If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The epitome of ethical banking
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I think the flyer that I received this morning from a company called Vanquis really does define how morally abhorrent the financial services industry truly is.
It offers "a manageable credit limit, based on what you can afford to pay". It boasts of "manageable repayments". It has all this for an annual fee of £19.
Bargain.
Did I forget to mention the typical APR of 49.9%, raising to a maximum of 59.9%? Oops.
And people wonder why it might be that the difference between the richest tenth and the poorest tenth is at levels not seen since Dickens.
And other people have the gall to try and claim that capitalism doesn't exploit the poor mercilessly and needlessly.
It offers "a manageable credit limit, based on what you can afford to pay". It boasts of "manageable repayments". It has all this for an annual fee of £19.
Bargain.
Did I forget to mention the typical APR of 49.9%, raising to a maximum of 59.9%? Oops.
And people wonder why it might be that the difference between the richest tenth and the poorest tenth is at levels not seen since Dickens.
And other people have the gall to try and claim that capitalism doesn't exploit the poor mercilessly and needlessly.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
You'd be better off with an East End loan shark ganster...
Bunch of thieving wankers...
Do you think we'll be able to share in the £220million profit too?
Without wishing to be pedantic it might show how morally abhorent Vanquis is, but it doesn't show anything about any other bank or financial institution (with the possible exception of regulators who let them get away with this).
Dodgy Bratfud companies
And they do this.
Every single bank is the same. This is just an exaggerated case. HSBC charge £70 for daring to go overdrawn by one pound, for instance.
So what is this? http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/About/Who/index.shtml
The FSA is accountable to Treasury Ministers, and through them to Parliament.
Or this http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000008.htm
So probably not entirely self regulated
How naive of you to think that because the FSA say they're independent it means that they actually are.
Few regulatory bodies are independent, because they operate a revolving-door policy with the heads of the services they regulate. You scratch my back, etc etc.
This APR is not atypical either. Proving just how regulatory the regulator truly isn't.
Yes, the banking code etc are all voluntary, that is they can do more or less what the fuck they want. That sort of shit always works both ways though.
The APR is clearly shown, it’s plain that if you don’t pay your bill off on time you will have to pay that very high rate. If people don’t like that well they shouldn’t sign up for the credit card. Or if they do they should make sure they don’t put stuff on it if they won’t be able to afford to pay it off. Is the idea of people taking responsibility for their own actions alien to you Kermit?
And I don’t see the relevance of your Dickens reference.
The appalling conditions and difficulties of the poor in Dickens time was significantly worse than the plight of the poor today. The fact that the gap is the same is unimportant. Then there was no welfare state, there is now – and it does provide a basic safety net, generally a little bit more than that. Then there was no NHS, healthcare was simply unavailable to the poor. Not really the case now is it?
The gap between rich and poor is of just as much significance now as it was then. Or is it OK to screw people into the ground so long as you don't do it so much they die?
"Responsibility for their actions". So it is OK for this bank, and all other banks, to evade responsibility for their actions by blaming the weakest in society? Is that how it works?
I don’t think banks are ‘blaming’ the weakest in society. I don’t have statistics but of the people who would be classified as among the ‘weakest’ members of society – unemployed, disabled – very prone to getting into debt with these kind of credit cards and poor. However I don’t know of many of those people who are having problems.
On the other hand I do know of quite a few ‘middle class’ people who are in big trouble with credit cards/loans. Living beyond their means; getting into loads of debt to fund several foreign holidays a year, house extensions, cars, conservatries, etc.
It’s a definite downward spiral but there are plenty of people who could be called the ‘weakest members of society’ and simply don’t use credit cards. They choose not to get into debt. Others do. Some do responsibly and others don’t. People should and are free to make that choice and should therefore accept responsibility for the consequences. It's as simple as that really.
Actually I never said they were independent - that's why I put in their quote about being accountable to Parliament.
Out of interest, would graduates deserve it because they "lived beyond their means" by simply attending university?
No. Simply attending university certainly isn’t living beyond your means. However, as graduates generally earn more than non-graduates they have a higher chance of being able to realistically pay back their debts without it getting out of control – rather than say someone who gets into a load of debt through holidays in Florida and designer clothes they can’t afford.
And student loans and top-up fees when they come in are paid back at a very low/no interest.
You obviously have no idea how a credit card works then.
Leaving aside the implications of swapping years of your life and labour in exchange for some photons and the odd printed reminder, that is.
what do you think makes the average higher, more people ditching public services like teaching and going into law and finance
i wont earn more than most people if i became a college teacher....
Of course you can go too far and assume that everyone is a simpleton and unable to understand money, but rates of 10 or 20 times inflation are a bad joke.
The banks cruelly exploit those who cannot go elsewhere.
And to be brutally honest few banks or financial institutions have anything resembling a trace of decency and humanity in them. Have you noticed how the more in debt you are the more invitations for loans and credit cards arrive through the post? And more importantly, how the APRs offered get worse and worse as your financial situation gets worse?
That's the ceaseless wonders of capitalism for you.
They will only lend you money if they know you'll pay it back. The less likely you are to pay, the more they'll charge, so they can make their cash. Financially (to them) that makes sense.
Corporate institutions have no morals. If HSBC had morals they wouldn't have charged me £70 for going £5 overdrawn by mistake, and then because of the £70 charge charging me again and again and again.
The idea that the financial services industry is accountable to anyone is laughable. Almost as laughable as the idea that the corrupt cabal of politicians in Westminster will have the will to stop lining their own pockets with financial services money.
Everyone. And they make sure that no-one can live without their precious paper notes through taxation etc. It's what it's for, more than anything else, to make you play their game.
Yes, all corporations, like the "state" etc are there to allow the soulless sentient programs who give up their humanity to do what they like without being responsible to anyone. It's evil.
They much prefer it if you have some assets and can't. Think about it. the "people" who run the banks know full well that the paper they trade in is absolutely worthless and can fail at any time. It's why they want to convert as much of it as possible into real world stuff.
Except the "people" at the very top don't give a shit about money, they know it's all about control and ownership of real things.
They can't actually do that Kermit. At least if you approach it right.
No, it's exactly the other way around. Everyone is accountable to them and their schizophrenic little game.
Yeah, quite. The thing is, if positions of power keep attracing the same kinds of scum (and they do we both know that) then the thing to do is to abolish the positions of power, not moan about a "few bad apples".
They can go elsewhere, if you set a limit, and its too low there is always other money lenders who they can go to. And they wont just re-possess your house.
If I've had debt problems in the past, for argument's sake, then the only credit I could ever get would be from these banks. And those with debt problems are those most likely to need loans.
Yes, people should be responsible for their finances and not spend way more than they earn. But people shouldn't have to scrimp to get by on value beans just to avoid the hyper-rich bankers from screwing them over and over and over.
IT is impossible to live on less than about ten thousand pounds without being reliant on credit.
The people who then get loans in this market wont be protected by even the law.
A) surely the borrowing is a sympton of inequality, relative poverty etc rather than a cause?
However it is ordinary peoples greed and irresponsibility that fuels this credit boom and these people deserve to be criticised just as strongly.......
Oddly though, the rich are allowed to steal money out of my bank accout in "fees" quite legally, but I took some money form HSBC in "fees" I'd be put in prison as a thief. Bank bosses should be jailed if they are shown to charge more than the base rate in interest.
Toadborg:
a. The borrowing is definitely a symptom of the equality, I quite agree. But what credit does is cement the divides between rich and poor. It is effectively feudalism for the modern era.
b. The capitalist market is set up purely to exploit other people. It serves no other purpose. Profit as unearned income is purely that- robbing the workers of the full rewards of their labour, and ripping off consumers for necessary services.
ETA: "Greed" and "irresponsibility".
Why are the strong in society, the ones with all the control, allowed to evade their resonsibilities ot society by blaming the weak, those without any resources or control?
How does that work? A bank steals from someone, and then says that the victim should have "been more careful". How is that morally justifiable?
I presume you know the first point is just nuts, you'd at a stroke stop all lending of money. Is that really a good idea?
Secondly, yes, it is that. But if regulated moderately well is clearly the best system we've got at present.