt, or other loan debt.

 

Also having more than one credit card makes the situation worse not better, you're just piling on more credit that you can't pay. Spreading debt around credit cards doesn't do anything, house of cards waiting to fall.

 

 

2 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

When I go to the government run schlong store I pay with my debit card instead of credit. It drains $3000 from my bank account. I get home, my leg gets quite literally fucked and I go to the doctor where I get my medical bill. I'm left with $0.01 in my bank account, a $2500 medical bill and no credit card balance. The situation at this point is completely identical whether I initially had a credit card balance or not. No matter what you are going to go into some form of debt. 

Not correct, because if you had pending balance that was already more than a week old and you are unable to clear the balance due to the inability to work you have a scenario where you are now paying interest compared to one where you are not. Yes both you had to go in to debt or use a credit card to cover it but only one results in having credit card interest charges.

 

2 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

TL;DR: Anyone can absolutely ruined by unexpected financial burdens that strike when you are least prepared for them. However, in that scenario a system where you intelligently keep a balance and use your credit card for daily purchases cannot harm you, and in certain situations may benefit you.

This relies on everyone being in the same financial situation as yourself with a stable income. Unexpected obviously can effect anyone, however it's when this happens and you have current credit owing and not a trivial amount you can get in to some pretty serious debt easily.

 

Quote

ValuePenguin found that more than 40% of all US households carry credit card debt, with the average American household carrying a balance of $US5,700. For only indebted households, which excludes people who pay their balances in full every month, the average debt is $US9,333.

 

So if you want to change the example or situation to suit your points to where it works out then sure I could agree with those. That doesn't make the real life examples non existent like the one I actually used with different values and less information/shorter story because that extra detail wasn't necessary.

 

Being flat broke and unable to pay for food is still better than being flat broke and unable to pay for food with a $3000 credit card debt with interest charges. Life can suck, sometimes it can suck more.

[Unixsystem]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

Alright well I typed up all that for nothing. I even bolded the important bits and you completely ignored them once again. Done for real this time.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Alright well I typed up all that for nothing. I even bolded the important bits and you completely ignored them once again. Done for real this time.

Well I didn't exactly ignore them, you weren't exactly concise with the post which does actually make it hard to respond to well enough. TL;DR I don't agree with your bold parts.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

Alright well I typed up all that for nothing. I even bolded the important bits and you completely ignored them once again. Done for real this time.

They weren't ignored, they were properly addressed.    It doesn't matter if you have CC or not if you are living week to week then you are ruined either way, it's just that if you are living week to week with a CC debt then you are ruined twice.  The only way out of that situation is to have a line of credit that you don't use except for in emergencies.

[thedude4bides]

9 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

 

  Hide contents

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

TL;DR: Anyone can absolutely ruined by unexpected financial burdens that strike when you are least prepared for them. However, in that scenario a system where you intelligently keep a balance and use your credit card for daily purchases cannot harm you, and in certain situations may benefit you. 

The issues brought up by him are generally not credit risk at all.  

 

For example... the medical emergency that comes up and you lose your job?  Not credit risk.  Not in the least.  It doesn't matter how you use your card in this situation or what balance you carry.  Either way, debt is now through the roof.  If your medical emergency put you in $100,000 of debt, the $3000 balance on a $5000 limit is irrelevant at that point.  Meaningless.  So now your $103,000 in debt vs $100,000... the difference is negligible. Not using credit isn't a means to mitigate this risk.  Medical insurance, Disability Insurance, and employment insurance like AFLAC is.

 

Talk about conflating risks... this is the height of it.

 

[Eduard the weeb]

wait couldn't this be considered soft censorship though? Because that means those who post more fringe content could be denied for there views or am I over thinking this idk

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, thedude4bides said:

The issues brought up by him are generally not credit risk at all.  

 

For example... the medical emergency that comes up and you lose your job?  Not credit risk.  Not in the least.  It doesn't matter how you use your card in this situation or what balance you carry.  Either way, debt is now through the roof.  If your medical emergency put you in $100,000 of debt, the $3000 balance on a $5000 limit is irrelevant at that point.  Meaningless.  So now your $103,000 in debt vs $100,000... the difference is negligible. Not using credit isn't a means to mitigate this risk.  Medical insurance, Disability Insurance, and employment insurance like AFLAC is.

 

Talk about conflating risks... this is the height of it.

 

 

Again you are ignoring the risk that was raised,  Leadeater never said that an unexpected event causing you financial grief  is a credit risk, he said if you have credit that you can't afford to settle (for any reason) is risky credit.  Period.  Trying to generate scenarios where someone might get caught out financially does not change that.  In fact if anything it highlights the risk of using CC's for everyday expenditure when you don't have suitable measures in place for unforeseen issues.

 

Why do you keep misrepresenting what people are saying?

 

 

[thedude4bides]

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Again you are ignoring the risk that was raised,  Leadeater never said that an unexpected event causing you financial grief  is a credit risk, he said if you have credit that you can't afford to settle (for any reason) is risky credit.  Period.  Trying to generate scenarios where someone might get caught out financially does not change that.  In fact if anything it highlights the risk of using CC's for everyday expenditure when you don't have suitable measures in place for unforeseen issues.

 

Why do you keep misrepresenting what people are saying?

 

 

First off let me correct the notion of what credit risk is.  It’s been used incorrectly for far too long and even I’m guilty because I’m using this term as you are, not what it actually is.  Credit risk is the risk incurred by the one providing the credit, i.e. the CC user in this case is the risk, not the CC company or the card itself.  Higher credit score means lower risk and vice versus.

 

Interest and penalties incurred by the CC user are solely the responsibility of the CC user.  Overspending and missing payments are the problem.

 

if that person loses their job?  That not credit risk.  It’s called involuntary loss of employment and there is protection you can buy for that.  ILOE insurance.

 

if that person incurs a large medical expense?  That’s morbidity risk.  Not credit risk.  There is also protection that can be purchased for such events.  Medical Insurance.  Critical Illness/Injury insurance.  And more.

 

if that person incurs a large expense due to an automobile accident.  That’s not credit risk.  This can be protected against by purchasing auto insurance.  This is actually compelled by the state laws in the US.

 

i can go on and on but the story is the same: shit happens and it ain’t because you have a credit card and use it. 

[mr moose]

45 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

First off let me correct the notion of what credit risk is.  It’s been used incorrectly for far too long and even I’m guilty because I’m using this term as you are, not what it actually is.  Credit risk is the risk incurred by the one providing the credit, i.e. the CC user in this case is the risk, not the CC company or the card itself.  Higher credit score means lower risk and vice versus.

 

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about, we are talking about the risk taken by people who use credit. Not the risk taken by companies that provide it.  I don't think that has ever been in doubt, nor has it ever been raised in this discussion.

 

Quote

Interest and penalties incurred by the CC user are solely the responsibility of the CC user.  Overspending and missing payments are the problem.

That is not in dispute either.

 

Quote

if that person loses their job?  That not credit risk.  It’s called involuntary loss of employment and there is protection you can buy for that.  ILOE insurance.

 

You are intentionally misrepresenting what was said.   You know full well what was meant by risk when it was used plainly to describe what the user undertakes by relying on credit for everyday spending.  

 

Quote

if that person incurs a large medical expense?  That’s morbidity risk.  Not credit risk.  There is also protection that can be purchased for such events.  Medical Insurance.  Critical Illness/Injury insurance.  And more.

 

if that person incurs a large expense due to an automobile accident.  That’s not credit risk.  This can be protected against by purchasing auto insurance.  This is actually compelled by the state laws in the US.

 

i can go on and on but the story is the same: shit happens and it ain’t because you have a credit card and use it. 

 

You can go on, but you are intentionally claiming other people are making arguments they are not.   No body said having a credit card causes things to happen.  In fact I am having trouble believing you even concluded that honestly.    EDIT: in fact even after I reiterated that no one made those claims you still tried to argue they did.

 

When you infer that some is making an argument (that they absolutely did not) and then accuse them of conflating issues, you are genuinely being hypocritical.  You are now being very disingenuous to their claims and largely trying to perplex the discussion.  I can only assume it is to hide some of the errors you made interpreting other peoples posts.

 

 

Once again for the record, the claim was made that using a credit card for everyday expenditure is a risk.  Not a "credit risk" but a risk to the person undertaking the use of that credit.    Why it is a risk is not being claimed to be the result of using the credit (that is the error in your comprehension), but that certain conditions elevates the level of that risk.  It is still factual that by not using credit at all, you reduce your financial obligations should something go wrong.

 

In fact this is really basic stuff, I am scared to know why you feel so strongly that you need to misrepresent the basic premise, perhaps you work for a CC company and don't like people being realistic about them?

[thedude4bides]

46 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about, we are talking about the risk taken by people who use credit. Not the risk taken by companies that provide it.  I don't think that has ever been in doubt, nor has it ever been raised in this discussion.

 

That is not in dispute either.

 

 

You are intentionally misrepresenting what was said.   You know full well what was meant by risk when it was used plainly to describe what the user undertakes by relying on credit for everyday spending.  

 

 

You can go on, but you are intentionally claiming other people are making arguments they are not.   No body said having a credit card causes things to happen.  In fact I am having trouble believing you even concluded that honestly.    EDIT: in fact even after I reiterated that no one made those claims you still tried to argue they did.

 

When you infer that some is making an argument (that they absolutely did not) and then accuse them of conflating issues, you are genuinely being hypocritical.  You are now being very disingenuous to their claims and largely trying to perplex the discussion.  I can only assume it is to hide some of the errors you made interpreting other peoples posts.

 

 

Once again for the record, the claim was made that using a credit card for everyday expenditure is a risk.  Not a "credit risk" but a risk to the person undertaking the use of that credit.    Why it is a risk is not being claimed to be the result of using the credit (that is the error in your comprehension), but that certain conditions elevates the level of that risk.  It is still factual that by not using credit at all, you reduce your financial obligations should something go wrong.

 

In fact this is really basic stuff, I am scared to know why you feel so strongly that you need to misrepresent the basic premise, perhaps you work for a CC company and don't like people being realistic about them?

Ok I see you’re problem... financial responsibility is not now nor ever has been a point I’ve debated.  If not, you are just posting to argue (or hear yourself type.. who really knows...)

 

In fact, I’ve caveated everything with responsible use.  You may have even seen me say at some point that if you are going to spend more than you can afford to pay then you shouldn’t be thinking about rewards period.  

 

That said, I’ll say what I’ve been saying over and over: if you are responsible then there is no reason not to use a CC card and experience all benefits that brings like rewards, buyer protection, extended warranty, spend tracking etc.

 

not sure what part of the world you are from but in my part it is beer o’clock  

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

Ok I see you’re problem... financial responsibility is not now nor ever has been a point I’ve debated.  If not, you are just posting to argue (or hear yourself type.. who really knows...)

 

You intentionally argue claims that have not been made and then go on to do (as you have just done again) claim someone else has the problem.

5 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

In fact, I’ve caveated everything with responsible use.  You may have even seen me say at some point that if you are going to spend more than you can afford to pay then you shouldn’t be thinking about rewards period.  

 

That said, I’ll say what I’ve been saying over and over: if you are responsible then there is no reason not to use a CC card and experience all benefits that brings like rewards, buyer protection, extended warranty, spend tracking etc.

 

not sure what part of the world you are from but in my part it is beer o’clock  

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

 

All you are doing is moving the goal posts and occasionally coming back to say what you have already tried to argue is not a thing.   

 

And you have the duplicity to accuse me of arguing for the sake of it on top of trying to change what other people have clearly said.  Neither I nor Leadeater have changed our position or claims. 

 

 

[thedude4bides]

42 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You intentionally argue claims that have not been made and then go on to do (as you have just done again) claim someone else has the problem.

All you are doing is moving the goal posts and occasionally coming back to say what you have already tried to argue is not a thing.   

 

And you have the duplicity to accuse me of arguing for the sake of it on top of trying to change what other people have clearly said.  Neither I nor Leadeater have changed our position or claims. 

 

 

Only claims I ever made are that if you are responsible then credit is better because you earn rewards and have other benefits.  Credit is not inherently evil.  Non-zero risk is not a reason to avoid credit.  Oh, and rewards rock.  I owe my CC card company much gratitude because my 1080 ti was paid for fully with CC rewards.  It’s great.  Be responsible, kids, and this can be something you enjoy, too;)

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

You intentionally argue claims that have not been made and then go on to do (as you have just done again) claim someone else has the problem.

All you are doing is moving the goal posts and occasionally coming back to say what you have already tried to argue is not a thing.   

 

And you have the duplicity to accuse me of arguing for the sake of it on top of trying to change what other people have clearly said.  Neither I nor Leadeater have changed our position or claims. 

Well one of the big problems with the arguments given back is that they all take the tone of using no credit versus using credit, which I don't how many times I've had to correct that this is not what was said. I specifically called out buying food as one unwise use because the rewards for those purchases is incredibly low to the point of near worthlessness. I didn't say things like don't pay your home, contents and car insurance by credit card, nor petrol, nor health insurance, nor energy bills, nor significant consumer and consumer electronics items. Like I said throughout an entire year there is more than enough opportunity to use a credit card wisely and gain similar rewards without increasing credit balance unnecessarily.

 

Problem is for me many of the additional bonus rewards for paying by credit card also apply to debit card so there is no inherit gain between the two beyond the base level spending rewards, which as above many are applicable use cases for a credit card. These fixed expenditures are good use cases and you can setup automatic payments on the billing dates to pay off the balance.

 

As for the base level spending rewards I for sure net gain more by not being driven to spend more than I otherwise would by credit card company incentives to spend more. For the additional extra rewards or benefits that may apply these either shouldn't be allowed or covered under other policies and protections. Here, and I'm sure it's the case in Aus, it is illegal to have a different product or service price based on payment method and is also illegal to have a different warranty period based on payment method. You can buy extended warranty but nobody does because our consumer protection laws require manufacturers to warranty the product for the minimum expected service life which is governed by the Commerce Commission who base this length on the consumer/public minimum expectation therefore extended warranties are irrelevant because they aren't longer than the legally required warranty. Credit card companies have no business getting involved in anything to do with product warranties, both our countries investigated these kinds of practices and found them to be detrimental to consumers and stamped it out.

 

As for car rental insurance I am covered under my standard car insurance policy, you can also only hire a car using a credit card too.

 

Many of the rewards and benefits offered by credit card companies have been found to be either detrimental to consumers or increase the prices, the actual advertised product price and thus are not allowed in many countries.

 

But instead of addressing these types of issues we have to argue that 'I like my rewards and if people would just not over spend then there wouldn't be any problems', if only it were that simple.

 

I'm also aware the above actually covers two distinctly different and board topic areas, business activities and deals of credit card companies and also personal financial situations (although very minimally because it's been discussed to death and if you don't agree with my advice don't, live on how you like it's none of my business and you don't need to convince me that it's working for you).

[appleache]

well time to get ban for been a "toxic gamer"

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, thedude4bides said:

Only claims I ever made are that if you are responsible then credit is better because you earn rewards and have other benefits.  Credit is not inherently evil.  Non-zero risk is not a reason to avoid credit.  Oh, and rewards rock.  I owe my CC card company much gratitude because my 1080 ti was paid for fully with CC rewards.  It’s great.  Be responsible, kids, and this can be something you enjoy, too;)

 

Actually,  just going back one page only there are lot more claims you have made:

 

7 hours ago, thedude4bides said:

Ok I see you’re problem... financial responsibility is not now nor ever has been a point I’ve debated.  

Except you did and have and still are.

 

7 hours ago, thedude4bides said:

In fact, I’ve caveated everything with responsible use.

 

 

In the very same post non the less.

 

17 hours ago, thedude4bides said:

The issues brought up by him are generally not credit risk at all.  

 

For example... the medical emergency that comes up and you lose your job?  Not credit risk.  Not in the least.  It doesn't matter how you use your card in this situation or what balance you carry.  Either way, debt is now through the roof.  If your medical emergency put you in $100,000 of debt, the $3000 balance on a $5000 limit is irrelevant at that point.  Meaningless.  So now your $103,000 in debt vs $100,000... the difference is negligible. Not using credit isn't a means to mitigate this risk.  Medical insurance, Disability Insurance, and employment insurance like AFLAC is.

 

Talk about conflating risks... this is the height of it.

 

And here, You see no one said a medical emergency is a credit risk, you are claiming people are making these arguments, but they just aren't

On 6/20/2019 at 8:35 PM, thedude4bides said:

It’s a pretty simple take-down of the argument that because CC’s are non-zero risk they ought to be avoided outright and certainly not promoted as a source of income/savings via rewards (because that’s just an irresponsible thing to do).  Neither of those things is true.

Again, you are trying to insinuate people have made an argument that they haven't.  This is another claim beyond the "only" ones you think you are making.

On 6/20/2019 at 10:44 PM, thedude4bides said:

The rhetoric I’ve addressed is that CC’s are risky and therefore rewards shouldn't be considered when choosing how to pay.  The fact is CC’s are not inherently good or bad.  They have a certain set of mechanism that govern their use and you can take advantage of them if you are in a position to do so.  What’s bad is human behavior, compulsion, lack of restraint, and spending money you don’t have. 

Again, more claims that people are only saying one thing.   

 

That is 4 posts in the last two pages where you have fabricated arguments from people so you can pretend your understanding of the system is without flaw.

 

You sit there and make claims like your 1080 was paid for with rewards,  but you can't prove those rewards didn't come out of your pocket elsewhere or that they didn't come at the expense of other people stuck in a debt cycle.   So, no, I am not inclined to give your anecdotes or fallacious arguments any credit. Pun not intended.

 

 

[thedude4bides]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Actually,  just going back one page only there are lot more claims you have made:

 

Except you did and have and still are.

 

In the very same post non the less.

 

And here, You see no one said a medical emergency is a credit risk, you are claiming people are making these arguments, but they just aren't

Again, you are trying to insinuate people have made an argument that they haven't.  This is another claim beyond the "only" ones you think you are making.

Again, more claims that people are only saying one thing.   

 

That is 4 posts in the last two pages where you have fabricated arguments from people so you can pretend your understanding of the system is without flaw.

 

You sit there and make claims like your 1080 was paid for with rewards,  but you can't prove those rewards didn't come out of your pocket elsewhere or that they didn't come at the expense of other people stuck in a debt cycle.   So, no, I am not inclined to give your anecdotes or fallacious arguments any credit. Pun not intended.

 

 

This is just funny at this point

 

The truth is that I can’t understand it for you.  You’ll have to do that on your own. 

 

Ive explained as much as I could for you.  The rest is up to you.  Be willing to open your eyes to what is actually being said, understanding it, agree or disagree with it, and make a case for it.  

 

I’ve stated my points and backed them up with examples or logical arguments.

 

yes my 1080 ti anecdotal.  Guess what?  I’ve got many more anecdotes over the years.  We can talk more about that if you want... and I have time.

 

 

[thedude4bides]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well one of the big problems with the arguments given back is that they all take the tone of using no credit versus using credit, which I don't how many times I've had to correct that this is not what was said. I specifically called out buying food as one unwise use because the rewards for those purchases is incredibly low to the point of near worthlessness. I didn't say things like don't pay your home, contents and car insurance by credit card, nor petrol, nor health insurance, nor energy bills, nor significant consumer and consumer electronics items. Like I said throughout an entire year there is more than enough opportunity to use a credit card wisely and gain similar rewards without increasing credit balance unnecessarily.

 

Problem is for me many of the additional bonus rewards for paying by credit card also apply to debit card so there is no inherit gain between the two beyond the base level spending rewards, which as above many are applicable use cases for a credit card. These fixed expenditures are good use cases and you can setup automatic payments on the billing dates to pay off the balance.

 

As for the base level spending rewards I for sure net gain more by not being driven to spend more than I otherwise would by credit card company incentives to spend more. For the additional extra rewards or benefits that may apply these either shouldn't be allowed or covered under other policies and protections. Here, and I'm sure it's the case in Aus, it is illegal to have a different product or service price based on payment method and is also illegal to have a different warranty period based on payment method. You can buy extended warranty but nobody does because our consumer protection laws require manufacturers to warranty the product for the minimum expected service life which is governed by the Commerce Commission who base this length on the consumer/public minimum expectation therefore extended warranties are irrelevant because they aren't longer than the legally required warranty. Credit card companies have no business getting involved in anything to do with product warranties, both our countries investigated these kinds of practices and found them to be detrimental to consumers and stamped it out.

 

As for car rental insurance I am covered under my standard car insurance policy, you can also only hire a car using a credit card too.

 

Many of the rewards and benefits offered by credit card companies have been found to be either detrimental to consumers or increase the prices, the actual advertised product price and thus are not allowed in many countries.

 

But instead of addressing these types of issues we have to argue that 'I like my rewards and if people would just not over spend then there wouldn't be any problems', if only it were that simple.

 

I'm also aware the above actually covers two distinctly different and board topic areas, business activities and deals of credit card companies and also personal financial situations (although very minimally because it's been discussed to death and if you don't agree with my advice don't, live on how you like it's none of my business and you don't need to convince me that it's working for you).

In principle, it is simple.  And I haven’t said a single thing about buying excess stuff.  Just stuff you would otherwise be buying anyway.  Spending more than you otherwise would is a separate issue and, I agree, that’s bad news.

 

Rewards accrued, however, allow a random splurge here and there or more savings.

 

May be true debit cards have similarly structured rewards.  I have never once used one.  That’s great and glad that works for some.  (Still have overdraft penalties to worry about, though...)

 

Rewards themselves are not detrimental to consumers (unless they are actually truly something other than rewards.., in which case class actions lawsuits would inevitably ensue).  

 

What hurts consumers is poor spending habits. Period.

 

Calling “out buying food as unwise”...

This just wrong.  Why?  I have a card that does 3-5% on groceries and restaurants.  Are you saying I should skip that because...reasons?

 

 

“CC companies have no business have no business having anything to do with product warranties”

Maybe in your country it makes less sense or even no sense (except it is handy that your CC purchase may be the only source documentation you have of proof of purchase)  But either way, who are you to say that?  Who are you to tell a company what they can and cannot offer their customers as a value added service?  That’s just a silly.  

[kokakolia]

So I have been lurking this topic for a bit. I can't believe that it's still going on! Here's my 2 cents:

 

- You can adopt a very broad perspective on this conversation and say that credit cards are bad overall. They encourage people to use credit and go into debt. That's not a good thing for the overall prosperity of the Nation. Moreover, you have a giant can of worms about warranties, insurance and data mining.The high cost of interest rates and charges is frankly predatory. But if you're clever you don't have to pay these fees/charges/interest rates, which leads to the second point. 

- Some people truly benefit from credit cards. If you're careful with your payments, you have everything to win in the form of rewards and cashback. But this is such a self-centered argument. Just because I did it, doesn't mean you can.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

“CC companies have no business have no business having anything to do with product warranties”

Maybe in your country it makes less sense or even no sense (except it is handy that your CC purchase may be the only source documentation you have of proof of purchase)  But either way, who are you to say that?  Who are you to tell a company what they can and cannot offer their customers as a value added service?  That’s just a silly.  

Because a payment processor or creditor doesn't actually have any business getting involved here. I mean can you explain why they should? Or why you should accept that product warranties not actually be aligned with expected service life of the product and not more arbitrary made up lengths of time? It's more silly to treat that is normal, sure it's normal in the context of that's currently how it is but objectively does this actually sound normal? If I hand over cash or pay by debit my product warranty is now somehow expected to be different? Doesn't that sound strange? Does cash make it fail sooner?

 

As for proof of purchase, you can prove that with a bank statement which has the information required for the retailer to re-print purchase invoice. Also it's fairly common for the sale record to be sent through to the distributor and tied to the product serial number so in a lot of cases all you need is that serial number to get warranty support. Case by case difference without any common standard from what I have seen.

 

However credit card statement being a proof of purchase has nothing to do with product warranty.

 

15 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

Calling “out buying food as unwise”...

This just wrong.  Why?  I have a card that does 3-5% on groceries and restaurants.  Are you saying I should skip that because...reasons?

These are just some of the practices identified as increasing the cost to consumers so they can just knock it back down to the normal price if you use a credit card, an incentive to get people to use credit cards and common business deal struck between credit card companies and businesses. Because of what this actually is in reality it's not allowed here, all currency and payment methods are equal.

 

Edit: Loyalty cards and club benefits are legal so you can get discounts through these. This way method of payment doesn't matter and restaurants can use a common loyalty program so you don't need 20 loyalty cards just one.

[thedude4bides]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Because a payment processor or creditor doesn't actually have any business getting involved here. I mean can you explain why they should? Or why you should accept that product warranties not actually be aligned with expected service life of the product and not more arbitrary made up lengths of time? It's more silly to treat that is normal, sure it's normal in the context of that's currently how it is but objectively is does this actually sound normal? If I had of cash or pay by debit my product warranty is now somehow expected to be different? Doesn't that sound strange? Does cash make it fail sooner?

 

As for proof of purchase, you can prove that with a bank statement which has the information required for the retailer to re-print purchase invoice. Also it's fairly common for the sale record to be sent through to the distributor and tied to the product serial number so in a lot of cases all you need is that serial number to get warranty support. Case by case difference without any common standard from what I have seen.

 

These are just some of the practices identified as increasing the cost to consumers so they can just knock it back down to the normal price if you use a credit card, an incentive to get people to use credit cards and common business deal struck between credit card companies and businesses. Because of what this actually is in reality it's not allowed here, all currency and payment methods are equal.

That’s the thing... I’m not making any indictments on what should or shouldn’t be.  Only what is.  Any company can employ any value added service they want.  Doesn’t matter what it is or why there is a need for it in the first place.  They do this to gain competitive edge and is ultimately a good thing for consumers. 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, thedude4bides said:

That’s the thing... I’m not making any indictments on what should or shouldn’t be.  Only what is.  Any company can employ any value added service they want.  Doesn’t matter what it is or why there is a need for it in the first place.  They do this to gain competitive edge and is ultimately a good thing for consumers. 

No they actually can't, but I mean should my country apologize to yours for having an effective consumer protection agency that looks in to these issues and rectifies them?

 

Well to correct that first bit, yes they can if there is nothing to prevent what is actually anti-consumer practices.