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
 
2013-03-05 10:54:49 AM  
Christ, what an asshole.
 
2013-03-05 10:55:37 AM  
No, Rick Scott has the market cornered on cartoonish super-villain governors.

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-03-05 11:05:37 AM  
If the name has "Scott" in it somewhere, they're probably an asshole.
 
2013-03-05 11:26:44 AM  
That's been his style lately, he loaded the budget with a bunch of insane stuff that would be difficult to pass as a bill. For example removing the limitation on foreign ownership of large blocks of land so he can sell the state to China.
 
2013-03-05 11:38:41 AM  
Is it government's job to protect the stupid from themselves?
 
2013-03-05 11:40:36 AM  
I remember back in school, a rent-to-own shop was at the heart of a case used for teaching about contracts that were invalid due to unconscionability. They're worse than pawn shops and payday loans.
 
2013-03-05 11:42:06 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-05 11:48:37 AM  
Does Wisconsin have a lottery?
 
2013-03-05 11:54:12 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:06:51 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-05 12:08:38 PM  
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.

The saddest part? He was only about three months from paying it off when he missed two payments and they came and repossessed it and he got nothing. When I say it was "saddest" it's because he was simply flabbergasted that such a thing could happen, as he didn't read his contract.

/Ripping Yard, Old Sod.
 
2013-03-05 12:09:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:11:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:15:16 PM  
villians

Does anyone else pronounce this vill-ee-ans like I do?
 
2013-03-05 12:15:39 PM  
He just wants Wisconsin to be a "right-to-rent" state
 
2013-03-05 12:17:31 PM  
So?

We should stop treating people like children who need the gov't to act like a parent.
 
2013-03-05 12:18:29 PM  

dittybopper: 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.


Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.
 
2013-03-05 12:19:26 PM  

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


America needs more people like that.
 
2013-03-05 12:19:33 PM  

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


How about the regular illiterate?
 
2013-03-05 12:21:03 PM  

Theaetetus: I remember back in school, a rent-to-own shop was at the heart of a case used for teaching about contracts that were invalid due to unconscionability. They're worse than pawn shops and payday loans.


Yep, read the same case. It was amazing how badly that couple got ripped off.
 
2013-03-05 12:21:41 PM  

LargeCanine: So?

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


Yeah.  And if grandma wants to pay $400k for dance lessons, so be it.  Con men are just bootstrappy entrepreneurs.
 
2013-03-05 12:22:24 PM  

Theaetetus: I remember back in school, a rent-to-own shop was at the heart of a case used for teaching about contracts that were invalid due to unconscionability. They're worse than pawn shops and payday loans.


A friend of mine runs a local computer repair shop.

He forwarded me some interesting links about some malware he's had to deal with lately.

Apparently the Aaron's rent-to-own chain has got in trouble for putting rootkits in every computer they rented/sold.  The idea was that if somebody didn't pay up, they could remotely hack into the computer over the net and shut the computer down.

Problem is, that after the computer was finally paid in full (at the exorbitant rates they charge), they left the malware in there, and the backdoor it created.
 
2013-03-05 12:23:26 PM  

tricycleracer: LargeCanine: So?

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

Yeah.  And if grandma wants to pay $400k for dance lessons, so be it.  Con men are just bootstrappy entrepreneurs.


Hmmm... no.
 
2013-03-05 12:24:19 PM  
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.

Gee, a republitard wanting to fark the poor over and rape rape them for more cash for his bloated fat republican toadies? Who would have thunk it? Way to stay classy you dick. I guess in your mind, if we don't know, it doesn't hurt so much when you shove it up our asses all the way to the tonsils.
 
2013-03-05 12:24:28 PM  

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


Not at all. It is, however, the government's job to protect people from one another.

No matter how stupid the victim, or how clever or well established the perpetrator.
 
2013-03-05 12:24:54 PM  
Is he trying to go for some kind of dickhead record?
 
2013-03-05 12:25:11 PM  
So whom in his family owns these stores?
 
2013-03-05 12:25:28 PM  

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


He's no true Scott, man.
 
2013-03-05 12:25:38 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-05 12:25:55 PM  

Theaetetus: I remember back in school, a rent-to-own shop was at the heart of a case used for teaching about contracts that were invalid due to unconscionability. They're worse than pawn shops and payday loans.


Yep, I recall that "note case" very well  IIRC it was a DC rent-to-own place and what upped it from merely sleazy to actually inconscionable was that this one "cross collateralized" the purchase you were making now, with everything you'd ever bought from the place, even if the other stuff was paid in full.  meaning you missed a payment on the current item and they could come take ALL your stuff.  Apparently that used to be SOP for Rent to own shops,  now they just charge you $2100 at $30/mo+ interest for a laptop you could go over to best buy and pay $300 for.  Even poor and stupid people know better than to use rent-to-own, it's clientele are almost exclusively the desperate instead,  people who know thier kid needs a computer to do well in HS but for whom having $300 all in one place at the same time is a near-impossibility
 
2013-03-05 12:26:00 PM  

Mugato: No, Rick Scott has the market cornered on cartoonish super-villain governors.


The crypt-keeper would like a word with you.

blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2013-03-05 12:26:03 PM  
Oh, they're jealous of the title loan and payday loan people. That's all. They want their 1400% interest, too. What's wrong with that? It's not like they use obfuscatory practices in order to deceive people into using their service or anything.
 
2013-03-05 12:26:12 PM  

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


Pretty much, yes. You should be very grateful, personally.
 
2013-03-05 12:26:38 PM  
Every time I see a picture of Scott Walker his hair makes his head look crooked, then all I can think about is that corner from Anna Nicole Smith.
 
2013-03-05 12:27:38 PM  
So let's see if I have this straight - the story points out that if you wasted your free education in America, it is some how the governments fault that you are stupid enough to pay $1,500 for a $150 sofa . . .
 
2013-03-05 12:28:12 PM  
furniture in general is a massive rip off. 400-1000% margins. makes an apple laptop look like bargin.
 
2013-03-05 12:28:12 PM  
It's just gotta burn that he won the recall.
 
2013-03-05 12:28:14 PM  

akula: dittybopper: 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.

Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.


FTFA:
Rent-to-own businesses insist their contracts aren't credit transactions, and the state's consumer act shouldn't apply to them.

Opponents contend the businesses prey on the poor and charge exorbitant interest rates similar to payday lenders; they maintain people deserve to see exactly what they're paying for when they sign rent-to-own contracts.


In other words, most people are just trying to get the farking fine print in there in the first place. The RTO places are claiming that they don't have to disclose anywhere that in the long run, you pay a minimum of 3x what the item is actually worth.

Jesus, nobody seems to have read the second paragraph here...
 
2013-03-05 12:28:59 PM  

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


Agreed. The govenrment should collect taxes and ....well, I guess just collect taxes.
 
2013-03-05 12:29:08 PM  
from TFA:

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.

The bill also would cap damages in individual lawsuits at $1,000. Class action damages would be limited to $500,000 or 1 percent of the net worth of the rent-to-own company, whichever is less. And the industry would not have to disclose annual percentage rates.


All the motivations a politician needs right there.
 
2013-03-05 12:29:13 PM  

Mikey1969: The RTO places are claiming that they don't have to disclose anywhere that in the long run, you pay a minimum of 3x what the item is actually worth.


So, they're like mortgages, then?
 
2013-03-05 12:29:36 PM  

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


No of course not, which is why we also have no laws against Usury, Fraud or Confidence schemes, because after all these things only hurt the stupid so it's no skin off the government's nose.

at least 75% of all laws ever passed could be fairly described as "protecting the stupid from themselves"
 
2013-03-05 12:30:29 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Does Wisconsin have a lottery?


You mean a lottery in which they clearly disclose the odds of winning? Yes they do.
 
2013-03-05 12:30:44 PM  

akula: Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.


At this point, Scott's finished going after every dime people have and started work on the dimes he thinks they might be able to have in the future.
 
2013-03-05 12:30:45 PM  
img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-03-05 12:30:46 PM  

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


Actually, yeah.
 
2013-03-05 12:31:02 PM  
When I sold cars to sub-prime lenders, the financial institutions we worked with took those debts into account when determining their credit, so I think they should be covered under that bill as I understand it. Yes, most of my customers fell into that category: poor, usually receiving some level of government assistance, and extremely math-challenged.

When they used to ask what the down payment would be and I'd tell them 10-20%, they all got this blank look on their faces. It used to be real fun to explain how an eight thousand dollar car could become closer to a twelve to fourteen thousand dollar car. For most, it didn't matter. They only planned on keeping the car for a few months anyway. Most would make one or two payments and then stopped paying, knowing they'd have another month or two before the car was repoed.

We had families that would go through this cycle that as each child reached the legal age, they'd start getting the utilities and stuff turned on in their names, as the previous sibling had defaulted. Same with cars. First mom, and then the oldest kids on down would finance a car for a few months, everybody in the house (and probably the block) would run 'em into the ground, and by the time the repo guys got hold of them they were ready for the scrap yard.

A year later, the next kid in line would show up looking for a car and the process continued. Lather, rinse, repeat...
 
2013-03-05 12:31:11 PM  
To quote Governor Walker, "Muahaha."
 
2013-03-05 12:31:15 PM  

Mikey1969: akula: dittybopper: 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.

Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.

FTFA:
Rent-to-own businesses insist their contracts aren't credit transactions, and the state's consumer act shouldn't apply to them.

Opponents contend the businesses prey on the poor and charge exorbitant interest rates similar to payday lenders; they maintain people deserve to see exactly what they're paying for when they sign rent-to-own contracts.

In other words, most people are just trying to get the farking fine print in there in the first place. The RTO places are claiming that they don't have to disclose anywhere that in the long run, you pay a minimum of 3x what the item is actually worth.

Jesus, nobody seems to have read the second paragraph here...


if tis furniture the item is often osb with a shiatty veneer.
more like 25x times its worth.
 
2013-03-05 12:31:20 PM  
Consumer protection schconsumer shrprotection
 
2013-03-05 12:31:22 PM  

akula: Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.


So- do you read every word of every update to every software EULA?  Do you have them reviewed by your legal council before clicking 'accept'?  No, of course not.  See, unless there are rules around the reasonableness of agreements, there's nothing protecting you.  If Apple took you for every penny, the rejoinder would be the same- it's your own damn fault for not reading the 44 pages of 8 point font before you said 'yes' to yet another iTunes update.

But there's a point where we need to inject reasonableness.  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.

Now that said- the industry is correct that there aren't interest rates per se in the rent-to-own industry, any more than there are in the car rental industry.  But it's reasonable to stipulate that the monthly charge for an item can't be more than 20% of the value of the product new.  A 5 month ROI is a perfectly reasonable, even exceptional, rate of return.  That even goes for items that depreciate rapidly, like computers.
 
2013-03-05 12:31:28 PM  

Ring of Fire: Every time I see a picture of Scott Walker his hair makes his head look crooked, then all I can think about is that corner from Anna Nicole Smith.


Coroner
God damn auto correct.
 
2013-03-05 12:32:52 PM  
www.thetemplateoftime.com

See the villain's eyes? They - insinuate a slightly skewed perspective on how they see the world. Just off normal.
 
2013-03-05 12:33:26 PM  

WorldKnowledge: So let's see if I have this straight - the story points out that if you wasted your free education in America, it is some how the governments fault that you are stupid enough to pay $1,500 for a $150 sofa . . .


Not at all. Looks like you wasted YOUR free education in America, interestingly enough.

What the story points out is that the RTO industry wants to be able to hide their ridiculous interest rates from the public, and Walker's on board with that. Of course, if you couldn't read the story, I'm not sure what you'll do with a rebuttal post, but we can always hope.
 
2013-03-05 12:33:35 PM  
Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a furnished basement in their parents home Subby.
 
2013-03-05 12:33:53 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:34:02 PM  
When I was a junior in high school I was doing my schedule for my senior year.  I only needed three classes to graduate (my class only needed like 21.5 credits to graduate, but the next class needed like 24.5, so the entire school model changed allowing my class to get the vast majority of our credits saving just the senior only options for our senior years), but I had to have six classes each semester, and since one of the classes I needed was year long, I really needed to pad out my schedule.  One of the classes I picked to pad out my schedule was Math of Money.  My friends laughed at me for taking that class, saying "If you know how to sell something for $3.93 and someone hands you a $10 bill and you can make change then what good will that class do you?" I laughed and said "Course filler, easy A, what the hell do I care?"

Then I took the course.  It actually covered stuff like why you don't do rent to own.  Looking back, while it was only an elective, not even accepted as a math credit, I think it should be a required course for all high school students.  Hell, in the long run it did more for me than having to memorize all those bloody quotes from 'Romeo and Juliet.
 
rpm
2013-03-05 12:34:21 PM  

dittybopper: 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?


If it's implied that it will be owned later, yeah. People have problems with the balloon payment on leased cars too.
 
2013-03-05 12:35:17 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:35:27 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:35:39 PM  

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


And so it begins...
 
2013-03-05 12:36:07 PM  
If you can't quickly figure out a rent-to-own shop is a total ripoff, you don't deserve to have money.

I went to Rent-A-Center as a 19 year old looking for a VCR (what?).  It didn't take a PhD to figure out they would be charging me $700 for a VCR that at the time cost about $90.
 
2013-03-05 12:36:36 PM  
We have a word for being "mathematically illiterate", the word is "innumerate".

Look it up, actual word.
 
2013-03-05 12:37:09 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.


Too bad we don't have the same type of intervention in Fark threads.
 
2013-03-05 12:38:16 PM  

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

And so it begins...


It is government's job to protect it's citizens from predators.
But,,, we are now raping the sheeple, not just shearing them.
 
jvl
2013-03-05 12:38:29 PM  
Oh God, are the liberals still whining about this guy?  Maybe they should try recalling him again.

/ Fondly
 
2013-03-05 12:38:58 PM  
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!
 
2013-03-05 12:39:27 PM  

Carn: Is he trying to go for some kind of dickhead record?


No, he is really just an ignorant ass who will dance for coin.  Any money or promise of "fame" later on will get his loyalty.
 
2013-03-05 12:40:00 PM  

Great Janitor: When I was a junior in high school I was doing my schedule for my senior year.  I only needed three classes to graduate (my class only needed like 21.5 credits to graduate, but the next class needed like 24.5, so the entire school model changed allowing my class to get the vast majority of our credits saving just the senior only options for our senior years), but I had to have six classes each semester, and since one of the classes I needed was year long, I really needed to pad out my schedule.  One of the classes I picked to pad out my schedule was Math of Money.  My friends laughed at me for taking that class, saying "If you know how to sell something for $3.93 and someone hands you a $10 bill and you can make change then what good will that class do you?" I laughed and said "Course filler, easy A, what the hell do I care?"

Then I took the course.  It actually covered stuff like why you don't do rent to own.  Looking back, while it was only an elective, not even accepted as a math credit, I think it should be a required course for all high school students.  Hell, in the long run it did more for me than having to memorize all those bloody quotes from 'Romeo and Juliet.


In VA it is now.  My son, (class of 2015) is the first class for whom a financial lteracy course is a graduation requirement
 
2013-03-05 12:41:01 PM  

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


Well, I don't know about it being their job, but stupid people tend to be a burden on the state sooner or later, so maybe it's in the government's self-interest to protect them from the most egregious mistakes.
 
2013-03-05 12:41:16 PM  

Great Janitor: When I was a junior in high school I was doing my schedule for my senior year.  I only needed three classes to graduate (my class only needed like 21.5 credits to graduate, but the next class needed like 24.5, so the entire school model changed allowing my class to get the vast majority of our credits saving just the senior only options for our senior years), but I had to have six classes each semester, and since one of the classes I needed was year long, I really needed to pad out my schedule.  One of the classes I picked to pad out my schedule was Math of Money.  My friends laughed at me for taking that class, saying "If you know how to sell something for $3.93 and someone hands you a $10 bill and you can make change then what good will that class do you?" I laughed and said "Course filler, easy A, what the hell do I care?"

Then I took the course.  It actually covered stuff like why you don't do rent to own.  Looking back, while it was only an elective, not even accepted as a math credit, I think it should be a required course for all high school students.  Hell, in the long run it did more for me than having to memorize all those bloody quotes from 'Romeo and Juliet.


I am uncertain that most "rent to own" customers have finished high school.
 
2013-03-05 12:41:37 PM  

HelloNeuman


Agreed. The govenrment should collect taxes and ....well, I guess just collect taxes.


Having collected them, the government should also spend those collected funds in ways that benefit the greater good (the greater good).
 
2013-03-05 12:41:40 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:41:42 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:43:19 PM  

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


Cryingimage.jpg

Leave R. Scott Bakker alone!
 
2013-03-05 12:43:21 PM  

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.


Forget it Jake, It's Tardtown.
 
2013-03-05 12:43:49 PM  

relcec: if tis furniture the item is often osb with a shiatty veneer.
more like 25x times its worth.


LOL, yeah, I was basing it on electronics. Hell, I'd buy my furniture on the WalMart clearance racks before I'd buy it at a RTO store...
 
2013-03-05 12:44:09 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!


well, apparently that's totally fine because he'll eventually go out of business or something.
 
2013-03-05 12:44:15 PM  
So anyone who knows more about this, do they really not tell you the interest rate? Is there an interest rate? Are we talking the equivalent if it were interest, but it's rent?
 
2013-03-05 12:44:18 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.


The whole point of this is that the terms are NOT spelled out in the contracts.  Capitalism can only play out when the consumer knows what they're signing.
 
2013-03-05 12:44:29 PM  

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


Hey, fark you, my middle name is Scott.

On second thought, I'm a complete asshole most of the time, carry on with your studies, they seem to be accurate.
 
2013-03-05 12:45:10 PM  

rpm: dittybopper: 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?

If it's implied that it will be owned later, yeah. People have problems with the balloon payment on leased cars too.


You don't have to pay the baloon payment on a leased car.  At least I didn't the last time I had such a contract many years ago.  The baloon payment was just there to pay if you wanted to keep the car, rather than go lease/buy another one.
 
2013-03-05 12:45:59 PM  

untaken_name: Mikey1969: The RTO places are claiming that they don't have to disclose anywhere that in the long run, you pay a minimum of 3x what the item is actually worth.

So, they're like mortgages, then?


I don't know... WHen we were last looking at houses, the mortgage people were pretty up front about the price of the house, the total we'd be payng in interest, all of that stuff. I haven't seen any shady ones yet, but maybe I've gotten lucky. I do have a friend that's a realtor, so I've used his personal recommendations, as opposed to just opening the phone book, closing my eyes and pointing at a name.
 
2013-03-05 12:46:05 PM  

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.


And if you skip this week's jackpot, they come and take your couch.
 
2013-03-05 12:46:31 PM  

unyon: But there's a point where we need to inject reasonableness.  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.


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.

I fully agree that the fine print should be made available. But if people think that just having that there is going to put an end to people getting screwed by these places they're living in a fantasy land. 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.

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:46:36 PM  

Gosling: akula: Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.

At this point, Scott's finished going after every dime people have and started work on the dimes he thinks they might be able to have in the future.


Um.  I live in Wisconsin and my local and property taxes went down.

Oh, you mean the dimes that the government takes from me and gives to other people?
 
2013-03-05 12:47:28 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:48:04 PM  

Mikey1969: untaken_name: Mikey1969: The RTO places are claiming that they don't have to disclose anywhere that in the long run, you pay a minimum of 3x what the item is actually worth.

So, they're like mortgages, then?

I don't know... WHen we were last looking at houses, the mortgage people were pretty up front about the price of the house, the total we'd be payng in interest, all of that stuff. I haven't seen any shady ones yet, but maybe I've gotten lucky. I do have a friend that's a realtor, so I've used his personal recommendations, as opposed to just opening the phone book, closing my eyes and pointing at a name.


It's not just interest - you have to factor in that you're responsible for property tax and upkeep during the life of the mortgage as well. I was more going for the 3x what it's worth part than the not up front part, anyway.
 
2013-03-05 12:48:06 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: So anyone who knows more about this, do they really not tell you the interest rate? Is there an interest rate? Are we talking the equivalent if it were interest, but it's rent?


Curious too.  I thought all loans, of all kinds needed (by federal law) to have the interest rate/APR/all that in BIG HUGE TYPE.
 
2013-03-05 12:48:29 PM  
Oh god, something just snapped inside my head...

I think I'm going to buy stock in companies that mistreat and take advantage of consumers. Apple might not be king five years from now but people are still going to be stupid.
 
2013-03-05 12:51:23 PM  

midigod: The whole point of this is that the terms are NOT spelled out in the contracts. Capitalism can only play out when the consumer knows what they're signing.


Then it's not a contract
 
2013-03-05 12:52:25 PM  

Magorn: 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.


From a scumbags perspective, Soldiers make great victims:

Salaried job with an employment contract, you know they are going to get the money to pay you back and Security Clearance requirements mean that many/most servicemembers can't afford to tank their own credit rating mean dollar signs to predatory lenders and other unscrupulous businessmen.
 
2013-03-05 12:53:15 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-05 12:55:30 PM  
my cousin got this approval. Awesome right? She passed on the chance.

s21.postimage.org


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

= $3,386.64
 
2013-03-05 12:55:39 PM  
If TV size wasn't a status symbol in some socio-economic groups, this would go away.
 
2013-03-05 12:55:54 PM  
His application is under review.
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-05 12:56:24 PM  
It's pretty well documented that all these ALEC governors want public ownership of anything and everything abolished so we all answer to their corporate puppeteers.  Apparently they're going for personal ownership now too.  Why anyone would still be on board with these privatizing dicks is beyond me.  Self fulfilling prophecy to need those guns to protect against the government you elected I suppose.  Idiots to the 10th power.  Personally I'd like to see everyone involved publicly hanged as the traitors that they are.
 
2013-03-05 12:56:58 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 12:59:13 PM  
Disclosure is the enemy of free enterprise only when you are looking to cheat and swindle.

Disclose, and let the market decide who they want to do business with. It's pretty much in keeping with sound business practice, and encourages businesses to engage in ethical behavior, and be rewarded in the marketplace.

But somehow, I'm certain, there is someone out there who will complain that it hurts the job creators, and capitalism at its core...
 
2013-03-05 01:01:06 PM  

i upped my meds-up yours: villians

Does anyone else pronounce this vill-ee-ans like I do?


I thought Supervillians meant people who live in Superville.
 
2013-03-05 01:01:34 PM  

untaken_name: It's not just interest - you have to factor in that you're responsible for property tax and upkeep during the life of the mortgage as well. I was more going for the 3x what it's worth part than the not up front part, anyway.


O.I.C.  I thought you were implying getting ripped off by the mortgage people. Sorry
 
2013-03-05 01:03:35 PM  

Silverstaff: Magorn: 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.

From a scumbags perspective, Soldiers make great victims:

Salaried job with an employment contract, you know they are going to get the money to pay you back and Security Clearance requirements mean that many/most servicemembers can't afford to tank their own credit rating mean dollar signs to predatory lenders and other unscrupulous businessmen.


That's actually the problem the US Military will not allow you to default on debts (they'll take it out of your paycheck)  and having too many debts/garnishements makes it diffuclt to get a security clearance which farks with overall military readiness as qualified, expensively trained soldiers can suddenly be inelegible to do their jobs.   From the Pentagon's perspective this isn't just a welfare of the troops thing, but an actual national security issue.
 
2013-03-05 01:04:20 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


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...
 
2013-03-05 01:06:03 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-05 01:07:36 PM  

wildcardjack: Oh god, something just snapped inside my head...

I think I'm going to buy stock in companies that mistreat and take advantage of consumers. Apple might not be king five years from now but people are still going to be stupid.


Is this a troll post?  It's gotta be.
 
2013-03-05 01:07:43 PM  
This story had me absolutely shocked to the core. I am so confused, black is white, up is down, etc.

Not surprised that Walker would try to help out a sleazeball industry (even though Dittybopper's story above shows they are not 100% evil), but the fact that Glen Grothman opposes Walker and is thinking the same thing I am. What the hell happened? ARe we through the looking glass here?
 
rpm
2013-03-05 01:08:29 PM  

Mikey1969: 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.


Yeah, or one that I've seen that had $500 fees on a $1000. That's fees, not counting the interest.
 
2013-03-05 01:08:59 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...


Western Sky. Anyone who uses it, deserves to get scalped.
 
2013-03-05 01:09:26 PM  
If you let corporations grab all the money from the extreme poor, you are still going to be paying for them. You need rules to prevent all the money you are paying to support these poor people from disappearing.
 
2013-03-05 01:10:20 PM  

alltim: i upped my meds-up yours: villians

Does anyone else pronounce this vill-ee-ans like I do?

I thought Supervillians meant people who live in Superville.


From Megamind.. the difference between villains and supervillains?  "Presentation!"
 
2013-03-05 01:10:40 PM  

bluefox3681: Gosling: akula: Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.

At this point, Scott's finished going after every dime people have and started work on the dimes he thinks they might be able to have in the future.

Um.  I live in Wisconsin and my local and property taxes went down.

Oh, you mean the dimes that the government takes from me and gives to other people?



You're welcome.  I'm glad the money they took from me went to such good use.
 
2013-03-05 01:11:46 PM  

Mikey1969: untaken_name: It's not just interest - you have to factor in that you're responsible for property tax and upkeep during the life of the mortgage as well. I was more going for the 3x what it's worth part than the not up front part, anyway.

O.I.C.  I thought you were implying getting ripped off by the mortgage people. Sorry


No worries.
 
2013-03-05 01:11:54 PM  

Mikey1969: akula: dittybopper: 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.

Not to be a complete asshole, but if somebody isn't going to read the fine print or do some simple math there's ultimately not one thing you can do to keep that person from being taken for every dime they have. If your mission is to keep people from taking advantage of the stupid and lazy you're never going to have a moment's rest. You won't have any success either.

FTFA:
Rent-to-own businesses insist their contracts aren't credit transactions, and the state's consumer act shouldn't apply to them.

Opponents contend the businesses prey on the poor and charge exorbitant interest rates similar to payday lenders; they maintain people deserve to see exactly what they're paying for when they sign rent-to-own contracts.

In other words, most people are just trying to get the farking fine print in there in the first place. The RTO places are claiming that they don't have to disclose anywhere that in the long run, you pay a minimum of 3x what the item is actually worth.

Jesus, nobody seems to have read the second paragraph here...


Well, they tell you what your payment is, and they tell you how long until you own it.

If you aren't smart enough to realize that a $50 payment for 24 months to own an item worth $400 retail isn't a good deal, then disclosing the actual interest rate really isn't going to help.
 
2013-03-05 01:12:22 PM  

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


Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...
 
2013-03-05 01:13:46 PM  

dittybopper: If you aren't smart enough to realize that a $50 payment for 24 months to own an item worth $400 retail isn't a good deal, then disclosing the actual interest rate really isn't going to help.


Then why waste time with the legislation? Of course it makes a difference.
 
2013-03-05 01:14:51 PM  

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


is it the governments job to make it easier for the morally abject to prey on the stupid?
 
amo [TotalFark]
2013-03-05 01:15:35 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


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.
 
2013-03-05 01:17:12 PM  
Lots of folks are seemingly defending the RTO shops under the guise of "well, if the idiots who rent stuff are too stupid to understand, blah blah blah" which I find disturbing. There is NOTHING good about the way these shiatheads run a business. Just because some people are easier to rip off than others doesn't mean businesses should be allowed to rip 'em off, let alone encouraged to do so. Their whole business model is predatory and for that alone, I wish every last one of 'em would go out of business. Maybe the majority of their customers are clueless about interest rates, ultimate cost of a good, etc. That doesn't excuse the fact that these greedy shiats are bloodsucking vampires when it comes to the poor.

As far as Walker inserting that little clause into his bill, wow, that's a shock. Mister "I don't give a rip" for the poor strikes again. What a complete ass he is. Can't believe the morons in my home state re-elected him after the recall election. They deserve whatever they get ...and he's just the man to do it to them.
 
2013-03-05 01:18:17 PM  

Krymson Tyde: Christ, what an asshole.


Sigh...and no one worth a fark could've gone up against this guy?!  Hell, Elizabeth Warren wanted to run against Scott Brown in MA and WON.  You mean to tell me that no one in Wisconsin with a decent enough image to run against this fark and...

...whatever, the Wisconsin Democrats deserve what they got by not trying to find someone that was passionate enough to run against him.
 
2013-03-05 01:18:41 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.


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.
 
2013-03-05 01:19:37 PM  

Rwa2play: Krymson Tyde: Christ, what an asshole.

Sigh...and no one worth a fark could've gone up against this guy?!  Hell, Elizabeth Warren wanted to run against Scott Brown in MA and WON.  You mean to tell me that no one in Wisconsin with a decent enough image to run against this fark and...

...whatever, the Wisconsin Democrats deserve what they got by not trying to find someone that was passionate enough to run against him.


Forgot to add: If Jesse Ventura could run as an independent against the established parties in Minnesota and WIN the governor's seat, then Wisconsin Dems had no excuse....seriously.
 
2013-03-05 01:21:28 PM  

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


That sounds about right...
 
2013-03-05 01:21:39 PM  

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!
 
2013-03-05 01:23:53 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.


It's a bad idea to do that.

Why?

Because the people in question don't learn a lesson.

You will always have greedy, unethical assholes.  *ALWAYS*.

Having said that, I fail to see how this actually protects anyone.  They have to disclose to you your monthly or weekly payment, and they have to disclose to you how many payments you need to make.  That's not necessarily a law, per se, but it would have to be spelled out in the contract, otherwise it's not really a contract.

If you can't do a simple multiplication calculation of PAYMENT X TERM = COST then telling you the actual interest rate is worthless, because you won't understand the implications of it or the math involved in the first place.

The only thing this actually does is create more paperwork.  It *SOUNDS* like a good idea, but in practice it's one more thing Cletus and Faylene will pass over with glazed eyes and slack jaws, signing without really understanding, on the way to paying $2,000 for a $400 laptop computifier.
 
2013-03-05 01:24:39 PM  

VendorXeno: dittybopper: If you aren't smart enough to realize that a $50 payment for 24 months to own an item worth $400 retail isn't a good deal, then disclosing the actual interest rate really isn't going to help.

Then why waste time with the legislation? Of course it makes a difference.


Yes, it will result in fewer dead trees, because the paperwork will be less.
 
2013-03-05 01:24:47 PM  
Will the have any effect on Rent-A-Wheel, or is that even a viable business in Wisconsin?
 
2013-03-05 01:24:55 PM  
"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.
 
2013-03-05 01:25:58 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.


and if we were a pure capitalistic society this would make sense, however that kind of society does not live long as all the capital is sucked up by charletons and ner'do wells

we have a government that ensures the flow of capital by "greasing the skids" with fairness
 
2013-03-05 01:26:51 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


Says $141.11 bi-weekly, so 12 months (unless they're using the twice a week definition of bi-weekly, but we won't go there).  You'd be better off going to Vinnie down at the social club for the loan.

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


I thought the libertarian philosophy was that with perfect information everyone would be a rational actor and wouldn't fall for these scams.  Shouldn't there be some requirements to spell out exactly what you're doing and therefore reduce the amount of all these stupid people, or is the premise just a bunch of bullshiat?
 
2013-03-05 01:27:16 PM  
Am I the only one left that can remember reading "The Jungle" in high school?
This is the same farking thing well, except it's government sponsored.
 
2013-03-05 01:27:36 PM  

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


Because Lord knows the ignorant only buy one.

you are a puppet: Forget it Jake, It's Tardtown


Indeed it is.
 
2013-03-05 01:30:48 PM  
If we want to protect illiterates from poor financial decisions, we should prevent people from borrowing 100k for an art history degree from private universities in the nation's most expensive cities.
 
2013-03-05 01:31:18 PM  

BrianGriffin: Lots of folks are seemingly defending the RTO shops under the guise of "well, if the idiots who rent stuff are too stupid to understand, blah blah blah" which I find disturbing. There is NOTHING good about the way these shiatheads run a business.


Then pass a law that limits the amount of interest and fees they can charge.   *THAT* would help protect stupid people from being taken advantage of.  It would also protect them from being able to buy most of that stuff, but hey, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, right?

Best part is that it would encourage people to save money for those purchases.  If you can afford to spend $50 a month to rent a laptop, you can save $50 a month and have enough to buy one in much less time, and it likely wouldn't be obsolete when you finish paying for it.

Disclosing the interest rate when a simple multiplication will show it's a piss-poor deal is mere window dressing.  "Look at me, I'm helping the POOR and STUPID people".  It doesn't actually help.
 
2013-03-05 01:33:44 PM  

navylostboy: ner'do wells


You mean "ne'er-do-wells", right?  Because as a nerdo, I take offense at being lumped in with folks like that.
 
amo [TotalFark]
2013-03-05 01:33:44 PM  

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!


Your first money total was correct, but not the time frame. It's still only 24 payments, totalling $3386.64, it's just the payment is twice as often, twice a month, instead of once, so it's only 12 months. But even I had to read it twice to catch it. It's a good reminder that there are people dumber than you and I.
 
2013-03-05 01:34:22 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.


[slow clap] That deserves a "smart" vote.
 
2013-03-05 01:35:01 PM  

LargeCanine: So?

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


Having consumer protections in place that require a business to disclose their terms up-front in an understandable manner isn't treating people like children, it's preventing unscrupulous con artists from ripping people off. Nobody is suggesting that the government tell these people that they can't be stupid and get hosed by a rent-to-own store. It's still their decision to make, the law simply makes sure that they have all the information they need in order to make it. If they still choose to make a poor decision, then that's their problem. The ONLY reason to be against requiring this kind of disclosure is to allow dishonest business practices designed to intentionally deceive people.
 
2013-03-05 01:35:10 PM  

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

Because Lord knows the ignorant only buy one.


Yep, because they buy $25 in tickets and then get a bill for $1,875
 
2013-03-05 01:35:18 PM  

Ring of Fire: Every time I see a picture of Scott Walker his hair makes his head look crooked, then all I can think about is that corner from Anna Nicole Smith.


Anna Nicole Smith didn't have corners, she had curves...
 
2013-03-05 01:36:30 PM  

Mugato: No, Rick Scott has the market cornered on cartoonish super-villain governors.


My God, it looks like a penis with eyes!
 
2013-03-05 01:36:56 PM  

amo: 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!

Your first money total was correct, but not the time frame. It's still only 24 payments, totalling $3386.64, it's just the payment is twice as often, twice a month, instead of once, so it's only 12 months. But even I had to read it twice to catch it. It's a good reminder that there are people dumber than you and I.


I see. Yeah, I would rather borrow from Vinnie and get my knees broken.
 
2013-03-05 01:38:09 PM  
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

...although how much easier can it become, really?
 
2013-03-05 01:38:39 PM  
What does not disclosing interest rates have to do with mathematical illiteracy?
 
2013-03-05 01:39:28 PM  

dittybopper: It's a bad idea to do that.

Why?

Because the people in question don't learn a lesson.

You will always have greedy, unethical assholes.  *ALWAYS*.


Learning a lesson is not the point of the regulation. Nor is it to eliminate all greedy assholes. It's to "regulate" them, to limit their behavior, to take away easy routes of exploitation. 

Your subsequent argument, that a person with this extra information is in no way improved because they didn't get it the first time from the more complex explanation shows such an amazing and profound lack of understanding regarding people and thinking that it shocks me. There is no on/off switch to being smart enough to grasp a concept. The more data, and the simpler the data, the easier it's going to be for many people to clue in, consciously, onto a concept they might not immediately be consciously aware of. That's why these agencies don't want to give them the simple, direct information. That's why there's any attempt to remove this legislation. If it were really as meaningless as you [have to ignore every rule of psychology or marketing to] believe then Walker would be wasting everyone's time even bothering with it. Of course, he doesn't think he is, and the rent to own places don't think he is. Why do you think he is? Because you haven't really thought about it.
 
2013-03-05 01:39:48 PM  

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"
 
2013-03-05 01:42:58 PM  

Silverstaff: We have a word for being "mathematically illiterate", the word is "innumerate".

Look it up, actual word.


And a useful one, as well. It was coined by Doug Hofstadter, back before a lot of you were born, I'd wager. Later, John Allen Paulos wrote a very good book, Innumeracy, describing the defect and detailing its effects upon our society.

As for TFA, the hubbub over "interest rates" just drags the discussion into a quagmire of "that word - I do not think it means what you think it means." What is needed is a simple requirement that ALL CONTRACTS for sale or rental of items contain the following statement: "The item you are acquiring has a (retail price)/(estimated value) of $xxx.xx. If you make all payments per this contract, you will have paid a total of $yyyy.yy." Anyone who argues with that requirement, I can GUARANTEE is not someone with whom you want to business.
 
2013-03-05 01:43:28 PM  
The capitalism theory is that perfect information + competition = optimal results for consumers. This is used by libertarians as to why things do not need to be micromanaged or outright be taken over by the government, but I don't think it is one their core beliefs. Their core belief seems to be that government interference is bad. But, competition and good information have proven to break down fairly often in the absence of government oversight.

Personally I would rather the government focus on getting good information to the consumers instead of outright banning products and services (most of the time).  When the math is at all hard this seems to be an impossible task; it seems you can't make consumers do the math.  So, sometimes putting reasonable limits on things seems the only way to keep them from getting out of hand.
 
2013-03-05 01:45:10 PM  

busy chillin': ep, because they buy $25 in tickets and then get a bill for $1,875


No, you just keep buying $25 worth day in and day out.
 
2013-03-05 01:47:31 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.


They don't even say "a little". The phrase they use in the commercial is "Yes, the money is expensive".

Because it is.
 
2013-03-05 01:47:34 PM  

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


Yes, since the 1930s at least on the Federal level.
 
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.
 
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?
 
2013-03-05 11:56:46 PM  

Moonfisher: 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.


Nope, nope, can't protect these people from predatory capitalism.
 
2013-03-06 12:20:28 AM  

Arumat: 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?


Yes, but that's a whole 'nother subject. I am against incarceration as a means of punishment - it doesn't provide any restitution to the victim of the crime, isn't productive in any way, doesn't teach by logic or example but by pain avoidance, which is ineffective, etc.  Additionally, I find it reprehensible that the victim is then taxed to pay to support the person who wronged them. I'm just not sure that the man will be educated by receiving a pardon - i know he made a bad decision because he signed that contract which is obviously a bad decision. Receiving a get-out-of-contract-free card is not as likely to teach him not to sign contracts as it is to teach him how to get out of future contracts, should he so desire. Granted, those are assumptions, but they're based on personal experience - I've made bad decisions before, and so have many of my friends and family. I didn't learn from the ones whose consequences I was spared. Maybe that's just me, I can't say.
 
2013-03-06 01:11:30 AM  

untaken_name: Arumat: 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?

Yes, but that's a whole 'nother subject. I am against incarceration as a means of punishment - it doesn't provide any restitution to the victim of the crime, isn't productive in any way, doesn't teach by logic or example but by pain avoidance, which is ineffective, etc.  Additionally, I find it reprehensible that the victim is then taxed to pay to support the person who wronged them. I'm just not sure that the man will be educated by receiving a pardon - i know he made a bad decision because he signed that contract which is obviously a bad decision. Receiving a get-out-of-contract-free card is not as likely to teach him not to sign contracts as it is to teach him how to get out of future contracts, should he so desire. Granted, those are assumptions, but they're based on personal experience - I've made bad decisions before, and so have many of my friends and family. I didn't learn from the ones whose consequences I was spared. Maybe that's just me, I can't say.


I guess we're mostly on the same page then.  I just hate to see the legal system used as a weapon.
 
2013-03-06 01:44:58 AM  

Arumat: I guess we're mostly on the same page then.  I just hate to see the legal system used as a weapon.


Yeah, I'd say we are. I hate that too - especially since it's used as a weapon against victims of crime as well as perpetrators.
 
2013-03-06 01:53:50 AM  

Gabrielmot: 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.


You seem to think there's only one idiot in this tale.
 
2013-03-06 02:08:18 AM  

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".


I guess the RTO owner thought that an indictment would motivate the renter to find a buddy with a truck and bring the thing back.  Perhaps the criminal process was cheaper for him than a civil process.  But the grand jury saw through that abuse of  the criminal system.

Plaintiffs in breach of contract suits have a duty to mitigate their damages.  If the RTO owner had the right to repo, he had a duty to attempt it despite a contract putting the onus on the renter.

This boiled down to "a matter of principle."  It was more important for the RTO to be right than to be happy.
 
2013-03-06 02:52:05 AM  

Magnanimous_J: 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.


You would have to fight the other assholes who already do that kind of thing. They are literally everywhere and they ALWAYS snag idiots who think they have it all figured out.

CSB: There was one kid we had, 18 years old didn't have a license and never had a job before. His buddy takes him out to a VERY sleazy dealership ($500 cash if you bring in a friend and he buys a car, most of the cars are complete crap), and just like you said in about 10 minutes he was signing paperwork to buy a 2003 car with 100,000 miles on it for literally the same price as if it were brand new. The dealership told him that he didn't need a license to buy it, he just needed a friend to sign with him (which his best bud did), and give them his bank account info to set up a loan through them. So now he has a piece of crap for a brand new price, his buddy is the one who has to drive it for him, and the next day he decides he doesn't like it. So what does he do? He goes to a different dealership and trades it in for a different car (with the new dealership promising to return the car to the old dealership), gives THEM his bank account info and has the loan payments switched from the previous dealership to the new one. So he ended up with two cars in his name, only one loan, and the new dealership basically stealing the old car while the old dealership is screaming bloody murder to the command about grand theft auto. Best part? This all happened about a week before we deployed. Got it worked out, so now he is stuck with the original car he bought for an inflated price at 14% interest and no license so its sitting off base at a married guy's house. People are stupid, and his buddy got fried for taking him there to make a quick $500.
 
2013-03-06 06:01:02 AM  

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


yes
 
2013-03-06 09:44:34 AM  

relcec: busy chillin': 
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.


You think they get nothing (from playing the lottery). Many people get enjoyment and excitement...and people do win. And again...no signed legal contract binding them to play everyday.
 
2013-03-06 09:54:01 AM  
I don't think I've ever seen Grothman and Walker disagree on anything.

They're both assholes.
 
2013-03-06 11:01:53 AM  

busy chillin': You think they get nothing (from playing the lottery). Many people get enjoyment and excitement...and people do win. And again...no signed legal contract binding them to play everyday.


And yet you willingly do it every day. How much have you won in relation to what you've spent (in cash, not in excitement and enjoyment)?
 
2013-03-06 11:22:51 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: busy chillin': You think they get nothing (from playing the lottery). Many people get enjoyment and excitement...and people do win. And again...no signed legal contract binding them to play everyday.

And yet you willingly do it every day. How much have you won in relation to what you've spent (in cash, not in excitement and enjoyment)?


I don't play very often and am probably behind. But now Casinos? Boom, my wife and I up are probably up a couple grand, easy.

Ahhhh, you care how I spend my money.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:28 AM  

busy chillin': Ahhhh, you care how I spend my money.


You can play lotto and go to the casino all you want for all I care. If you are going to do so, quit whining about how others spend their money.
 
2013-03-06 11:47:34 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: busy chillin': Ahhhh, you care how I spend my money.

You can play lotto and go to the casino all you want for all I care. If you are going to do so, quit whining about how others spend their money.


um what?
 
2013-03-06 02:22:01 PM  

busy chillin': um what?


Well, there are people who are buying from rent to own places that charge high interest and you seem to have a major problem with this.
 
2013-03-06 03:12:54 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: busy chillin': um what?

Well, there are people who are buying from rent to own places that charge high interest and you seem to have a major problem with this.


I have a problem with the governor removing the full-disclosure aspects.

There have got to be more pressing and important issues in that state that they should be focusing on.
 
2013-03-06 03:22:58 PM  
Scarrier is the last sentance... I am actually agreeing with Glen Grothman... I had to read it like 3 times but there it was plain as day.
 
2013-03-07 09:33:47 AM  

busy chillin': I have a problem with the governor removing the full-disclosure aspects


Because math is hard.
 
2013-03-07 05:59:22 PM  

busy chillin': I have a problem with the governor removing the full-disclosure aspects.


He's done that with about every law he's signed - straight from day one.
 
2013-03-07 09:57:48 PM  
Looks like DIA is pro-fraud.
 
2013-03-08 05:09:26 AM  

Kittypie070: Looks like DIA is pro-fraud.


What is fraudulent?
 
Displayed 271 of 271 comments

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