Trump proposes cap on credit card interest at 10% (for a year)

[Winston]

It’s weird you think making a market larger is a bad thing and less choice is good

You guys are not consistent. All over the place. The ACA made the market larger, and it increased choice. Now you want to pretend that is what you want?

Look, we have been down this road before. Insurance is highly regulated. Loss ration requirements, guaranteed renew-ability. All at the state level. Do we really want to initiate another race to the bottom? I mean probably, the first thing that is going to happen, is that Virginia is going to remove the guaranteed renew-ability requirement for Medicare supplement. Sure, you live in Vermont, you buy a policy out of Virginia, it is cheaper. But you have a heart attack and then you get the notice, health insurance cancelled. And the thing is, every state will be racing to remove that very restriction in order to attract insurance companies to the state. We all get fucked.

 

[struth]

Exactly. When Congress passed a law under Obama limiting predatory behavior by the Credit Card Companies, Republicans fought that tooth and nail.

Why do you think they'll go along with it now?

Are you talking about this law that passed the senate 90-5 and 357-70 in the house? That bipartisan act? Credit CARD Act of 2009 - Wikipedia

Well the problem is it didn’t address interest rates caps.

 

[struth]

You guys are not consistent. All over the place. The ACA made the market larger, and it increased choice. Now you want to pretend that is what you want?

Look, we have been down this road before. Insurance is highly regulated. Loss ration requirements, guaranteed renew-ability. All at the state level. Do we really want to initiate another race to the bottom? I mean probably, the first thing that is going to happen, is that Virginia is going to remove the guaranteed renew-ability requirement for Medicare supplement. Sure, you live in Vermont, you buy a policy out of Virginia, it is cheaper. But you have a heart attack and then you get the notice, health insurance cancelled. And the thing is, every state will be racing to remove that very restriction in order to attract insurance companies to the state. We all get fucked.

No the ACA didn’t because it didn’t allow insurance companies to cross state lines

If your health insurance is canceled after your heart attack it doesn’t absolve the company for paying for the expenses of what happened when covered

And insurance company doesn’t have to move from a state to compete across state lines anymore then Amazon has to

When a company has to compete against more companies it’s a race to the top. When buyers have more choices of products, the maker of the products to get more customers offer better products and services

What dems and other leftist regimes want to do is give less choices, making monopolies, and less freedom

 

[Winston]

No the ACA didn’t because it didn’t allow insurance companies to cross state lines.

So what, not a good idea. What the ACA did do is remove the ball and chain that was employer provided insurance. That was an additional choice that thousands, perhaps millions, took advantage of. The self employed plumber whose wife worked at Walmart, just for insurance? Well, she don't work there anymore, got insurance on the exchange. The entrepreneur that was afraid to strike out on his own, he did, because he got insurance on the exchange.

If your health insurance is canceled after your heart attack it doesn’t absolve the company for paying for the expenses of what happened when covered

But it does absolve them from any follow up treatment or future expenses. Is that what you want?

And insurance company doesn’t have to move from a state to compete across state lines anymore then Amazon has to

When a company has to compete against more companies it’s a race to the top. When buyers have more choices of products, the maker of the products to get more customers offer better products and services

What dems and other leftist regimes want to do is give less choices, making monopolies, and less freedom

The monopoly part is laughable. Businesses have consolidated to a huge degree over the last four decades. There is no enforcement of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, or the FTC act. And that is regardless of the administration in power.

 

[struth]

So what, not a good idea. What the ACA did do is remove the ball and chain that was employer provided insurance. That was an additional choice that thousands, perhaps millions, took advantage of. The self employed plumber whose wife worked at Walmart, just for insurance? Well, she don't work there anymore, got insurance on the exchange. The entrepreneur that was afraid to strike out on his own, he did, because he got insurance on the exchange.

But it does absolve them from any follow up treatment or future expenses. Is that what you want?

The monopoly part is laughable. Businesses have consolidated to a huge degree over the last four decades. There is no enforcement of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, or the FTC act. And that is regardless of the administration in power.

1) the aca didn’t lift employer based health insurance, you never had to get your insurance through your employer before
2) so what? You really don’t understand how markets work if you think restricting competition is good for any consumer

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

That opinion didn’t gut usury laws. It just decided which states a national bank could charge all their customers…and that is, their home state

And this thread is about credit cards not mortgages so not sure why you are citing the AMTPA

BS.

MARQUETTE NAT. BANK v. FIRST OF OMAHA CORP. (1978)​

No. 77-1265​

Argued: October 31, 1978​

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 77-1258, Minnesota v. First of Omaha Service Corp. et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

The First National Bank of Omaha (Omaha Bank) is a national banking association chartered in Nebraska; it is enrolled in the BankAmericard plan, and solicits for that plan in Minnesota.

Omaha Bank charges its Minnesota cardholders interest on their unpaid balances at a rate permitted by Nebraska law, but in excess of that permitted by Minnesota law.

The Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis (Marquette), a Minnesota-chartered national banking association enrolled in the BankAmericard plan, brought suit in Minnesota against Omaha Bank and its subsidiary, respondent First of Omaha Service Corp., inter alia, to enjoin the operation of Omaha Bank's BankAmericard program in Minnesota until such time as it complied with the Minnesota usury law.

Rejecting respondent's contention that Minnesota's usury law was preempted by the National Bank Act provision codified as 12 U.S.C. 85, which authorizes a national banking association "to charge on any loan" interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State "where the bank is located," the state trial court granted Marquette's motion for partial summary judgment.

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. Held: Section 85 permits Omaha Bank to charge its Minnesota BankAmericard customers the higher interest rate that is sanctioned by Nebraska law. Pp. 307-319.

 

[Crepitus]

congress does have the power ! and the POTUS is calling on them to cut CC rates ! will your leftist leaders in DC vote against it ?

 

[SaxonJackson]

While he's at it ... why not "cap" the interest on the nearly $40 Trillion national debt. That would REALLY piss the Rothschild family off.

I'm just glad I'm debt free and don't have to worry about interest in the first place. As far as I'm concerned ... 10% interest is still a rip off.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The hilarity of this - the left media is coming out against this.
Proving again, they would be against ANYTHING Trump does.

 

[struth]

BS.

MARQUETTE NAT. BANK v. FIRST OF OMAHA CORP. (1978)​

No. 77-1265​

Argued: October 31, 1978​

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 77-1258, Minnesota v. First of Omaha Service Corp. et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

The First National Bank of Omaha (Omaha Bank) is a national banking association chartered in Nebraska; it is enrolled in the BankAmericard plan, and solicits for that plan in Minnesota.

Omaha Bank charges its Minnesota cardholders interest on their unpaid balances at a rate permitted by Nebraska law, but in excess of that permitted by Minnesota law.

The Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis (Marquette), a Minnesota-chartered national banking association enrolled in the BankAmericard plan, brought suit in Minnesota against Omaha Bank and its subsidiary, respondent First of Omaha Service Corp., inter alia, to enjoin the operation of Omaha Bank's BankAmericard program in Minnesota until such time as it complied with the Minnesota usury law.

Rejecting respondent's contention that Minnesota's usury law was preempted by the National Bank Act provision codified as 12 U.S.C. 85, which authorizes a national banking association "to charge on any loan" interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State "where the bank is located," the state trial court granted Marquette's motion for partial summary judgment.

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. Held: Section 85 permits Omaha Bank to charge its Minnesota BankAmericard customers the higher interest rate that is sanctioned by Nebraska law. Pp. 307-319.

What did I say that was BS? I read the opinion, it says what I said

 

[Greenbeard]

When a company has to compete against more companies it’s a race to the top.

As every state that's relaxed its requirements and allowed out-of-state insurers to sell within its borders with minimal oversight has discovered, no out-of-state insurer has to enter its market. And virtually none ever chooses to. The creation--and bolstering, in the early 2020s--of the ACA marketplaces is the only time we've had significant activity with insurers entering new markets and trying to disrupt local incumbents.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What did I say that was BS? I read the opinion, it says what I said

"And this thread is about credit cards not mortgages so not sure why you are citing the AMTPA"?

 

[SweetTea]

Thats what I do. I just pay it off whenever the statement comes. They never get any interest from me. I just use them.

Yep, same here. I pay every bill I have online with a card that pays a flat 2% rate back on everything. Of course I don’t pay things that charge a surcharge for using the car, but none of my utilities or other bills do. Pay off the bill at the end of the month. Free money. I only wish I could pay my property taxes with the card without paying a surcharge which is greater than the 2% I earn.

 

[struth]

"And this thread is about credit cards not mortgages so not sure why you are citing the AMTPA"?

That of course is true

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Socialism is only bad when the other guy does it. Trump is the most economically illiterate president of our lifetime, which is no small feat. This proposal would do the greatest harm to millions of low Americans by depriving them access to credit when they need it. These rates are based on risk and when companies can’t charge for risk, they won’t lend. It's very simple.

 

[Darlo kittu]

While he's at it ... why not "cap" the interest on the nearly $40 Trillion national debt. That would REALLY piss the Rothschild family off.

I'm just glad I'm debt free and don't have to worry about interest in the first place. As far as I'm concerned ... 10% interest is still a rip

Socialism is only bad when the other guy does it. Trump is the most economically illiterate president of our lifetime, which is no small feat. This proposal would do the greatest harm to millions of low Americans by depriving them access to credit when they need it. These rates are based on risk and when companies can’t charge for risk, they won’t lend. It's very simple.

So Mr Economics Professor what happened to all those predictions the left made over the last year?

Where is the recession? Where is the crashing stock market? Where are the vanishing 401K'S? Where is the high unemployment? Where is the rising inflation?

Oh and I am sure you will ignore the tax cuts for the working class and seniors that took effect January 1st

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

20% to 30% is "criminal theft" IMO.

10% cap doesn't seem too far out of line for the lenders, but I'd think 15 % might have been a more reasonable compromise start

I am curious as to how he thinks he can make this happen. I think it is a great idea as I believe most credit card companies are milking everyone they can.

President Trump is the idea man. The Shell answer man on steroids. Grinding gears everyday to keep improvements coming hard and fast.

never say never ! Trump is very good at pressuring agencies to do what he wants ! and remember [HES CALLING FOR A 10% CAP] in other words republicans in Congress actually do have the power to cap CC rates ! will Dems vote against a bill pushed by the POTUS to cap rates ?

 

[Winston]

1) the aca didn’t lift employer based health insurance, you never had to get your insurance through your employer before
2) so what? You really don’t understand how markets work if you think restricting competition is good for any consumer

I didn't say the ACA eliminated employer provided health insurance, I said it removed the ball and chain that was employer provided health insurance. Come on.

Prior to the ACA, sure, you didn't have to get employer provided health insurance, you could purchase an individual policy, provided you had no pre-existing conditions. But the pool within where you shared your risk was confined to your ******* ZIP CODE. Even under employer provided health insurance, the pool is limited to the company. That provides large companies, like Walmart, a huge competitive advantage.

The ACA changed that. Small companies could steer their employees to the exchange where they are diversifying their risk with a large group, not just their company. Self-employed people could diversify their health care risk through the entire state, not just their ZIP code.

And I don't understand why it is not easy to see. Allowing insurance companies to "shop" state regulations is no different than the Marquette decision and will generate the same results. Requiring states to abide by the laws in states they operate in, not the state they are domiciled in, does not discourage competition. If anything, it protects consumers just like the old usury laws did.

 

[struth]

I didn't say the ACA eliminated employer provided health insurance, I said it removed the ball and chain that was employer provided health insurance. Come on.

Prior to the ACA, sure, you didn't have to get employer provided health insurance, you could purchase an individual policy, provided you had no pre-existing conditions. But the pool within where you shared your risk was confined to your ******* ZIP CODE. Even under employer provided health insurance, the pool is limited to the company. That provides large companies, like Walmart, a huge competitive advantage.

The ACA changed that. Small companies could steer their employees to the exchange where they are diversifying their risk with a large group, not just their company. Self-employed people could diversify their health care risk through the entire state, not just their ZIP code.

And I don't understand why it is not easy to see. Allowing insurance companies to "shop" state regulations is no different than the Marquette decision and will generate the same results. Requiring states to abide by the laws in states they operate in, not the state they are domiciled in, does not discourage competition. If anything, it protects consumers just like the old usury laws did.

And it didn’t do that, as you could always get insurance on your own without your employer

Businesses also never had to offer healthcare,

Healthcare insurance was also always across the entire state and still is.

You really have no clue what the aca did or didn’t do

 

[Winston]

And it didn’t do that, as you could always get insurance on your own without your employer

Businesses also never had to offer healthcare,

Healthcare insurance was also always across the entire state and still is.

You really have no clue what the aca did or didn’t do

Wow, thirty years experience, millions of dollars under management, thousands of clients. No, health insurance was not across the entire state.

45 CFR § 156.80 - Single risk pool.

www.law.cornell.edu