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  
•       •       •

13053 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 03:36:18 PM  
Mr. Coffee Nerves: "Back in college I sold TVs at a now-defunct retailer -- we had a (at the time) massive 27" TV that sold for $699 -- with PA tax you were out the door for $740 or so.

A friend of mine got the exact same TV at the rent-to-own place for "just $20/week for 24 months." Yes, over $2,200 including tax."


-----------

OK...so, let's use that as the illustrative case:

Everything you need to make an informed (not necessarily smart, but informed) decision is right there, in plain sight. Everyone, rich or poor, knows (roughly) how many weeks are in a month. And very few people are incapable of calculating 20x4x24. It's no different than, say, $5 per case of Coke, 12 cans/case, 48 cans needed for my kid's birthday party -- and we're not enacting stricter regulations on grocery stores because we feel this math is tricky, deceptive, misleading or predatory, right?

The simple and unfortunate fact is, there is a population among the consumer base that serves as a market for "rent-to-own" shops to operate in. The real travesty ISN'T that those shops are operating in that market, it's that this segment of people exists. And no amount of regulation/legislation/vilification is going to make that go away. If we want to do right by them, then let's mandate a basic personal finance class for every high school sophomore. Scapegoating and disciplining the "bad guy" only serves to make us feel better because we've ostensibly done something to protect the poor -- even though all we've done is reduced our own sense of urgency in addressing the real problem that still exists, which is counterproductive. Let's stop doing something just for the sake of not doing nothing, because this doesn't solve the problem.

Additionally, there are perfectly legitimate situations where buying something for $3X divided into bite-sized chunks is actually a better deal for a particular customer than buying it for $X outright.  For example, I'm sure there are readers right here on this thread who pay $100/mo. to belong to a gym where a 3-year membership can be pre-paid for $1,200 (I'm guesstimating the exact numbers, but you get the idea). Who's to say that for somebody else, paying $20/week for the first 2 years of having a nice TV in their home isn't a more appropriate arrangement than having to come up with $740 all at once?
 
2013-03-05 03:39:55 PM  

dittybopper: FTFY:
Proponents say the industry offers low-income people or people who need something for a short time a way to obtain goods.

That's actually true.  CSB follows:

Back in October, the distaffbopper was scheduled to get her right hip replaced.  We needed a lift chair so that after her surgery she could get up with minimal strain on the hip, at least until it was healed.  Our health insurance, which is actually pretty damned good, wouldn't pay for it.  It cost something between $600 to $1000 for a lift chair.  I didn't want to pay that much for something we'd only need for, what, a month, maybe two?

So we got one from Rent-A-Center.  Cost us about $150 a month to rent it, so we were only going to spend about $300 instead of at least twice that.

Turns out, we ended up taking it back after only 1 month because our neighbor's mother had one she wanted to sell cheap, so we bought that one.

Now, I wouldn't go a rent to own place to get something I'd want to keep on a permanent basis, because you end up screwed on the final price, but for something temporary like that, it's actually not a bad deal.


It's almost always a bad deal as long as you have the front money.
 
2013-03-05 03:41:46 PM  

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


48 weeks, not 24 months.
 
2013-03-05 03:51:00 PM  

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

Pretty much came here to say this.   If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.  If the terms of the contract are ridiculous and the fees exorbitant , then people will stop utilizing the services.  People stop utilizing the service, company goes out of business.

If you want to change it, let capitalism play out.  If you run your business in such a way that makes it unattractive to consumers, you will go out of business.  If your customers are stupid, then you stand to rake in the $$$.

Government intervention on behalf of the stupid has become pretty standard though, which is why liberals have flourished.


In the bible there is a system called Jubile where periodicly all debts are forgiven.  It is clearly a system of consumer protection.  I guess Republicans really don't like following the Bibles example.

Yes, liberals have flourished because of their willingness to help others.
 
2013-03-05 03:56:18 PM  

firefly212: 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

48 weeks, not 24 months.


I think the point here is taken well.  Apparently even Farkers, who are among the most intelligent and business-savvy users on the internet (not to mention damn good looking), can be confused by wording and simple math.
 
2013-03-05 03:58:45 PM  
Too Pretty For Prison:

I think the point here is taken well.  Apparently even Farkers, who are among the most intelligent and business-savvy users on the internet (not to mention damn good looking), can be confused by wording and simple math.

*drools on shirt*
 
2013-03-05 03:59:15 PM  

trappedspirit: 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?


I lolled.  And then I lolled again when you beat H31nous to the punch.
 
2013-03-05 04:00:40 PM  

busy chillin': 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?


To provide fair consideration: Thunderpipes is ignorant and stupid.
 
2013-03-05 04:04:40 PM  

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...


Those Western Sky commercials make me get all stabby.
 
2013-03-05 04:14:10 PM  

CthulhuCalling: 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...

Those Western Sky commercials make me get all stabbyscalpy.


FTFY
 
2013-03-05 04:18:15 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.



How's that search for the REAL Obama birth certificate going?
 
2013-03-05 04:21:14 PM  

spmkk: Mr. Coffee Nerves: "Back in college I sold TVs at a now-defunct retailer -- we had a (at the time) massive 27" TV that sold for $699 -- with PA tax you were out the door for $740 or so.

A friend of mine got the exact same TV at the rent-to-own place for "just $20/week for 24 months." Yes, over $2,200 including tax."

-----------

OK...so, let's use that as the illustrative case:

Everything you need to make an informed (not necessarily smart, but informed) decision is right there, in plain sight. Everyone, rich or poor, knows (roughly) how many weeks are in a month. And very few people are incapable of calculating 20x4x24. It's no different than, say, $5 per case of Coke, 12 cans/case, 48 cans needed for my kid's birthday party -- and we're not enacting stricter regulations on grocery stores because we feel this math is tricky, deceptive, misleading or predatory, right?

The simple and unfortunate fact is, there is a population among the consumer base that serves as a market for "rent-to-own" shops to operate in. The real travesty ISN'T that those shops are operating in that market, it's that this segment of people exists. And no amount of regulation/legislation/vilification is going to make that go away. If we want to do right by them, then let's mandate a basic personal finance class for every high school sophomore. Scapegoating and disciplining the "bad guy" only serves to make us feel better because we've ostensibly done something to protect the poor -- even though all we've done is reduced our own sense of urgency in addressing the real problem that still exists, which is counterproductive. Let's stop doing something just for the sake of not doing nothing, because this doesn't solve the problem.

Additionally, there are perfectly legitimate situations where buying something for $3X divided into bite-sized chunks is actually a better deal for a particular customer than buying it for $X outright.  For example, I'm sure there are readers right here on this thread .


THIS
 
2013-03-05 04:23:50 PM  

d23: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 213x237]

[tralfaz-archives.com image 400x400]



i45.tinypic.com

FTFY
 
2013-03-05 04:33:26 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.


Slippery slope. Expecting someone to investigate their food, drugs, automobile safety, and especially the building codes for every building they enter, is unreasonable. People don't have easy access to that kind of thing. Expecting them to multiply the money they'll pay each payment by the number of payments they'll make on an item to come up with a total cost, then Google the item to find what other people are selling it for, isn't.
 
2013-03-05 04:39:58 PM  

Magorn: dittybopper: dittybopper: Krieghund: dittybopper: FTFY:
Proponents say the industry offers low-income people or people who need something for a short time a way to obtain goods.

That's actually true.

I don't think anyone would argue that point. But that doesn't mean the rent-to-own places shouldn't have to tell you what interest rate you're paying while you have those good for a short time.

I'm less worried about that, because I'm renting it, not purchasing it on credit.  Do you ask for the interest rate information when you rent a car or an apartment?

More to the point, though, if you *DO* go to those sorts of places to purchase stuff, you're probably too stupid to understand the significance of the interest rate anyway, or you're in such a dire situation you don't care.

/My Army room-mate bought a whole bunch of stuff at a rent-to-own place.
//He wasn't overly math-literate.

The new federal  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a whole branch devoted to protecting servicemembers from the complex ecosystem of financial products and services that have grown up to rip off gullible service people (Holly Petraeus of all people is in charge).  They are seen as uniquely vulnerable population like children or the elderly because fo the frequency with which they are preyed on.  It's sickening, really when you realize how many business in this country have been created with the sole purpose of ripping off soldiers.


I know in my unit it's a standing order that if a Marine wants to make a major purchase (car, house, etc) he has to notify his command and a senior marine, be it a team leader, squad leader, pretty much anyone who has been in the area for awhile and isn't a complete idiot, accompanies him and reads the paperwork before he can sign anything. A good rule of thumb is that if they mention ANYTHING about "military financing" then the place is crooked. "Special financing for E-2s!" "Bring in your LES!" "No down payment for military!" all red flags. The military is a relatively easy target because we pretty much just don't handle finances at all, everything is paid for from our meals to where we live. Our pay is essentially just spending money. When we get out, we have never had to be careful with money so we don't know how. Hell, a large part of the separations and transitioning classes is basic finance stuff like how to make a budget, what renting something means, how to calculate interest, how to buy enough food for a month, etc. Its really weird that some guys who are brilliant at doing their jobs in the military get horribly screwed in the civilian world because they were gullible enough to take something at face value.

A friend of mine summed it up pretty nicely when he got out "Be careful when you get out, it feels like literally everyone is trying to fark you over, nothing is what it seems, and when you call them on it they get offended like you were the one doing something wrong."
 
2013-03-05 04:43:40 PM  

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

Pretty much came here to say this.   If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.  If the terms of the contract are ridiculous and the fees exorbitant , then people will stop utilizing the services.  People stop utilizing the service, company goes out of business.

If you want to change it, let capitalism play out.  If you run your business in such a way that makes it unattractive to consumers, you will go out of business.  If your customers are stupid, then you stand to rake in the $$$.

Government intervention on behalf of the stupid has become pretty standard though, which is why HURRPADEEDURRPADEE WOO WOO PLARF.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-05 04:48:28 PM  

nubzers: The military is a relatively easy target because we pretty much just don't handle finances at all, everything is paid for from our meals to where we live. Our pay is essentially just spending money.



If I could ever live with myself for doing it, I would open a Honda or Suzuki motorcycle dealership right by a military base. I learned from selling cars that military people are as easy to put together as a 2 piece puzzle and they can get financing on ANYTHING. A decent salesperson could ether an 18 year old kid on a sport bike and close the deal in 10 minutes.
 
2013-03-05 05:13:46 PM  

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


i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-05 05:22:07 PM  

skylabdown: It's just gotta burn that he won the recall.


Yet the taxpayers lost a state to an organization that shoves pre-written bills down people's throats.
 
2013-03-05 05:31:40 PM  
Until you bar lobbyists from writing obtuse and convoluted laws that they design specifically to manipulate in their favor, it will always be a rigged game.

Rent to own/used car dealers... Personal experience: For a time I was a witness to their depredations; and, on the rare occasions where I was able, backed the sailors in our command out of their contract or at least tried to help extricate and/or educate the poor SoBs. I'd teach them how to create and manage a simple budget to get out of debt, and budget to buy on consignment instead when they absolutely had to. It wasn't uncommon for them to be locked (blocked from paying the loan off early, thus having to pay full interest) and paying 6 or 7 times (or more) the item value at the RTO stores. One sailor bought a $2800 used car - over ten years old - with locked payments totaling over $7k - the transmission literally fell on the road when he drove it off the lot - warranty 'as is'. The dealer 'graciously' supplied a used junkyard part and only charged him for several hundred dollars labor - which he generously rolled onto the car loan. A month later he was T-boned by someone with no insurance, and his insurance was 'minimum'. The Navy took that car payment out of his paycheck every month for another five years, paying a dealer who had sold and repo'ed the same cars multiple times deliberately preying on the local military and poor/desperate.

Eventually the dealer got 'caught': He was in bed with the repo company and pled out to numerous charges of racketeering and fraud - the government got their cut, and he walked. He ruined hundreds of lives and freaking walked.

At the time, an E6 with two kids qualified for food stamps - these young men and women weren't rolling in dough.

I don't believe prison is a good solution for this type of scumbag. Instead I wish there was an asshat tax:   Get caught committing a white collar crime and everything in you and your wife's name gets liquidated - right down to the freaking wedding pics. (If you want, you can match the sale price and buy them back). Any actions to hide or transfer to friends or relatives makes them liable to the same punishment. You lose 15% to 30% of everything you own (depending on the severity of the crime) - 2/3rds of which goes into a victims' fund (the government needs their cut), and you pay an extra 10% income tax for seven years.

Get caught again, rinse repeat until you 'get it'.
 
2013-03-05 05:52:11 PM  
And at least one of his own fellow Republicans in Wisconsin is caling him on his bullshiat, amazingly enough.
 
2013-03-05 05:55:47 PM  
CSB time:

When I did my stint on grand jury, one of these RTO asshats was trying to get us to indict one of their customers for grand theft because he could no longer make the paymets.  The questioning went something like "Did you try to contact the guy to get your TV back?"  "Yes, but his phone had been disconnected."  "Did you mail him a letter telling him to return it?" "Yes, but the guy didn't return it." "Why not?" "He said he didn't have a car." "Did you offer to drive a truck over there to pick it up?" "Well, no... We don't have a truck for that.  It says in the rental agreement that the customer is responsible for returning it." "How did it get to the guy's house in the first place?" "We delievered it to him by truck." "But you can't use that truck to go pick it up because...?" "Um..." No indictment obviously - and anyone whose ever been on a grand jury knows they'll indict a ham sandwich for not being kosher.
 
2013-03-05 06:25:11 PM  

busy chillin': relcec: busy chillin': Dancin_In_Anson: optimistic_cynic: You mean a lottery in which they clearly disclose the odds of winning? Yes they do.

Which I'm sure is read as thoroughly as rent to own contracts.

Cry me a farking river.

Yep, because a lottery ticket costs a dollar at the register and then a few months later they send you a bill for $75.

if the problem is harm created, then I'm not sure you have an argument. the lottery is far worse for the poor.

not really. there is no signed legal contract forcing them to keep paying stupid amounts and playing every week.


they get literally nothing for their money with the lottery. nothing. and with money it is a lifetime of playing. the lottery, booze, and cigs are probably the biggest money sucks in existence for the poor. at least the booze gets you drunk though.
 
2013-03-05 06:31:39 PM  
Rent-to-own stores are fine to shop at if you don't want to actually own something, and just want/need to rent it for a month or two. They are much cheaper than regular rental places for time-periods like that. One poster early on in this thread mentioned having rented a chair lift when his wife was ill and needed one for a month or two.

When the ex moved in, she brought a washer & dryer with her.  Great items to have, but we needed to save some space. There was a rent-to-own place about a block & a half away and I remembered having noticed stacked washer & dryer combos in there when walking by. Sure enough, you could buy/rent the mounting rack to stand a dryer up above the washer, and I bought it. When asked for the price, the salesclown quoted me the monthly rate before I explained that I just wanted to buy the damn thing outright. Their price (fee simple, not rent-to-own of course) was a crapload better than Sears, and the thing was light enough to just hang it on my shoulder and walk back to the house, no fuss no muss.
 
2013-03-05 06:38:34 PM  
Hey, it's free enterprise in action. Enterprises are free to fark people over as much as they want, and if people are too dumb to anticipate how very dishonest a business is, well, that's on them.

This is what politicians mean by "laissez-faire." That's French for "fark you, I got mine."
 
2013-03-05 06:41:07 PM  
Rent-to-own is a $7 billion industry.  Why do we provide aid for dumbfarks who have so much money?

/not serious

Gov. Walker's plan would require stores to disclose an item's price and the number of payments needed for ownership. He would cap the cost of renting at double the purchase price.

Seems he's trying to dumb things down so that even the dumbfarks can clearly see how dumb they are.  "APR? What's that?"  Still wrong to shove it into  a budget bill without public debate.
 
2013-03-05 06:44:57 PM  

ClavellBCMI: And at least one of his own fellow Republicans in Wisconsin is caling him on his bullshiat, amazingly enough.


Problem is that they didn't call him on his bullshiat when he created the deficit out of thin air, violated the Open Meetings law, or election fraud - much less other violations of the law that his cronies gave a pass on him for doing.
 
2013-03-05 06:46:44 PM  

unyon: Yes, people are free to make all sorts of bad financial decisions- but the system also shouldn't enable people that prey on them. A cap of 20% interest on any financial transaction is reasonable, IMO- if the risk is so high that more interest is needed, then the risk is too high to lend the money.


So consumers are free to make bad decisions but businesses aren't?

Here's an idea:  classify anyone who sets foot in a rent-to-own or payday loan store as a "vulnerable adult" and jail the business owner for abuse.
 
2013-03-05 06:50:06 PM  

you are a puppet: The Pavlovian response is hilarious. "Scott Walker mentioned in article headline, must defend him!"

Next up, defend the guy who sold your kids ice cream topped with his semen. It's not the governments place to regulate what ingredients he uses or whether he has to disclose them. And if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for your kids!


As long as that semen was extracted with the invisible hand of the free market, then it's just capitalism.
/ or maybe it's capitaljism?
 
2013-03-05 06:53:05 PM  

spmkk: The simple and unfortunate fact is, there is a population among the consumer base that serves as a market for "rent-to-own" shops to operate in. The real travesty ISN'T that those shops are operating in that market, it's that this segment of people exists. And no amount of regulation/legislation/vilification is going to make that go away. If we want to do right by them, then let's mandate a basic personal finance class for every high school sophomore. Scapegoating and disciplining the "bad guy" only serves to make us feel better because we've ostensibly done something to protect the poor -- even though all we've done is reduced our own sense of urgency in addressing the real problem that still exists, which is counterproductive. Let's stop doing something just for the sake of not doing nothing, because this doesn't solve the problem.


There' will always be plenty of ignant people out there, but the way these companies fight tooth and nail to avoid disclosure, they must have some inkling, from studies, past business model experiments, whatever, that it will affect their bottom line if they start spelling out what they're getting into.
 
2013-03-05 06:56:07 PM  

Danger Mouse: "Some critics contend the businesses charge interest rates three to four times higher than credit card buyers pay"

Rent to own places charge interest?  I thought they charged a flat rate. Granted a very exspensive flat rate, but still a flat rate. ???

Is the Govenor making the stores compare thier prices to what it would cost if the customer was to buy it?  If so, that' bull shiat.


No, the "price" is whatever the RTO store says it is.  Consumer is supposed to compare that to Amazon and make a rational decision.  Of course, that distracts consumers from the real price of renting to own, which can be twice as high as the "purchase price."

I can see RTO outfits tacking on delivery fees and maintenance contracts to get around the cap.  Just unbundle all those "embedded" services you claim  justify the current deal.
 
2013-03-05 07:05:36 PM  

LargeCanine: Government exists to keep people from hurting each other, where it goes too far is to protect people from themselves.


What does that mean in this case?  It should be legal to pay too much but illegal to let you pay too much? How are you supposed to exercise your right to pay too much?

Makes as much sense as legalizing drug use while criminalizing drug sales, and decriminalizing suicide while criminalizing assistance of a suicide.
 
2013-03-05 07:11:47 PM  

dittybopper: FTFY:
Proponents say the industry offers low-income people or people who need something for a short time a way to obtain goods.

That's actually true.  CSB follows:

Back in October, the distaffbopper was scheduled to get her right hip replaced.  We needed a lift chair so that after her surgery she could get up with minimal strain on the hip, at least until it was healed.  Our health insurance, which is actually pretty damned good, wouldn't pay for it.  It cost something between $600 to $1000 for a lift chair.  I didn't want to pay that much for something we'd only need for, what, a month, maybe two?

So we got one from Rent-A-Center.  Cost us about $150 a month to rent it, so we were only going to spend about $300 instead of at least twice that.

Turns out, we ended up taking it back after only 1 month because our neighbor's mother had one she wanted to sell cheap, so we bought that one.

Now, I wouldn't go a rent to own place to get something I'd want to keep on a permanent basis, because you end up screwed on the final price, but for something temporary like that, it's actually not a bad deal.


Now that's a *responsible* way of using Rent-A-Center... congrats on being smart about how to use it right. I've taken a mental note in case I'm ever in the same situation.

Then there's my idiot friend (who made a 27 on his ACT, so he's not entirely an idiot) who used Rent-A-Center to rent a TV and TV stand. That same TV and stand could have been paid for in full from any retail store with about 6 months of payments.

I tried to reason with him that he should just save the money for 6 months, or only save for 3 months and get a slightly smaller TV. I even pointed out that in a year, the same model of TV would go down significantly in price, or if he waited, he could do a black Friday deal in a few months. -Nothing would dissuade him.

In about 6 months, he lost his job, and subsequently he couldn't pay his payments on the TV and lost it.

Did he learn anything? No, he did not.

I read an article a while back (citation needed I know) which said that even though they were told upfront about the math and how bad a deal it was, something like 9/10 people who used a pay day loan service, still used the service.

Using two of my friends as a sample for why this is, here's an interesting scenario. One guy makes *half* as much as the second guy, but has two years salary put away because he's frugal and good with money. The second guy is constantly borrowing money from the first guy (and me) because he can't make the payments on his car, apartment, etc. but still miraculously has enough money to eat out, drink, buy a new cell phone every six months, etc.

The second guy gets sound financial advice from me (who makes about triple what he does) *and* from the guy who makes about *half* what he does.

-He promptly ignores both of us and has a dismal credit score, no bank balance at the end of the month, and no retirement savings as a result. All three of us came from poor childhood backgrounds.
 
2013-03-05 07:20:21 PM  

Gabrielmot: I read an article a while back (citation needed I know) which said that even though they were told upfront about the math and how bad a deal it was, something like 9/10 people who used a pay day loan service, still used the service.


yep.
there is nothing else.
an ex of mine was econ major at a great school and knew full well how awful those agreements were but she had no parents to turn to and didn't want to ask friends for money so she would take her car title down whenever some unexpected cost arose and pay it back when she got paid in two weeks because there was no other choice.
if you wanted to really help, you create a not for profit that would serve the poor.
writing the terms in red letters and 48 point font will never change the situation, that people have nothing else to turn to.
 
2013-03-05 07:34:34 PM  

relcec: Gabrielmot: I read an article a while back (citation needed I know) which said that even though they were told upfront about the math and how bad a deal it was, something like 9/10 people who used a pay day loan service, still used the service.

yep.
there is nothing else.
an ex of mine was econ major at a great school and knew full well how awful those agreements were but she had no parents to turn to and didn't want to ask friends for money so she would take her car title down whenever some unexpected cost arose and pay it back when she got paid in two weeks because there was no other choice.
if you wanted to really help, you create a not for profit that would serve the poor.
writing the terms in red letters and 48 point font will never change the situation, that people have nothing else to turn to.


This.

One and only effing time I debated going to a payday place was right at the end of my SO being unexpectedly unemployed.  Something unexpected had to get paid ASAP, I'd been covering bills for both of us for a few months, and his first paycheck from his new job and my paycheck were just three days away.  Asked the guy who runs the store down the street from me if he knew any place that wouldn't f--k me over.  He asked how much I needed and pulled it out of his wallet.  Jesus f--king Christ, that was a huge weight off my back.  And I paid him back the morning after payday, first thing.

/could've asked a few people but just really couldn't bring myself to do it
//things are better now
 
2013-03-05 08:09:01 PM  

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

No.  It's the government's job to protect the free market from opportunists, charlatans, hucksters, the usurious, etc.  The functional free market, the one that returns results for people other than snake-oil salesmen, monopolists and robber-barons, is not natural. It exists only because of regulations that ensure things like a reasonable expectation of fairness, transparency between the participants, no fraud, etc.  Absent those attributes, you get shiat like snake-oil, balloon payments and plaster of paris in your bread and people just withdraw from the market as much as is possible.

So it really has nothing to do with the stupid or the poor.  It has to to do with the smart people who will take one look at a rental market that has devolved into 'maximization' schemes and tricks and catches and say "fark that" and opt-out, harming net economic activity.


Holy crap, that may be one of the best-written things I've ever seen on this site.

That won't stop GOP shills from posting about how we shouldn't be "protecting stupid people from themselves," sadly, but nonetheless that was an awesome writeup.
 
2013-03-05 08:15:47 PM  
CSB

So i had a cheque that came out a while back and put my chequing account in the red -- no prob we had the money, its just my wifes bank is out of town and she only had cheques and we were out of TP (fark). So she wrote me a cheque so my card would work so we could go grab some groceries that night. Whell my crappy bank closes at 4 so i was screwed there so i tried another bank -- they couldnt cash it cause cause of whatever reason, so i figured one of those payday places could cash out a hundred dollar personal cheque easy. Not so -- they told me since i had never cashed a cheque from that account with them i would need to get the cheque certified at the bank it came from. I thought those places were there for a quick convenience when you didn't have to necessarily go to the bank or if you had crappy credit and you needed a loan and you were brainless enough not to hammer something out with a bank.

Now if i could have done that why in gods name would i come back to this crap hole in a strip mall to cash the damn thing? If i could hop on down to the bank and talk to a teller i wouldn't be in some degenerate end of town talking to someone behind a sheet of glass. I ended up just calling my bank and getting them to give me a touch more overdraft for the day and put the cheque in my banks atm. My bank has crappy hours but the small town branh i belong to and the call centre people are great. 

Cheque cashing places -- who uses those crap holes? any bank performs the same services at much better rates and with much better customer service...

As someone above said -- if someone isnt keen on making every aspect of a business agreement clear and plain then dont do business with them. The moment someone tells you to "Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain" they can go fark themselves with a splintery wooden spoon.
 
2013-03-05 09:01:47 PM  

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

He's no true Scott, man.


I'm not your man, buddy.
 
2013-03-05 09:13:57 PM  

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


No, but it's their job to protect them from con men who lure vulnerable people into a situation where they are then victimized financially. That's called fraud.
 
2013-03-05 09:26:52 PM  
I used to do in- home training for people with mild mental disabilities. They were living on their own, paying their bills, taking the bus to work or shop, and it was my job to help them improve those skills so they could live on their own instead of in state institutions. Every one of them had a house full of rent-to-own furniture. One skill I always prioritized was acquiring cheap, decent items and getting out of those awful contracts.
 
2013-03-05 09:46:17 PM  

navylostboy: we have a government that ensures the flow of capital by "greasing the skids" with fairness


You're joking, right? It's the government who made the law allowing these places to operate in the manner they do - this initiative is a government initiative, for example.
 
2013-03-05 09:51:12 PM  

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

Yes, now STFU.


Well, then someone's falling down on the job. You're still posting.
 
2013-03-05 09:55:14 PM  

Persnickety: CSB time:

When I did my stint on grand jury, one of these RTO asshats was trying to get us to indict one of their customers for grand theft because he could no longer make the paymets.  The questioning went something like "Did you try to contact the guy to get your TV back?"  "Yes, but his phone had been disconnected."  "Did you mail him a letter telling him to return it?" "Yes, but the guy didn't return it." "Why not?" "He said he didn't have a car." "Did you offer to drive a truck over there to pick it up?" "Well, no... We don't have a truck for that.  It says in the rental agreement that the customer is responsible for returning it." "How did it get to the guy's house in the first place?" "We delievered it to him by truck." "But you can't use that truck to go pick it up because...?" "Um..." No indictment obviously - and anyone whose ever been on a grand jury knows they'll indict a ham sandwich for not being kosher.


Was that part of the contract in clown ink or something?
 
2013-03-05 10:18:17 PM  

Persnickety: CSB time:

When I did my stint on grand jury, one of these RTO asshats was trying to get us to indict one of their customers for grand theft because he could no longer make the paymets.  The questioning went something like "Did you try to contact the guy to get your TV back?"  "Yes, but his phone had been disconnected."  "Did you mail him a letter telling him to return it?" "Yes, but the guy didn't return it." "Why not?" "He said he didn't have a car." "Did you offer to drive a truck over there to pick it up?" "Well, no... We don't have a truck for that.  It says in the rental agreement that the customer is responsible for returning it." "How did it get to the guy's house in the first place?" "We delievered it to him by truck." "But you can't use that truck to go pick it up because...?" "Um..." No indictment obviously - and anyone whose ever been on a grand jury knows they'll indict a ham sandwich for not being kosher.


I mean, yeah, the guy's an asshat, but isn't it grand theft if you ignore the part of the contract that says you'll make payments on the item and then keep it? If he's expected to honor the part of the contract that says he'll make payments, why isn't he expected to honor the part of the contract that says he has to bring the item back? Or, conversely, why should he be expected to make payments at all, considering that it's not only in his best interest but also much easier on him if he doesn't? Personally, I wouldn't sign such a contract (anymore, after bad experiences with fine print myself). Why should this man not learn that lesson the same way I did - through being held to the provisions of the contract he signed?
 
2013-03-05 10:25:56 PM  
WI is dead.  Get out while you can.
 
2013-03-05 10:35:19 PM  
When I met my wife she was in college and paying a rent to own place 50 every two weeks for what I remember was a 24 months lease. The tv was worth no more than 400 at the time but yeah I went with her to make a payment and when I asked how long she had left on the lease she said "year and a half", I convinced her to let them repo it. The sales man had implied to her it was a contract so she was under the assumption that she had to keep paying it even though she hardly used it.

//CSB
///obviously didn't marry her for her brains
////If only her tits had brains she would be einstein
 
2013-03-05 10:37:34 PM  

untaken_name: Persnickety: CSB time:

When I did my stint on grand jury, one of these RTO asshats was trying to get us to indict one of their customers for grand theft because he could no longer make the paymets.  The questioning went something like "Did you try to contact the guy to get your TV back?"  "Yes, but his phone had been disconnected."  "Did you mail him a letter telling him to return it?" "Yes, but the guy didn't return it." "Why not?" "He said he didn't have a car." "Did you offer to drive a truck over there to pick it up?" "Well, no... We don't have a truck for that.  It says in the rental agreement that the customer is responsible for returning it." "How did it get to the guy's house in the first place?" "We delievered it to him by truck." "But you can't use that truck to go pick it up because...?" "Um..." No indictment obviously - and anyone whose ever been on a grand jury knows they'll indict a ham sandwich for not being kosher.

I mean, yeah, the guy's an asshat, but isn't it grand theft if you ignore the part of the contract that says you'll make payments on the item and then keep it? If he's expected to honor the part of the contract that says he'll make payments, why isn't he expected to honor the part of the contract that says he has to bring the item back? Or, conversely, why should he be expected to make payments at all, considering that it's not only in his best interest but also much easier on him if he doesn't? Personally, I wouldn't sign such a contract (anymore, after bad experiences with fine print myself). Why should this man not learn that lesson the same way I did - through being held to the provisions of the contract he signed?


I'll admit, I can see where you're coming from.  It is in the contract that the customer is responsible for returning the item(s) in question.  On the other hand, I can also see hammering the RTO owner with contempt of court for attempting legal action and wasting everybody's time when the simple solution is right in front of him.  If the TV is so important to him that he can show up in court to try to get an indictment for grand theft, he can grab one of his employees and the company truck and go get it.  Nowhere did it say anything along the lines of the customer saying that he "would not" return the television, just that he "could not".

/no idea why some people put 10 times the effort into getting out of work than what they would put into just DOING the damn work
 
2013-03-05 11:01:14 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: WI is dead.  Get out while you can.


Take Madison and Milwaukee with you.
 
2013-03-05 11:32:53 PM  

Arumat: I'll admit, I can see where you're coming from.  It is in the contract that the customer is responsible for returning the item(s) in question.  On the other hand, I can also see hammering the RTO owner with contempt of court for attempting legal action and wasting everybody's time when the simple solution is right in front of him.  If the TV is so important to him that he can show up in court to try to get an indictment for grand theft, he can grab one of his employees and the company truck and go get it.  Nowhere did it say anything along the lines of the customer saying that he "would not" return the television, just that he "could not".

/no idea why some people put 10 times the effort into getting out of work than what they would put into just DOING the damn work


Yeah, granted, the RTO dude is total trash, no question. But if the renter guy had no way to even transport a tv a few miles, what the hell was he doing signing legal contracts and entangling himself in obligations? I don't know, if we always protect people from the unpleasant consequences of their bad decisions, why would they ever stop making bad decisions? Most often, a bad decision is really just a poor trade-off of short-term benefit for long-term obligation, but here we allowed the guy to get the short-term benefit and avoid the long-term obligation - and that's not really a good plan. Now he's learned that he can sign whatever and get out of it by claiming hardship.
 
2013-03-05 11:56:43 PM  

untaken_name: Arumat: I'll admit, I can see where you're coming from.  It is in the contract that the customer is responsible for returning the item(s) in question.  On the other hand, I can also see hammering the RTO owner with contempt of court for attempting legal action and wasting everybody's time when the simple solution is right in front of him.  If the TV is so important to him that he can show up in court to try to get an indictment for grand theft, he can grab one of his employees and the company truck and go get it.  Nowhere did it say anything along the lines of the customer saying that he "would not" return the television, just that he "could not".

/no idea why some people put 10 times the effort into getting out of work than what they would put into just DOING the damn work

Yeah, granted, the RTO dude is total trash, no question. But if the renter guy had no way to even transport a tv a few miles, what the hell was he doing signing legal contracts and entangling himself in obligations? I don't know, if we always protect people from the unpleasant consequences of their bad decisions, why would they ever stop making bad decisions? Most often, a bad decision is really just a poor trade-off of short-term benefit for long-term obligation, but here we allowed the guy to get the short-term benefit and avoid the long-term obligation - and that's not really a good plan. Now he's learned that he can sign whatever and get out of it by claiming hardship.


You're making a lot of assumptions about the guy based on very little information.  You may be right, and he's having to deal with the results of a lot of bad decisions.  Or you could be wrong.  Maybe he lost his job unexpectedly, or got buried in medical or legal expenses.  I don't know if they guy's a saint who's down on his luck, or the scummiest scum to ever scum its way out from under a rock.  I can make at least a basic assessment of the business owner though, taking into account the kind of business he's in and that he ran to the courts on a really flimsy excuse.  As was stated earlier, he seems like an asshat.  I'd rather not reward that kind of behavior.  As for the customer, I'd rather educate him and/or get him back on his feet instead of giving him a criminal record, jail time, and fines and making the situation much worse for all involved.  After all, if he goes to jail or stays unemployed he gets supported by tax dollars right?
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report