Re: Payday Lending Part Deux

Lisa Ann wrote:
> On May 17, 2:46 pm, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:34:02 GMT, Mary <mrfeath...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal
>>> attack'') wrote:
>>
>>>> Really? So there are no consequences over the entire society worth
>>>> mentioning from people rolling over pay day loans? We should ask
>>>> why people go to pay day places in the first place. Isn't it true
>>>> that better deals are available at banks? Why do people cash checks
>>>> for a fee at those same pay day loan places? Why don't they just go
>>>> to their bank and get the money for free?
>>
>>> Okay, list the consequences to the "entire society".
>>
>>> As for the choices of adult citizens, I may think they're
>>> boneheaded,
>>> but it's not my business. And unless it's harming someone else, it's
>>> not the state's business either.
>>
>>> Mary
>>
>> I'll tag on here....
>>
>> There are a considerable number of people who have no bank accounts
>> whatsoever. Their finances are such that bank service fees would wipe
>> out any benefits of having a account. Payday loan/check ca****ng
>> companies provide services to the unbanked (yep, that is the term
>> used).
>
> Yes, "unbanked" is the term used.  However, most payday lenders will
> not lend you money if you don't have a bank account.  Most of those
> will not lend you money if you don't have a checking account.
>
> For the truly, truly poor and unbanked...there are even fewer
> options.  Pawn shops maybe.
>>

And even pawn shops can be picky, especially these days. I used to work in

Social Security in the UK and spent most of my time in the  late 60s and 
early 70s with aforesaid truly, truly poor and unbanked. There were always

street level lenders who would charge high interest (and be especially 
accommodating in rolling over loans to the point where a loan of 50 pounds

became a debt of a thousand pounds in a matter of a couple of years). They

would accompany their victims when they went to cash their Social Security

benefits (at a Post Office - no bank accounts) or actually confiscate the 
payment book and cash it themselves. The problem was sufficiently acute
that 
there was a provision in the 1966 Ministry of Social Security Act making
it 
an offence to hold someone else's benefits book as a pledge or security
for 
a debt. And it also said that the onus of proof was on the person in 
possession of the book which, AFAIK, was the only instance where you could

be held to be guilty unless you could prove your innocence. Not that I 
remember anyone being prosecuted for the offence - no-one was going to be 
offered the Witness Protection Programme over a fifty quid debt so people 
were naturally reluctant to speak up.
AFAIK, the problem is still with us. The poorest people have the hardest 
time getting credit and they pay far, far more for the privilege than
people 
who are better off.
-- 
John Dean
Oxford