• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What that would actually mean is a complete lock-out on credit cards for the poor.

    • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I don’t see that as a real problem. Because as it is now, credit cards are something poor people should avoid at all costs.

      • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        No, it’s a thing idiots should avoid at all costs.

        A card with a 2% reward across the board(Fidelity for instance) can be used as a proxy for your debit card week to week.

        It builds my credit, gives me a group of attack dogs to sic on anyone who rips me off, and gives me a cushion if I ever need it. If you never exceed your expenses and never reach beyond your means, it’s no different in consequence than paying with anything else, with a little added bonus credit and reward.

        It’s people and their lack of self control that ruin credit cards.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Actually asking, not rhetorical: if poor people are already getting charged based on what they can afford, would this policy exert a downward force on prices?

      So way less financing options, slightly more buying outright?