The new credit card reform bill that's about to become law contains a very irritating provision that's going to have to be confronted.
Under the new law, adults who are at least 18 but younger than 21 who want a credit card will now have to first prove than they can repay credit card expenses or get their mommy and daddy to pay it.
Um, these are grown men and women we're talking about. Eighteen is an adult. End of story. No statute anywhere in the world can possibly change that.
Americans between 18 and 21 can be killed in a war, but they can no longer get a credit card without their parents' permission?
In case anyone asks, I also think the drinking age should be lowered to 18. The national 21 drinking age seems to have influenced later efforts to deprive young adults of rights that they long enjoyed. Those who'd deny these rights try backing up their stances with tired canards and junk science.
There's also some concern that the new law will induce banks to raise fees on other services to make up for the "loss" caused by the limits on confiscatory credit card charges. Because banks think they have a "right" to a certain profit margin, you see. I think there's going to have to be another law, this one to limit bank fees.
Other than these glaring complaints that are going to have to be addressed, this isn't a bad bill in the least bit. Credit card companies are out of control, and someone needed to clamp down. But I think the states are going to have to pass laws to remedy the flaws of this bill.
(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfMsNdPKrayQbV8JSYqKXphY7FfgD98A7T401)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
National 21 comes to credit cards
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I turned 18 while I was a senior in high school, and they still made me get my parents to call in when I was absent from school. And this was in 1992! I'm not surprised that it's gotten more fash since then.
ReplyDeleteBanks DO have a right to whatever profit margin they can take. There is no such thing as a "right" to have a credit card (though I do agree, the Obama regime should not be setting an age limit). The bill, pushed heavily by the president, designed to help people with lots of debt and a poor credit history, is going to end up hurting people who pay their bills on time and carry no month-to-month credit card debt. According to an AP story (quoted below), the new law could lead to the following consequences:
ReplyDeleteANNUAL FEES: The free ride is likely to end for many who use their credit cards as a convenience and pay off their balances in full every month. Banks will now target people who have avoided paying an interest charge or an annual fee — until now.
LOST GRACE PERIODS: Banks are considering charging interest from the date of a purchase instead of allowing a grace period, now typically 20 to 25 days. The best that cardholders may be able to hope for is an option from their issuer, according to credit card expert Ben Woolsey: Either pay an annual fee or lose your grace period.
Hay Scheffbd,
ReplyDeleteWhere in the Constitution does it say banks have a right to "whatever profit margin they can take"?
Tim,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the American people, it affirms and protects rights that are inherently ours. If I open a bank or any other legitimate business in the United States of America I am entitled to all the profits of my labor, minus my tax obligations. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any government the power to restrict that freedom.
If you don't like banks taking X profit, you are free to hide your money under a mattress rather than do business with them.
Repeat after me: Corporations. Are. Not. People.
ReplyDeleteThey have no constitutional or natural rights.
OK, corporations aren't people. What about the people who own the corporations. Do they not have rights? Do only the penniless and propertyless have rights in this country?
ReplyDeleteYour problem is you think of "corporations" as some monstrosity that is controlled by no one. A corporation is owned by one person or by many. Those people have rights. There are people involved and you can't just throw away those people's rights because you are hellbent against capitalism. If there's no people involved in a "corporation", then a "corporation" can't be held guilty of a criminal offense either as there is no one to punish. There is no one to sue either in a civil case either. No one to collect taxes from, etc. That's not what you want, is it?