Barclaycard interest hike! from 17.9% p.a. to 22.9% p.a

jmb1

ILW wrote: »

Seems as it should be, the example is of someone who is obviously a much lower risk than yourself and therefore paying a lower rate.

Do you think the higher risk borrowers should pay less than the less risky ones?

No. But 17.9% which I signed up to is higher than 6%. Is the sky the limit the riskier you become? If not commercially, it's morally indefensible.

The 'I'm well off and therefore it doesn't effect or bother me' argument is exactly the problem with the country we live in and our government. The rich make sure they get richer. Ok I'm off on a tangent here but that was really the gist of my original point and post.

ILW

jmb1 wrote: »

No. But 17.9% which I signed up to is higher than 6%. Is the sky the limit the riskier you become? If not commercially, it's morally indefensible.

The 'I'm well off and therefore it doesn't effect or bother me' argument is exactly the problem with the country we live in and our government. The rich make sure they get richer. Ok I'm off on a tangent here but that was really the gist of my original point and post.

Yes, the sky is the limit according to risk. If there is a good chance you will not get your money back, you need to price in that possibility.

The problem you have is that you have put yourself into a position of relying on credit for day to day living. By doing that you need to expect to have to pay the price of being a high risk borrower.

mgdavid

jmb1 wrote: »

No. But 17.9% which I signed up to is higher than 6%. Is the sky the limit the riskier you become? If not commercially, it's morally indefensible.

The 'I'm well off and therefore it doesn't effect or bother me' argument is exactly the problem with the country we live in and our government. The rich make sure they get richer. Ok I'm off on a tangent here but that was really the gist of my original point and post.

would you be richer if your OH was not on maternity leave?
Everyone has choices to make in their lives, it's how you arrive at the decisions that often separates the better-off from the less well-off. IMO.

jmb1

Never argue with idiots - they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Best piece of advice so far!

Richer? No. Not using my cc? Yes.

CLAPTON

jmb1 wrote: »

Never argue with idiots - they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Best piece of advice so far!

Richer? No. Not using my cc? Yes.

nevertheless I will try

go over to the debt free wannabe board and post up an SOA and focus on real problems that are in your direct control.

jmb1

Now you're branding me an idiot for expressing an opinion?

Thanks. But as I've continually said I wasn't looking for advice, as well-intended as it might have been, or as much as you might think everybody posting anything on these forums might need it.

ILW

jmb1 wrote: »

Now you're branding me an idiot for expressing an opinion?

Thanks. But as I've continually said I wasn't looking for advice, as well-intended as it might have been, or as much as you might think everybody posting anything on these forums might need it.

Your opinion is rather naive.

In the end, high risk borrowers pay higher rates of interest than low risk borrowers. How can that seem wrong to you?

jmb1

I understand high risk borrowers pay more interest, it's the amount more that I'm arguing against....

It's self-perpetuating, if the risk a debtor poses is being in higher debt, then the more interest they charge the more debt they are in, making them yet higher risk, so they can charge them more, and more.

Yes, this is how they make their money. It doesn't make it right. It's sheer corporate greed.

Sorry for seeing that as wrong.

ILW

jmb1 wrote: »

I understand high risk borrowers pay more interest, it's the amount more that I'm arguing against....

It's self-perpetuating, if the risk a debtor poses is being in higher debt, then the more interest they charge the more debt they are in, making them yet higher risk, so they can charge them more, and more.

Yes, this is how they make their money. It doesn't make it right. It's sheer corporate greed.

Sorry for seeing that as wrong.

Nobody is forced into taking these debts, I would suggest consumer greed plays a large part.

guesswho2000

jmb1 wrote: »

Yes, this is how they make their money. It doesn't make it right. It's sheer corporate greed.

Sorry for seeing that as wrong.

Corporate greed or not, they're within their rights. Nobody is forcing you to borrow money from Barclays, and they're not legally obliged to lend it to you.

Sorry I know that sounds harsh, but I've been dealt the same card from lenders before (MBNA actually, seems its a normal thing for them), I voted with my feet and left.