Standing Up for 600% Interest
Jeff Bull
Um…hi. Welcome to my first post on Blue Oregon. Let's all cooperate to make this as little like a "jumping in" ritual as possible.
The Oregonian - along with several other papers in the state feeding off the same report by Niki Sullivan – reported on a bill progressing out of the Senate Commerce Committee that will put a cap on the interest and fees that can be charged by payday loan outfits. According to the report(s), the cap formula would look like this:
"The bill would limit charges to $15 per $100 loaned, in addition to allowing consumers to enter a repayment plan if, after their second loan renewal, they are still unable to repay the balance."
Some additional provisions – and the bill's number (Senate Bill 545, for future reference) not included in Ms. Sullivan's report (tut-tut) appear in a separate Political Notebook filing also in the Oregonian:
"The bill also would prohibit fees other than interest, a fee for a dishonored check and the payment-plan fee."
On a fundamental level, I'm for any legislation designed to stop lenders from charging 300 to 600 percent interest. Since this bill just left committee, there's some of time examine the economics of this bill before it gets a vote in the full Senate – namely, the "right" of lenders to charge interest rates they believe match their exposure to risk – but the most interesting part of the article comes with opponent's arguments, essentially, for 300 to 600 percent interest.
The pick of the pair offered comes from Doug Whitsett (R – Klamath Falls), a Commerce Committee member. The Oregonian paraphrased his the reason for his "no" vote here:
The bill passed despite opposition from Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, who said he hadn't heard testimony from one person directly harmed by the high-interest loans."
Interesting angle…sleazy, but interesting. Why? A summary of a study posted on the History News Network's site points to reasons why low-income Americans ignore the polls:
"In 2000, low-income respondents were roughly 30 percent more likely than those in the middle- or top-income groups to say the election's outcome would have little or no impact on their lives.
The same study discovered that "…the voting rate among those at the bottom of the income ladder is only half that of those at the top." In light of that sense of futility at the process, the idea of low-income Oregonians heading to Salem to testify before a committee touches the realm of silly. And the matter turns darkly comical when you consider that these same people would be testifying to the effect that they've so boned their finances and were desperate (or gullible) enough to get taken by a payday loan shop.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:44 p.m.
Apr 29, '05
The repayment plan option is a very good idea.
Right now they will garnish your check for the entire amount. That means for people who already are living paycheck to paycheck, two or more of their weekly paychecks would be gone to pay for the loan and all its associated fees.
Typically whatever the fee is (say $50 for $250), they'll charge you that when you get the loan and each subsequent week in which you have to renew the loan. Before you know it, the fees are more than the loan.
Apr 30, '05
How do you win the war on drugs? Legalize, regulate, and tax it. Same with prostitution. Same with loan sharking. It's better to have this stuff inside the system than outside it, and people have to learn for themselves to walk away from a bad deal at some point.
May 2, '05
Sometimes the best thing already is- even if what is ain't very good.
Pass the law and the icky little loan shops go away, and then unregulatables, criminals, can move in.
Complete legislative idiots.
And this asinine blueoregon deal- "diversity of progressive voices" -that is at best Orwellian Doublespeak. Diversity of voices would include more than just "progressive" voices now wouldn't it? A KKK meeting has a diversity of white members.
How PROGRESSIVE. (you know this means "socialist" right? (and you know socialist means "communist" right?))
May 2, '05
Hi Rusty. I see you followed me. Look at it this way: you can provide the diversity. But you've got to update your cliches: the "progressive=socialist=communist" line grows more stale and irrelevant by the year.
As to your comment - along with C2TBF's - there's nothing wrong with leaving this stuff inside the system: that's not the point. But the term "usury" surely hasn't lost its meaning. What justifies 300-600% interest? A deterrent effect? And what do these deeper holes mean in the context of the recently passed bankruptcy bill? Saying people shouldn't do it is not much of a defense: they do it regardless of the rates.
May 3, '05
most of these comments are so off the wall as to not even warrent a response.
all i have to say is, jeff, you missed a really important point. that article by "Niki" of the AP incorrectly states that SB 545 left conference with the 31 day loan term in tact. THIS IS NOT TRUE. whether it is a lie is another story. but at this point in my political life, i tend to want to call it a lie just to annoy people like rusty, who obvioulsy have no grip on reality.
the pay day loan business is in no danger of being relagated to criminals, because mostly criminals are already in charge of it and that was the point of the legislation. to assume otherwise is one of the absolute stupidest things i have heard in a long time.
sometimes navy types have a little too much water on the brain.
May 3, '05
Progressives want to make the world a better place through government, but free enterprise gets in the way, so they forcibly restrict it. Then you have socialisim, but then other countries out compete you with their free markets and the innovations from an economic engine that produces greater wealth and military power. So you have to expand your ideals into a hegemic world paradigm, forcibly if need be. Now you have communisim.
Congragulations Yak, you have demonstrated your ability to stereotype individuals into neat little cubbyholed groups in your mind twice in one comment.
May 3, '05
rusty, you are really off the wall! i can't een begin to comment on your assertions as i'm not even sure what you are talking about. socialism! ha! obviously you are NOT paying attention. the current climate of corporate welfare is what? free enterprise? pu-lease. listen, friend ole rusty bawlsack, i have been a free marketer, of Mises standing, since i could think. believe me, i am not fan of government regualtion. but the current business and loan enviroment is hardly a free market. a free for all corporatism, yes, free market, no. subsidies do not make a free market, right? so what in god's name are you talking about? as far as pay day loans, you obviously have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. it is predatory lending, period. even worse, it is sanctioned by the state. it has nothing to do with free markets, it is about usury. really, get a clue.
May 4, '05
Yak: I made the point I made. I appreciate anything you provide to build on it. Ultimately, I view blogging as collaborative; getting a bunch of people to combine their knowledge is the only thing that makes the medium worth the bandwidth. So, thanks for chiming in.
As to Rusty, assuming he continues to visit, you'll grow to enjoy him as much I have over on my blog. I don't always think he makes sense - a feeling I'm sure he shares as often as not - but I learn from his perspective...if nothing else how his brain works, which provides invaluable insight into how some conservatives (though I believe he leans libertarian within that spectrum) perceive progressive politics.
May 5, '05
Methinks the Admiral has gone to the grog cabinet once too often. Socialism does not mean communism. I learned that in high school. It makes as much sense as smoking pot inevitably leads to heroin addiction. Nothing is inevitable.
Outrageous interest rates do nothing for the economy except generate more homeless and destitute. To absolve oneself of responsibility with the "profits make perfect" excuse is pretty lame. To stand up for these parasites and declare the market must be free is ludicrous. We have a representative form of government that should be "of the people, by the people and for the people." If it is not, then we are not well represented.
What bothers me the most about this is that these lender/loan sharks will make you and I, assuming you pay taxes, finance their loss with a write off because they made a bad loan to someone who certainly has no credit worthiness, and they will do it again and again to the same people, over and over.
A solution? Perhaps the lenders should offer credit for only a few things and then pay the money directly to the organization on behalf of the person requesting the loan, i.e. food, utilities and necessary medical services. If they did that, I could support them, otherwise they appear to be nothing less then parasites.
May 5, '05
Methinks the Admiral has gone to the grog cabinet once too often. Socialism does not mean communism. I learned that in high school. It makes as much sense as smoking pot inevitably leads to heroin addiction. Nothing is inevitable.
Outrageous interest rates do nothing for the economy except generate more homeless and destitute. To absolve oneself of responsibility with the "profits make perfect" excuse is pretty lame. To stand up for these parasites and declare the market must be free is ludicrous. We have a representative form of government that should be "of the people, by the people and for the people." If it is not, then we are not well represented.
What bothers me the most about this is that these lender/loan sharks will make you and I, assuming you pay taxes, finance their loss with a write off because they made a bad loan to someone who certainly has no credit worthiness, and they will do it again and again to the same people, over and over.
A solution? Perhaps the lenders should offer credit for only a few things and then pay the money directly to the organization on behalf of the person requesting the loan, i.e. food, utilities and necessary medical services. If they did that, I could support them, otherwise they appear to be nothing less then parasites.