If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Duluth News Tribune)   Apparently deciding that his application to join the League of Supervillians just wasn't strong enough; WI Gov. tries to sneak language into a budget bill that will make it easier for "rent to own" shops to rip off the mathematically illiterate   (duluthnewstribune.com) divider line 271
    More: Sad, League of Supervillians, Wisconsin Gov., government budget, Wisconsin, Rent-A-Center, Glenn Grothman, Milwaukee County, Scott Walker  
•       •       •

13051 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2013 at 12:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-05 01:48:00 PM  

LargeCanine: So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.


I agree but recent history is full of example that the average person needs the government to act as their parent because they are too damn stupid to make a reasonable financial decision. And where does it end? Shouldd we disable the FDA and let consumers investigate their own food and drugs? Should we no longer require auto safety standards? Building codes?
At the end of the day, keeping people safe, both physically and financially, is cheaper for the tax payers in the long run. In theory, anyways.
 
2013-03-05 01:48:36 PM  

VendorXeno: Generation_D: Is it government's job to protect the stupid from themselves?

Stupid people aren't being protected, "from themselves." They're being protected from greedy, unethical assholes who would try to take advantage of the fact that they're stupid to cheat them out of money. And do you really have to ask whether or not that's a good idea? If so, you don't need to be voting.


This.

Fleecing the poor doen't grow the GDP, it hurts a nation by eating away at it's base. So a good government makes it hard for the scammers to operate.

/on the other hand, a bad government (see Walker) turns off the light of regulation so the prey won't see the predators coming.
 
2013-03-05 01:49:31 PM  
Better than the "rent-with-the-option-to-buy" bullshiat that we had when I was in the business.  The cash buyout price would drop down to 20% of the original price.  Of course, these poor people would never have that much money at once.
 
2013-03-05 01:50:39 PM  

calm like a bomb: Phineas: Government intervention on behalf of the stupid has become pretty standard though, which is why liberals have flourished.

I used to live in Wisconsin, and teh libs are everything that is wrong with this country/

/got nothin'
//you owe me a new keyboard
///you know what else is wrong with this country?  Numbered lists.


Touche, sir
 
2013-03-05 01:51:01 PM  

LarryDan43: [www.thetemplateoftime.com image 621x809]

See the villain's eyes? They - insinuate a slightly skewed perspective on how they see the world. Just off normal.



Pure frakkin' evil..

i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-05 01:53:12 PM  

Generation_D: Is it government's job to protect the stupid from themselves?


Yes, now STFU.
 
2013-03-05 01:54:20 PM  
He is nothing more than a Koch sucker.
 
2013-03-05 01:55:33 PM  

unyon: Generation_D: Is it government's job to protect the stupid from themselves?

No, it's actually their job to educate them not to be stupid in the first place.  But here we are.


All my experience indicates that government education has the opposite aim.
 
2013-03-05 01:57:27 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Mikey1969: busy chillin': my cousin got this approval. Awesome right? She passed on the chance.

[s21.postimage.org image 850x637]


$1000 loan from a Tribe at 349.05% interest paying $141.11 for 24 months.

= $3,386.64

I can't remember exactly what it was, but there was a commercial on recently that was similar... I think it was for a $10,000 loan, and by the time you were done' you'd paid off something like $60,000, all in the course of about 5 farking years...

Western Sky. Anyone who uses it, deserves to get scalped.


"Yes, we're expensive..."
 
2013-03-05 02:00:20 PM  

Jument: LargeCanine: So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.

I agree but recent history is full of example that the average person needs the government to act as their parent because they are too damn stupid to make a reasonable financial decision. And where does it end? Shouldd we disable the FDA and let consumers investigate their own food and drugs? Should we no longer require auto safety standards? Building codes?
At the end of the day, keeping people safe, both physically and financially, is cheaper for the tax payers in the long run. In theory, anyways.



I let a customer leave my store with a $2000 TV on the promise to pay me.  He doens't have a credit card so  the only gurantee I have is his signature. If I run my own credit check, he wont' pass.  So I know I am making a very high risk loan. I  also have to take into account wear and tear on an item, damage,  and if I have to actually repossess the item and  send Repo men into someone's home which is an added cost and liability.

Now Why can't I make a high profit?

Let's have a law too that outlaws what the guys on Pawn Stars do. Hell they're screwing people too. Right?
 
2013-03-05 02:00:45 PM  

Lurk sober post drunk: DirkTheDaring: Mikey1969: busy chillin': my cousin got this approval. Awesome right? She passed on the chance.

[s21.postimage.org image 850x637]


$1000 loan from a Tribe at 349.05% interest paying $141.11 for 24 months.

= $3,386.64

I can't remember exactly what it was, but there was a commercial on recently that was similar... I think it was for a $10,000 loan, and by the time you were done' you'd paid off something like $60,000, all in the course of about 5 farking years...

Western Sky. Anyone who uses it, deserves to get scalped.

is that the place that says something to the effect of "sure, the money's a little more expensive than a payday advance"?  cause i mean...wow...and they actually say something like that.


www.westernsky.com
Even funnier...their website says, "We are an installment lender and our rates are much lower than most payday lenders."
 
2013-03-05 02:00:50 PM  

Nome de Plume: Generation_D: Is it government's job to protect the stupid from themselves?

Yes, since the 1930s at least on the Federal level.


It is since people will be stupid, get themselves into trouble, and then sue everyone within a ten mile radius for letting them be stupid and suffer the inevitable consequences for their actions. Setting aside these unconscionable contracts of adhesion (which have always been illegal), people will do the dumbest possible things, and then sue the business, the manufacturer, the hospital, the taxi company, and the regulatory agency because they put their eye out trying to take a soda bottle top off with a knife instead of just opening the damn thing. (True case)

It's easier and cheaper in the long run for the government to make things so stupid people have adequate warning and protection, than to have them suing everyone because they were dumb. This means the rest of us have to put up with instructions on soup and soda bottles, but that's how it is.
 
2013-03-05 02:01:02 PM  
akula:

No argument. But mind you, skipping over a EULA is one thing. It wasn't that long ago we saw people complaining about how they didn't see the need to read things like mortgage documents. The former tends to be nothing but boilerplate with no continuing financial relationship. The latter is a massive expenditure that is not only the largest bill you'll pay but also intimately related to your own home.

Irrelevant.  There's nothing preventing Apple from demanding your first born in that EULA, which would stand up in court.  I don't disagree that people need to understand what they're signing up for- but expecting people to wade through 50 pages of legalese to find the gotcha is also unreasonable.  Terms, fees, and penalties need to be specified up front on page 1 and in simple language.  That's what I mean by reasonable restriction.

Even without the fine print you can tell that the $20 per week for 104 weeks for that computer is enough to pay for that shiatty laptop four times over, well, I fail to see what else we can do. We can try to limit charges for things like interest rates, but I wonder if those folks would just run someplace else to get fleeced.

Maybe.  But that $20/week for 104 weeks meets my criteria for exorbitance anyways- Assuming that notebook is roughly $1k, that puts the rental at roughly 17% of the purchase price monthly.  I set my arbitrary threshold at 20%, which would make charging $25/week ok.  Is it a smart financial decision?  Not if you plan on keeping it for 104 weeks it isn't.  But at that level, the rent-to-own place is a legitimate business providing a needed service at a not-entirely-extortionary price.

We can provide education for people, try to place caps on usury, but finally it's up to the individual to take responsibility for one's own affairs. Short of taking away people's ability to enter into contracts we have to know that there's always going to be a danger.

Of course.   And on that we agree entirely.  You can't legislate away stupidity or ignorance, or force people to read before signing.  But we can ensure that there are reasonable and sensible boundaries that prevent at least some of those bad decisions from becoming a burden that simply can't be climbed out from under.  In those situations, you and I end up footing the bill.  The only winner is the guy that fleeced them.

Look- I'm a lender myself.  The bank sees fit to want to lend me an absurd amount of money at about a 2.5% interest rate.  I loan that money, that ain't even mine, to other individuals that need short or long term loans, usually to make up the difference between what the bank will lend them and the purchase price of their house.  Usually between $15-$65k.  I'm named on title, so a secured creditor right behind the mortgage holder in the event it all goes sideways.  I probably average somewhere in the 12% range on that money I have lent out.  I could charge up to 20% plus fees- the law in Canada is that you can charge up to the market rate, which is by default set by credit card companies, the most usurious lender.   I would never charge north of 20% for two reasons:  It's usurious, and more importantly, I'd cripple them financially and probably never see my principle back.

The policy philosophy should be milk the cow, but don't slaughter it.


 
2013-03-05 02:08:56 PM  
It looks like they got a letter in response to their application:

Bad Horse
Bad Horse
Bad Horse
Bad Horse
He rides across the nation
The thoroughbred of sin
He got the application
You just sent in
It needs evaluation
So let the games begin
A heinous crime, a show of force
A murder would be nice, of course
Bad Horse
Bad Horse
Bad Horse
He's bad

The Evil League of Evil
Is watching, so beware
The grade that you receive
Will be your last, we swear
So make the Bad Horse gleeful
Or he'll make you his mare . . .
Get saddled up
There's no recourse
 
2013-03-05 02:09:13 PM  

Jument: LargeCanine: So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.

I agree but recent history is full of example that the average person needs the government to act as their parent because they are too damn stupid to make a reasonable financial decision. And where does it end? Shouldd we disable the FDA and let consumers investigate their own food and drugs? Should we no longer require auto safety standards? Building codes?
At the end of the day, keeping people safe, both physically and financially, is cheaper for the tax payers in the long run. In theory, anyways.


Government exists to keep people from hurting eachother, where it goes too far is to protect people from themselves.
 
2013-03-05 02:09:22 PM  
Just for fun, I've read the "fine print" on some of those ads and calculated just how much you'll really pay. It's ridiculous and they do market to the poor and uneducated. To someone like me it's obvious that these places, and payday lenders, aren't doing anyone a favor but I'm college educated with college educated parents who taught me about money. So yes, some people do need the government to look out for them. At the very, VERY least, the people have a right to be informed.
 
2013-03-05 02:10:50 PM  

chrylis: unyon: Generation_D: Is it government's job to protect the stupid from themselves?

No, it's actually their job to educate them not to be stupid in the first place.  But here we are.

All my experience indicates that government education has the opposite aim.


It has nothing to do with government in general.  My kids received a fantastic public education.  But here in Canada, the poverty kids and the rich kids usually go to the same schools- I don't think that we have nearly the educational income stratification that the US does, and certainly not the same proliferation of private schooling.  This gets reflected in a whole host of educational outcomes.

As usual, the govern from the fringes strategy results in the worst of both worlds.  Until you govern from the center, nothing will change.
 
2013-03-05 02:11:37 PM  

Electromax: Some of you dudes must have skipped out on Econ and History in high school, there are reasons that measures are in place for the "government to protect the public" from con men and snake oil salesmen. This stuff doesn't just pop up overnight without precedent.

Every human out there is interested in their own well being and (generally) accumulation of wealth. Many will gladly take yours if you aren't armed with the experience or education to protect yourself. I don't think any attempts to publicize this behavior (eg RTO publishing interest rates) is a bad thing.

I know many here carry the attitude that you and you alone are responsible for protecting yourself from the unscrupulous, which ultimately is absolutely true, but I don't get why that makes any attempt to mitigate such people a horrible thing.


Because it tramples on someone else's god-given right to be unscrupulous.
 
2013-03-05 02:12:51 PM  
I wonder how much the rent-to-not-own people paid him to add that to the bill?
 
2013-03-05 02:15:08 PM  

NephilimNexus: I wonder how much the rent-to-not-own people paid him to add that to the bill?


I read that as "pad the bill..."
 
2013-03-05 02:23:34 PM  

LarryDan43: [www.thetemplateoftime.com image 621x809]

See the villain's eyes? They - insinuate a slightly skewed perspective on how they see the world. Just off normal.


Yeah, he's a farkin scumbag. Just another reason to hate Republicans. All they want to do is shiat on the poor, enable profits for the wealthy, and line their own pockets while doing so. They do not consider the public good. It's one of the reasons they lusted so much after power of political office - that and boffing twinks, I'm so sure. Democrats? NOT SO MUCH!

i.chzbgr.com

/hot like the anus of Walker's last victim
 
2013-03-05 02:27:00 PM  
My friend's father is a former owner of a rent-to-own chain and currently works as a lobbyist for their industry. So I have some insight into that world, and it's pretty damn ugly. That industry spends a lot of time and a shiat load of money lobbying our elected officials in order to get laws passed so consumer protection and usury laws don't apply to them.

My friend's dad became wealthy by profiting off the backs of the truly poor and ignorant. Everything about those businesses is sleazy. It is like legalized robbery.

One of my proudest days as an attorney was suing his business for minor personal injuries when the of his employees pushed down my client when repossessing a dining room outfit.  Because the employee had quit and departed for places unknown it left the business to defend a suit against allegations for and event which they didn't have anyone who could dispute my client's claims.  She also happened to have her pastor over when it took place, so our position was very credible.  The injury was minimal so the judgment was nothing to brag about, but it made me feel good to stick to the man.
 
2013-03-05 02:32:19 PM  

LargeCanine: So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.


And I'm sure you'll be 'morally consistent' and apply that same principle to drugs... right?
 
2013-03-05 02:33:13 PM  

Danger Mouse: Jument: LargeCanine: So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.

I agree but recent history is full of example that the average person needs the government to act as their parent because they are too damn stupid to make a reasonable financial decision. And where does it end? Shouldd we disable the FDA and let consumers investigate their own food and drugs? Should we no longer require auto safety standards? Building codes?
At the end of the day, keeping people safe, both physically and financially, is cheaper for the tax payers in the long run. In theory, anyways.


I let a customer leave my store with a $2000 TV on the promise to pay me.  He doens't have a credit card so  the only gurantee I have is his signature. If I run my own credit check, he wont' pass.  So I know I am making a very high risk loan. I  also have to take into account wear and tear on an item, damage,  and if I have to actually repossess the item and  send Repo men into someone's home which is an added cost and liability.

Now Why can't I make a high profit?

Let's have a law too that outlaws what the guys on Pawn Stars do. Hell they're screwing people too. Right?


We do Dumbass.  There are laws on the books that pawnbrokers must offer "reasonable value" for the items they buy or take in pawn.  Why  because the law, unlike you , recognizes that people using the service of a pawn broker don;t have a lot of bargaining power due to their likely desperate straits.  SO the law limits how ruthlessly the pawnbroker can exploit them
 
2013-03-05 02:46:52 PM  

Danger Mouse: Jument: LargeCanine: So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.

I agree but recent history is full of example that the average person needs the government to act as their parent because they are too damn stupid to make a reasonable financial decision. And where does it end? Shouldd we disable the FDA and let consumers investigate their own food and drugs? Should we no longer require auto safety standards? Building codes?
At the end of the day, keeping people safe, both physically and financially, is cheaper for the tax payers in the long run. In theory, anyways.


I let a customer leave my store with a $2000 TV on the promise to pay me.  He doens't have a credit card so  the only gurantee I have is his signature. If I run my own credit check, he wont' pass.  So I know I am making a very high risk loan. I  also have to take into account wear and tear on an item, damage,  and if I have to actually repossess the item and  send Repo men into someone's home which is an added cost and liability.

Now Why can't I make a high profit?

Let's have a law too that outlaws what the guys on Pawn Stars do. Hell they're screwing people too. Right?


but that's not the argument, the argument is "You have to be up-front about all of that"  That's what the law says now, you have to list all of that in a contract, they don't want to do that because if its laid out, no one signs the contract.
 
2013-03-05 02:48:36 PM  

LargeCanine: So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.


In general I agree with you, but damn there's a lot of people who get ripped off constantly.

So we, the more intelligent ones, have to step in and help them.

The sad part is, the government trying to save us, does more harm than good sometimes.
 
2013-03-05 02:48:44 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-05 02:50:29 PM  
Buyer Beware or
Seller be Honest?
 
2013-03-05 02:55:15 PM  

Generation_D: Is it government's job to protect the stupid from themselves?


When did you wake up from the coma?
 
2013-03-05 02:56:38 PM  
I find it humorous that the only business within a 5 mile radius of my apartment in a low-crime area with bars over all its windows is a rent-to-own place.
 
2013-03-05 02:56:54 PM  

unyon: which is by default set by credit card companies, the most usurious lender.   I would never charge north of 20% for two reasons:  It's usurious,


userious?
 
2013-03-05 02:58:28 PM  
We should just let the big corporations govern themselves. After all, who wouldn't mind paying $4,000.009 for a gallon of gas? It'd only be the really stupid people who bought gas anyway.

There's no need at all to make Rent To Own places charge a reasonable fee for their services, or to disclose their rates and fees in a simple to understand fashion to the consumer. God bless the Governor for allowing massive financial anal-rape to continue against the unfortunate, unwashed, uneducated poor. God bless America.
 
2013-03-05 03:02:51 PM  
If you get a chair that was pre-used in another home, do they charge you for the bedbugs that'll come with it?
 
2013-03-05 03:03:24 PM  
Not sure if usurious...
 
2013-03-05 03:05:18 PM  
Walker's budget language parallels that bill. His plan would exempt rent-to-own from the consumer act and set up new statutes governing them.
Businesses would be required to disclose an item's price and the total number of payments needed to own it. Prices would be capped at twice the actual purchase price or the price of similar items for sale at the business, whichever is more. Businesses would have to pay the state $1,000 annually.


read the article, morans.

Nobody is forcing these stupid poor people to do anything. Walker is making sure they know exactly what they are getting in to. Liberals, whining and crying since forever.
 
2013-03-05 03:08:31 PM  

Krymson Tyde: Christ, what an asshole.


You must recognize yourself.

Politics is politics - if you don't want to use 'rent to own' NO ONE is forcing you to.

He's been a darned good governor.

And guess what? I think this is bad policy too but since I never plan on going to Rent-a-Center to buy a 72" HD-3D quadrophonic TV with mag wheels what do I care?
 
2013-03-05 03:11:15 PM  
Walker's legislation would spell out the exact cost, in ways stupid poor people can understand. Would cap the amount they could charge. Would get revenue from the businesses themselves.

How is this in any way at all, bad? It is better than it was. I wish liberals would think instead of cry.
 
2013-03-05 03:13:26 PM  
Easy solution.  Write out your terms and conditions in plain English.  Then put (Featured Partner) next to it and everyone will ignore it.
 
2013-03-05 03:14:23 PM  
I DNRTFA, and I would never be against additional transparency in any customer/company relationship, but some of you seem to think the entire concept of Rent-To-Own is evil. There are 2 sides to this coin.


Even for people with lower incomes, there are still many ways to get reasonable, albeit high, credit. The people who have to resort to Rent-To-Own have burned so many creditors that they are excluded in participating in normal avenues of credit. For lack of better word, most of these people are trash.


A normal person looks at paying 2000 for a 300 dollar laptop and thinks it's robbery. That's because a normal person takes ACTUALLY PAYING for granted. The owners of these businesses know they have a ridiculous high rate of default. And repossessing the merch is not always reliable. It could be destroyed, "stolen," straight up sold for drugs, or whatever. So when they lease out a 300 dollar laptop, they need to recoup that value ASAP, then recoup the cost of the other 2 laptops that have already defaulted and disappeared, pay the overhead of the business, THEN they can think of making a profit.


I'm sure even in the worst of times, their profit margins are higher than a regular retail store, but given the extra layer of brain damage that must come with operating that business, don't you think they deserve it?


Besides, it's electronics and furniture. These are non-essentials. No one is forcing anyone to accept such a terrible deal. It's not like their charging 700% interest on baby formula.
 
2013-03-05 03:15:46 PM  

Thunderpipes: Walker's legislation would spell out the exact cost, in ways stupid poor people can understand. Would cap the amount they could charge. Would get revenue from the businesses themselves.

How is this in any way at all, bad? It is better than it was. I wish liberals would think instead of cry.


First sentence of TFA:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has quietly tucked provisions into his executive budget that would free rent-to-own businesses from Wisconsin's consumer protection act, ensuring they wouldn't have to disclose what industry opponents say are exorbitant interest rates.

reading is hard?
 
2013-03-05 03:17:06 PM  

Elandriel: If the name has "Scott" in it somewhere, they're probably an asshole.


Every Scott I've ever known in real life has been a weasel and an asshole.

Me: "If you'd stop hiding behind [NAME WITHHELD] and man up and fight me, I'd kick your ass. No question [NAME WITHHELD] can kick my ass, but Scott, I am gonna wipe the floor with you."

[NAME WITHHELD]: "I'm not gonna interfere."

Me:   :D

/F*cking weasel got his.
//Throwing rocks at me from behind his mantank friend...
 
2013-03-05 03:17:06 PM  

Thunderpipes: Walker's legislation would spell out the exact cost, in ways stupid poor people can understand. Would cap the amount they could charge. Would get revenue from the businesses themselves.

How is this in any way at all, bad? It is better than it was. I wish liberals would think instead of cry.



Are you willfully stupid, a knee jerk "my team is always right" guy, or just a paid shill?  The "cap" in the article is double what the RENT TO OWN STORE charges to buy an item outright, which is whatever the fark they want it to be because ZERO percent of thier business is direct retail sales of new items
 
2013-03-05 03:19:33 PM  

Elandriel: If the name has "Scott" in it somewhere, they're probably an asshole.


:(
 
2013-03-05 03:20:40 PM  
It's nice to see that only the regular cadre of scumbags is in this thread defending governor Scumbag. I wonder if they ever notice that they make *no* converts?
 
2013-03-05 03:26:57 PM  
Lotsa posters in this thread are typing 'mathematic' when then mean to type 'arethemetic.'
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-05 03:27:37 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

tralfaz-archives.com
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-05 03:29:03 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Easy solution.  Write out your terms and conditions in plain English.  Then put (Featured Partner) next to it and everyone will ignore it.


Just make them figure up the APR.  If you can't tell it's a ripoff from that then you deserve to be taken to the cleaners.

2500% APR!!!
 
2013-03-05 03:31:23 PM  
About time you stepped up your game, Walker.  Easter's just around the corner.

/every time my brother visits Michigan from Wisconsin we have a "whose governor is being a bigger douchebag" contest.  He won on Christmas with the Right To Work crap and broke the nice "winning" streak I had going
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-05 03:34:13 PM  

Magorn: busy chillin': amo: busy chillin':

And now you know how easy it is to misread these things, even if you are financially literate. It's $141.11 for each of 24 bi-weekly payments.

so $6,773.28?

holy sheeeeit!

Vinne Da Mook, who's currently doing 20 years at Sing-Sing for loan-sharking, just read that and said "motherfarker"


It's been the main role of Government since the Regan administration to give businesses the right to do stuff like this along with the right to cover it up.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-05 03:36:10 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Does Wisconsin have a lottery?


Because they're too stupid even to vote idiots like Walker from office.  It's a prime target for the Mathematics Tax.
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report