M119 - Short Term Cash Loans Motion Watch

This discussion is closed.
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 6 years ago
#21
Payday loan companies should somehow be discouraged if not severely restricted in the amount they can charge (perhaps a fixed amount per loan maximum). Failing that they could have to win a game of Wipeout or the company MD dangle for a few hours on a wire Boris Johnson style each week before they are allowed to trade.
0
LETSJaM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 6 years ago
#22
Aye. These companies prey on the weakest and then exploit them. Glad it has been raised in the MHoC.

<3 x
0
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 6 years ago
#23
(Original post by paperclip)
Define need

Hint: Without running into the definition of a crisis loan.
Why is there a requirement for me to define it? The only person who can decide where or not they 'need' such a loan is the individual in the situation. And why is the definition of the 'crisis loan' so important here?
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 6 years ago
#24
It's not exploitative or reprehensible to offer money to people, with a clear slider showing you how much you have to pay back in how many days. Yes, people can manage their finances badly, but that can happen whether Wonga or these types of institutions exist or don't - and they can help people hugely, if they need tying over to the next pay day to meet the bills, and meet the payment - costing them a fiver in interest rather then hundreds in charges for missed payments etc.
0
meenu89
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 6 years ago
#25
I'll probably have to abstain on this.
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 6 years ago
#26
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
It's not exploitative or reprehensible to offer money to people, with a clear slider showing you how much you have to pay back in how many days. Yes, people can manage their finances badly, but that can happen whether Wonga or these types of institutions exist or don't - and they can help people hugely, if they need tying over to the next pay day to meet the bills, and meet the payment - costing them a fiver in interest rather then hundreds in charges for missed payments etc.
They can help people, they rarely do. You also don't get charged hundreds of pounds for missing bill payments (?).
0
paperclip
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 6 years ago
#27
(Original post by D.R.E)
Why is there a requirement for me to define it? The only person who can decide where or not they 'need' such a loan is the individual in the situation. And why is the definition of the 'crisis loan' so important here?
Because your defence of the industry was "the industry dying would adversely affect the people who need emergency funds" which is untrue given that crisis loans exist.
0
Lipvig
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 6 years ago
#28
I disagree with the concept of limiting the rates, although I agree that they should make them more clearer.
0
toronto353
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 6 years ago
#29
(Original post by Rakas21)
If these companies act like sharks in the sense of breaking peoples legs then yes they should be shut down but people are not preyed upon, they need money and make the choice to pay high interest.
Charging ever growing levels of interest, making it more and more difficult to repay a loan and seeing the size of what you owe increase with no end in sight to the loan - I call that being a loan shark. Yes they may not break legs, but they still harass people and they still send in bailiffs when you can't repay. Barring the violence, they're loan sharks. They prey upon the vulnerable in society by making themselves appear to be nice offering to tide people over and give them loans no questions ask. They appeal to those with little money and who are struggling financially and it's disgusting.
0
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 6 years ago
#30
(Original post by paperclip)
Because your defence of the industry was "the industry dying would adversely affect the people who need emergency funds" which is untrue given that crisis loans exist.
Were crisis loans as amazing as you seem think them to be, this industry simply wouldn't exist.
0
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 6 years ago
#31
(Original post by toronto353)
Charging ever growing levels of interest, making it more and more difficult to repay a loan and seeing the size of what you owe increase with no end in sight to the loan - I call that being a loan shark. Yes they may not break legs, but they still harass people and they still send in bailiffs when you can't repay. Barring the violence, they're loan sharks. They prey upon the vulnerable in society by making themselves appear to be nice offering to tide people over and give them loans no questions ask. They appeal to those with little money and who are struggling financially and it's disgusting.
Every bank that has ever existed in history has done and still does all of this. Why is it more respectable when Barclays do it than when Payday Loans do it?
0
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#32
Report 6 years ago
#32
(Original post by toronto353)
They prey upon the vulnerable in society by making themselves appear to be nice offering to tide people over and give them loans no questions ask. They appeal to those with little money and who are struggling financially and it's disgusting.
I agree with Toronto. They certainly do prey upon the vulnerable in society. Even their adverts are designed to pray on the vulnerable, often showing average earners who are struggling to pay bills. Company names such as 'Quick Quid' give out the impression that you will receive money in minutes without any questions being asked, and this is normally the case. Companies do not check the credit history of the client or even see if they can pay back the loan, which normal banks do. The fact that their APR rate is not even mentioned in the form of speech, shows that these companies are deliberately out to prey upon the vulnerable.

I agree with this motion as I have previously stated. I would go further and state that in these adverts, it should be stated clearly by speech the company's APR rate and how this compares with ordinary high street banks. I dismiss completely this argument that it is the fault of the people for getting into these situations. Many of these people are often unaware of what APR/interest rates means. This is a form of modern day exploitation and I commend my Honourable friend the Shadow Business Secretary for bringing this motion to the House to finally address this issue.
0
paperclip
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 6 years ago
#33
(Original post by D.R.E)
Were crisis loans as amazing as you seem think them to be, this industry simply wouldn't exist.
Then we should fix the system, not legalise loan sharking. Although this isn't true, because i doubt a crisis loan would give me money to buy commodities/drugs/whatever. My problem here rests with the use of the word need, the basic needs, as well as emergency needs (from their website: "you have suffered a disaster like a fire or flood that has caused a lot of damage and you need help to meet other expenses like replacing household items and clothing") are or should be covered, so the use of the word need is inappropriate unless someone can provide me with an example where the need isnt met?

Also, given that the residents income exists in TSR world, this severely cuts down on any "needs" that this company can fulfil.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report 6 years ago
#34
(Original post by eff01)
I agree with Toronto. They certainly do prey upon the vulnerable in society. Even their adverts are designed to pray on the vulnerable, often showing average earners who are struggling to pay bills. Company names such as 'Quick Quid' give out the impression that you will receive money in minutes without any questions being asked, and this is normally the case. Companies do not check the credit history of the client or even see if they can pay back the loan, which normal banks do. The fact that their APR rate is not even mentioned in the form of speech, shows that these companies are deliberately out to prey upon the vulnerable.

I agree with this motion as I have previously stated. I would go further and state that in these adverts, it should be stated clearly by speech the company's APR rate and how this compares with ordinary high street banks. I dismiss completely this argument that it is the fault of the people for getting into these situations. Many of these people are often unaware of what APR/interest rates means. This is a form of modern day exploitation and I commend my Honourable friend the Shadow Business Secretary for bringing this motion to the House to finally address this issue.
Actually many of these companies do perform credit checks even if the requirement to attain such a loan is quite low, i know this because i defaulted on a credit card a few years ago and got a CCJ and a few months later tryed to obtain such a loan.

They may go after the poor but there are some that the bigger companies (Wonga, Quick Quid ect..) will still not lend to.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 6 years ago
#35
(Original post by toronto353)
Charging ever growing levels of interest, making it more and more difficult to repay a loan and seeing the size of what you owe increase with no end in sight to the loan - I call that being a loan shark. Yes they may not break legs, but they still harass people and they still send in bailiffs when you can't repay. Barring the violence, they're loan sharks. They prey upon the vulnerable in society by making themselves appear to be nice offering to tide people over and give them loans no questions ask. They appeal to those with little money and who are struggling financially and it's disgusting.
Not the fault of the companies, they may target these products at a certain demographic however ultimately people have the choice whether to take them or not.

Ultimately we live in a nation where people despite being relatively poor still manage to own several TV's and a phone each whilst drinking coke, until people are having to live on Noodles, have only a landline and computer then they have room to cut spending.
0
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 6 years ago
#36
(Original post by paperclip)
Then we should fix the system, not legalise loan sharking. Although this isn't true, because i doubt a crisis loan would give me money to buy commodities/drugs/whatever. My problem here rests with the use of the word need, the basic needs, as well as emergency needs (from their website: "you have suffered a disaster like a fire or flood that has caused a lot of damage and you need help to meet other expenses like replacing household items and clothing") are or should be covered, so the use of the word need is inappropriate unless someone can provide me with an example where the need isnt met?

Also, given that the residents income exists in TSR world, this severely cuts down on any "needs" that this company can fulfil.
If someone is offering a product, they are going to try and convince people that they need it. It's up to you to decide how much 'need' you may or may not have for the said product. 'Emergency' and 'need' are extremely relative words, so there's no point you and I discussing what they mean. People will decide for themselves what they consider an emergency and what they need to do to rectify it.

If, as you say, all the 'basic needs' and 'emergencies' are covered by the crisis loans system, then one would assume that this loan industry is serving a different 'need' that isn't identified by you or I.
0
paperclip
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#37
Report 6 years ago
#37
(Original post by Rakas21)
Not the fault of the companies, they may target these products at a certain demographic however ultimately people have the choice whether to take them or not.

Ultimately we live in a nation where people despite being relatively poor still manage to own several TV's and a phone each whilst drinking coke, until people are having to live on Noodles, have only a landline and computer then they have room to cut spending.
What about people that suffer from depression, especially bipolar depression? Along with other mental disorders. This group has a tendency to have a terrible credit history because during a manic phase they will simply spend all their money, and credit on whatever they want regardless of need. This is an undeniable fact, and such groups tend to suffer from debt problems due to the very nature of their illness. Now, realistically it would be quite viscous to outright deny these individuals credit, but what this example does show is that there is a large minority of the population that cannot make a rational cost benefit analysis. Given that the crisis loan system does exist to satisfy the basic and emergency needs of individuals, it seems sensible to protect the individuals that may be exploited by these companies due to the profit motive. Further, as no individual has given me an example where these loans can actually be beneficial, it seems that the founding philosophy of these companies are to take advantage of these people. So, if not outright banning these companies, how will you protect the needs of this large group of the population?
0
toronto353
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 6 years ago
#38
(Original post by D.R.E)
Every bank that has ever existed in history has done and still does all of this. Why is it more respectable when Barclays do it than when Payday Loans do it?
Potentially because Barclays may only charge 5%, but Payday loans 5000%.


(Original post by eff01)
I agree with Toronto. They certainly do prey upon the vulnerable in society. Even their adverts are designed to pray on the vulnerable, often showing average earners who are struggling to pay bills. Company names such as 'Quick Quid' give out the impression that you will receive money in minutes without any questions being asked, and this is normally the case. Companies do not check the credit history of the client or even see if they can pay back the loan, which normal banks do. The fact that their APR rate is not even mentioned in the form of speech, shows that these companies are deliberately out to prey upon the vulnerable.

I agree with this motion as I have previously stated. I would go further and state that in these adverts, it should be stated clearly by speech the company's APR rate and how this compares with ordinary high street banks. I dismiss completely this argument that it is the fault of the people for getting into these situations. Many of these people are often unaware of what APR/interest rates means. This is a form of modern day exploitation and I commend my Honourable friend the Shadow Business Secretary for bringing this motion to the House to finally address this issue.
It's worrying when we agree.


(Original post by Rakas21)
Not the fault of the companies, they may target these products at a certain demographic however ultimately people have the choice whether to take them or not.

Ultimately we live in a nation where people despite being relatively poor still manage to own several TV's and a phone each whilst drinking coke, until people are having to live on Noodles, have only a landline and computer then they have room to cut spending.
Of course it's the fault of the company. Imagine that you're living on the bread line unable to pay the Bills, you may not be forced to take out a loan I agree, but it feels like it. Taking your idea a step further, let's imagine that a shop that you were the boss of was robbed. You weren't there, but your staff were threatened at gunpoint and told to hand over the contents of the safe. They did so. By your logic, the staff would have a share of the blame because they weren't forced hand over the money, they chose to do so.

Do you see why your argument falls flat? Objectively, they aren't forced to take out a loan and in our example they weren't forced to hand over the money, but they felt like their had no option and therefore effectively were forced to follow their course of action. I am honestly concerned at this point by your lack of compassion.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 6 years ago
#39
(Original post by paperclip)
What about people that suffer from depression, especially bipolar depression? Along with other mental disorders. This group has a tendency to have a terrible credit history because during a manic phase they will simply spend all their money, and credit on whatever they want regardless of need. This is an undeniable fact, and such groups tend to suffer from debt problems due to the very nature of their illness. Now, realistically it would be quite viscous to outright deny these individuals credit, but what this example does show is that there is a large minority of the population that cannot make a rational cost benefit analysis. Given that the crisis loan system does exist to satisfy the basic and emergency needs of individuals, it seems sensible to protect the individuals that may be exploited by these companies due to the profit motive. Further, as no individual has given me an example where these loans can actually be beneficial, it seems that the founding philosophy of these companies are to take advantage of these people. So, if not outright banning these companies, how will you protect the needs of this large group of the population?
Ultimately companies can choose to lend to whoever they want and if people choose to take a loan and cannot pay it back then they should default.

Having got a CCJ as a result of my own stupidity in this matter i have little sympathy for those who get into debt when many can sell assets or cut spending.

In your example it would actually be a good idea to exclude the depressed from credit.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#40
Report 6 years ago
#40
(Original post by toronto353)
Of course it's the fault of the company. Imagine that you're living on the bread line unable to pay the Bills, you may not be forced to take out a loan I agree, but it feels like it. Taking your idea a step further, let's imagine that a shop that you were the boss of was robbed. You weren't there, but your staff were threatened at gunpoint and told to hand over the contents of the safe. They did so. By your logic, the staff would have a share of the blame because they weren't forced hand over the money, they chose to do so.

Do you see why your argument falls flat? Objectively, they aren't forced to take out a loan and in our example they weren't forced to hand over the money, but they felt like their had no option and therefore effectively were forced to follow their course of action. I am honestly concerned at this point by your lack of compassion.
I have been in that situation and i simply ate noodles for a week, not nice but in the long run it was better than taking a loan. A poor example, one is a matter of finance and one a matter of life and death (if they were borrowing it for food then the amount including would cause them no problems if they ate the bare minimum).

Felt is the key word here, people submitting to emotional judgements are the reason many people get into trouble, as somebody who prides myself on logic (have been compared to Spock or Sheldon in the past) i do not believe that the state should compensate for peoples emotional desires. Logic dictates that if somebody is unable to pay back a loan then they should not take the loan in the first place.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (49)
44.95%
Pro-humanity (60)
55.05%

Watched Threads

View All