Stoozing-is it really right?

gizmoleeds

CTT wrote:

Sorry but your post really
p...sed me off.

There is no need to be that rude CTT - meher is simply pointing out she doesn't feel comfortable with what she sees as exploiting a bank (which is exactly what it is - although most of us justify it in that banks exploit us to a far greater degree).

"Remember there's no such thing as a stupid question, pls be nice to all MoneySavers!" - it's written at the top of the page.

canny_yorkshireman_2

[ Also wont you put your family at risk-if you just die and go away leaving your already strssed family to deal with this,

If you stooze on creditcards alone then no risk to plundering the family with debt as only the card holder is liable for the debt but have seen the practice of card companies persuing the family for the outstanding debt which in my opinion is disgraceful behaviour and should be outlawed.

meheraltaf

thanks gizmo..so sweet-i knew though someone would come along and ridicule me or try to be awkward about it, but it's like pouring water over the duck......I know nothing about stoozing-only asking. and by the grace of god hope I wouldnt need to find this way to make money and live off interest. It might be clever, but not so sure if it's right. I may be wrong but no hass convinced me yet

CTT wrote:

Sorry but your post really
p...sed me off.

PS. No I am not sorry its people like you that p me off.

Please dont be p off because it's not me that makes you feel that, it is this 'morality' issue whihc we are all aware of that is making you feel that way....;)

I happen to be a little busy with little children guests chewing my ears, will be back to address and acknowledge eevryone's points because I want to get into the bottom of my own problem with this concept.

Ed, I like the capitilism bit, specially that students are clever with this-but still, is it right? Considering that there is always the big chance of going bankrupt for whatever reason and leaving the debt to whom?

Actually canny Yorkshire has addresed the 'risk' factor...one of my questions would be, if the family who have obviously benefited from all this cannot be part of dealing with the debt incurred wont that be immoral though not illegal? And who does the dead man leave this debt if family dont have means to return it? Perhaps a wise stoozer has done everything right, organised himself, but someone naive and stupid consider this with all the propoganda...that's another of my concerns

I need time to get back on this to make myself clear......thanks again everyone, if someone can address the risks you burden the lenders with in the meantime please

CTT_2

gizmoleeds wrote:

There is no need to be that rude CTT - meher is simply pointing out she doesn't feel comfortable with what she sees as exploiting a bank (which is exactly what it is - although most of us justify it in that banks exploit us to a far greater degree).

"Remember there's no such thing as a stupid question, pls be nice to all MoneySavers!" - it's written at the top of the page.

You are right. I have to try and be tolerant of stupid people in 2006 and must accept there stupid questions.

gizmoleeds

meheraltaf wrote:

Considering that there is always the big chance of going bankrupt for whatever reason and leaving the debt to whom?

If you go bankrupt then your assets would be seized to pay your debts and the debts written off. I very much doubt someone who is in enough debt for bankruptcy would be stoozing in the first place.

meheraltaf wrote:

Actually canny Yorkshire has addresed the 'risk' factor...one of my questions would be, if the family who have obviously benefited from all this cannot be part of dealing with the debt incurred wont that be immoral though not illegal? And who does the dead man leave this debt if family dont have means to return it? Perhaps a wise stoozer has done everything right, organised himself, but someone naive and stupid consider this with all the propoganda...that's another of my concerns

If you die then your debt would be paid from your estate (which would include the bank account in which you had deposited the stoozing money) so I don't see any real problem here. If the money is not in a bank account then you are not a stoozer - you are just some guy who has borrowed on credit cards .

Moglex

CTT wrote:

You are right. I have to try and be tolerant of stupid people in 2006 and must accept there stupid questions.

Well, if you want to appear so holier than though and super intelligent, you might like to learn the difference between 'there' and 'their', lest some think you a stupid person

Tim_L

There is no morality issue here.

Differentials between what you can obtain something for and what you can get for it are what fuels trade of any kind, be it operating a conventional retail business, buying stuff at a car boot and selling it on Ebay, or borrowing money at low rates and investing it at higher rates, which is all stoozing is about. In fact anyone with a bank account is lending money to the bank which they invest to get higher returns from which they pay shareholders (or finance promotional deals such as 0% lending). Indeed the safe stoozing savings accounts are themselves being used to generate profits for the institutions offering them.

I do, I must admit, have a little bit of a problem with people questioning the morality of others when they admit they don't really know how something works and that they don't have time to investigate things for themselves. If you want to take a moral stance on anything, then do your homework first, then make a cogent argument.

As for the argument that a deceased's family might suffer because a stoozer hadn't followed a safe course, well this is an argument against foolishness, not against stoozing. If someone is foolish enough to borrow money without the means to repay it, then their family might suffer. This has nothing to do with the rates at which the money is bothered, it is to do with the foolishness of someone's financial arrangements.

meheraltaf

Tim_L wrote:

There is no morality issue here.

I would assume that's an individual opinion...;)

Tim_L wrote:

I do, I must admit, have a little bit of a problem with people questioning the morality of others when they admit they don't really know how something works and that they don't have time to investigate things for themselves. If you want to take a moral stance on anything, then do your homework first, then make a cogent argument..

First of all, I am not debating or arguing, I am only asking, genuine question. Look at my discalimer in my posts...I dont know, so much that even if people try to debate with me, I dont understand, specially if people start getting awkward.

As for not doing the homework or investigating, I would do it only if I want to stooz, and I dont intend to-all I want is views to help me understand the very basic concept. Its again individual style. I understand about stoozing but have resrvations about his concept-can't I have one and can't I ask people?

Gizmo-people obviously are not offered that loan if they cant afford, but some confident fools do get bankrupt at some point-who bears the risk-are the consequences fair on the lenders?

The stoozers seem to feel bad.....:D , all them pouncing on my innocent post, so surely it is not so straightfoward a way of investing or saving! It surely is clever-but reservations on credibility. And the more people attack me here, the more convinced I would be....:D

May be stupid-thanks, I dont mind being one as long as I dont resort to immoral ways to build on my savings and live off interest from a loan. You are a debtor when you stooz-am I right?

allycat999

CTT wrote:

You are right. I have to try and be tolerant of stupid people in 2006 and must accept there stupid questions.

Seems unfair to me that people ask questions and end up being called stupid. Just because your knowledge on a certain subject may be superior to the person asking the question it does not make you superior or them stupid.
I personally live by the rule that there is no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid answers.

As for stoozing I would not do it personally not because I don't agree with it simply because I can't be bothered.

Halaku

There are very little risks involved with stoozing, the only very serious possibility would be if you forgot when the 0% period expired. But stoozing should only be done by organised numerate people, and for these types of people, remembering what day to pay off and cancel a credit card is pedestrian. If you don't feel you can do this with several cards, stoozing isn't for you.


"Some of the more numerate students have been known to make a profit by borrowing low-interest student loans and then putting the money on deposit at a higher interest rate and pocketing the difference."

Been doing that for the past couple of years. :beer:

In fact, I managed to delay paying my accomodation fees until the end of the academic year just so I could keep the money in my savings account a couple of months longer. The accomodation office wasn't very happy, but who cares!