Credit Card Debt Article
The following credit card debt
article provides vital consumer
credit card debt information about
how you as a consumer may be being
taken advantage of by a deceptive
business practice of the credit card
company with which you do business.
Be cautious of every deceptive
business practice a credit card
company can throw at you. Read the
consumer credit card debt
information in the following
article.
WASHINGTON — In the eight years
since they began pressing for the
tough bankruptcy bill being debated
in the Senate, America's big credit
card companies have effectively
inoculated themselves from many of
the problems that sparked their call
for the measure.
By charging customers different
interest rates depending on how
likely they are to repay their debts
and by adding substantial fees for
an array of items such as late
payments and foreign currency
transactions, the major card
companies have managed to keep their
profits rising steadily even as
personal bankruptcies have soared,
industry figures show.
As a result, while they continue
to press for legislation that would
make it harder for individuals to
declare bankruptcy, the companies
have found ways to make money even
on cardholders who eventually go
broke.
At the same time, under the
companies' new systems, many
cardholders — especially low-income
users — have ended up on a financial
treadmill, required to make
ever-larger monthly payments to keep
their credit card balances from
rising and to avoid insolvency.
"Most of the credit cards that
end up in bankruptcy proceedings
have already made a profit for the
companies that issued them," said
Robert R. Weed, a Virginia
bankruptcy lawyer and onetime aide
to former Republican House Speaker
Newt Gingrich.
"That's because people are paying
so many fees that they've already
paid more than was originally
borrowed," he said.
In addition, some experts say,
the changes proposed in the Senate
bill would fundamentally alter
long-standing American legal policy
on debt. Under bankruptcy laws as
they have existed for more than a
century, creditors can seize almost
all of a bankrupt debtor's assets,
but they cannot lay claim to future
earnings.
The proposed law, by preventing
many debtors from seeking bankruptcy
protection, would compel financially
insolvent borrowers to continue
trying to pay off the old debts
almost indefinitely.
"Until now, the principle in this
country has been that people's
future human capital is their own,"
said David A. Moss, an economic
historian at Harvard University. "If
a person gets on a financial
treadmill, they can declare
bankruptcy and have what can't be
paid discharged. But that would
change with this bill."
Debate about the bill continued
Thursday, with the
Republican-controlled Senate
refusing to limit consumer interest
rates to 30%. The vote was a
bipartisan 74 to 24 to kill a
proposed amendment by Sen. Mark
Dayton (D-Minn.). Senate passage of
the bill is expected next week.
The House has not taken up the
issue this year, although it passed
a version of the bill last year, as
did the Senate. Attempts to
reconcile the two bills failed.
Industry officials have sought to
minimize the role of credit card
companies in pushing for bankruptcy
legislation since 1998. They have
argued that the bill introduced last
month by Republican Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Charles E.
Grassley of Iowa and supported by
President Bush would affect about 5%
of the roughly 1.6 million Americans
who file for bankruptcy each year.
They have portrayed the measure's
principal target as high-income
individuals who are abusing the law
to escape their debts.
"The bottom line is that there
are people out there who are able to
pay their bills who are not paying,"
said Tracey Mills, a spokeswoman for
the American Bankers Assn., which
represents most of the major credit
card companies.
But consumer advocates, many
academics and some judges and court
officials argue that the bill would
sharply reduce the number of
Americans able to file for
bankruptcy, even in instances where
doing so would buy them time to
repay their debts.
The critics argue that people
unable to file would be at the mercy
of increasingly aggressive efforts
by lenders — especially credit card
companies — to raise fees and boost
collections.
People like Josephine McCarthy,
for instance, a 71-year-old
secretary at the Salem Baptist
Church, less than a mile from where
the Senate bill is being debating.
According to papers in her recent
bankruptcy, McCarthy discovered at
about the time of her husband's
death in 2003 that the couple had a
$4,888 balance on a Providian
Financial Corp. Visa card and
another $2,020 balance on a
Providian Mastercard.
Over the two years from 2002
until early 2004, when she filed for
bankruptcy, McCarthy charged an
additional $218 on the first card
and made more than $3,000 in
payments, the court papers show. But
instead of her balance going down,
finance charges — at what the
bankruptcy judge termed a "whopping"
29.99% rate, together with late
fees, over-limit fees and phone
payments fees — pushed what she owed
up to more than $5,350.
In the case of the second card,
the papers show that McCarthy
charged an extra $203 and made more
than $2,000 in payments, but again
fees and finance charges pushed the
balance up.
McCarthy refused to comment on
the case. A spokesman for Providian
could not be reached last night.
But court papers show that
McCarthy eventually paid all the
bills in the case, including back
taxes. The way she did it, using
provisions of bankruptcy law,
illustrates one of the problems with
the proposed new law, critics say.
McCarthy had been making mortgage
payments on two houses. She wanted
to sell one of the houses to pay off
her debts, but the house was
entangled in legal difficulties. By
declaring bankruptcy, she was able
to stop the clock on her escalating
credit card debts and give her
lawyer time to clear up the legal
problem, enabling her to sell the
house and pay off the bills.
Under the proposed new law,
McCarthy, who makes about $55,000 a
year, would have had a much harder
time qualifying for the bankruptcy
protection that allowed her to pay
creditors.
"The McCarthy case shows how
hard-working people making good
incomes can end up in situations
that they can't dig themselves out
of unless they file for bankruptcy,"
said Weed, her lawyer.
Credit card companies have come
in for harsh criticism in recent
years for their penalty fees and the
"risk-based pricing" under which
they charge customers different
interest rates depending on their
credit histories and their
likelihood of paying.
Consumer advocates have accused
firms of not adequately disclosing
such controversial practices as
universal default, when a company
can jack up a cardholder's annual
percentage rate, often to more than
30%, based on the cardholder's
performance with another creditor,
not the card company.
Regulators and law enforcement
officials have accused companies of
deceptive practices. In 2000, the
U.S. Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency and the San Francisco
district attorney's office ordered
Providian to pay $300 million in
restitution after customers
complained that the company didn't
credit their payments on time and
then imposed late fees.
A stream of court cases involving
credit card companies has produced
public outrage in various parts of
the country.
In Cleveland, a municipal court
judge tossed out a case that
Discover Bank brought against one of
its cardholders after examining the
woman's credit card bill.
According to court papers, Ruth
M. Owens, a 53-year-old disabled
woman, paid the company $3,492 over
six years on a $1,963 debt only to
find that late fees and finance
charges had more than doubled the
size of her remaining balance to
$5,564.
When the firm took her to court
to collect, she wrote the judge a
note saying, "I would like to inform
you that I have no money to make
payments. I am on Social Security (news
-
web sites) Disability…. If my
situation was different I would pay.
I just don't have it. I'm sorry."
Judge Robert Triozzi ruled that
Owens didn't have to pay, saying she
had "clearly been the victim of
[Discover's] unreasonable,
unconscionable and unjust business
practices."
Efforts to reach Owens were
unsuccessful. A spokeswoman for
Discover said she could not comment
on the case.
Analysts said that lost in the
uproar over particular practices and
cases is the fact that the credit
card industry has almost completely
remade itself in the years since it
began pushing for passage of the
bankruptcy bill — a makeover that
has left some analysts wondering why
the industry needs the changes in
bankruptcy law.
"The idea that companies are
losing their shirts on bankruptcies
is a lot of bull," said Robert B.
McKinley, chief executive of
CardWeb.com, a Frederick, Md.,
consulting group that tracks the
credit card industry. "With these
rates and fees, the card industry is
a gravy train right now."
Mills, the bankers association
spokeswoman, said bankruptcies
affected all American households in
the form of higher costs and lower
returns on investments.
As recently as the late 1980s,
credit card companies offered a
one-size-fits-all card with a fixed
interest rate and an annual fee.
Virtually all cards went to
middle-class borrowers with good
credit histories; issuing cards to
poor or high-risk borrowers was
almost unheard of.
But in the early 1990s, companies
such as AT&T and General Motors
began issuing cards with variable
rates and no fees, increasing
competition. And by the middle of
the decade, card companies were
finding their traditional
middle-class markets saturated.
Their response: lend to riskier
customers and make up for the danger
of more defaults by charging higher
rates and then new fees.
McKinley, the industry analyst,
said the firms were helped by a 1996
Supreme Court case that gave card
companies new protections against
state regulation of fees.
"That really opened the flood
gates. It set off a fee frenzy," he
said.
Taken from:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news
|