Rise of instant loan machines sparks fears for low-income earners - Sensationalist Headlines

Shame that economic benefits of homeownership haven't been demonstrated, much less demonstrated to outweigh the cons on a large scale. And again, you're bringing up investments in the context of an asset that often barely keeps up with inflation and ties you to a land, along with incurring extra costs and not even having equity for several years. You throw money into a pit with mortgages too, that's literally the point of the fucking mortgage. The principle is the only thing you gain equity, value, from. You "throw money" into the principle, interest, and taxes. In most cases, you only begin to build a significant amount of value in the last few years of the loan, with decades of throwing money into the void. When you take that, and apply the basic principle of opportunity cost (aka, your money could be doing more elsewhere) then you certainly ARE "throwing away" money by both renting and mortgaging. You only have "more spending money" in a fallacious sense, much like how it may have felt good to take care of your low-interest debt first instead of high-interest debt, it's fictitious.

Source. That flies into the face of the basic principle that money in the pockets of the lower and middle classes results in a better economy because they spend more. Not having to spend $1,000+/month on rent would add a lot of money in their pockets after their mortgages are paid off. I'm not talking about a home as an investment to make money. No matter how you slice it, renting in an apartment is a zero sum game. You don't get any of that money back, not even a fraction. On the other hand, you WILL get at least some of that money back on a home/land. You WILL have some ROI, which can't be said for any apartment. But you're spending the money on housing anyways. You can't spend it on something else if you're spending it on rent. The second point makes no sense because while you do pay a mortgage, the mortgage eventually ends when you pay it off. You will ALWAYS have to pay rent on an apartment, even until the day you die. Only one option allows you to spend significantly less money over your lifetime compared to the other. If you start renting at the age of 20, and your friend buys a house at the age of 20, you will always spend more money throughout your lifetime than him. If you both live until the age of 80, he pays $1,000/month for 40 years, while you pay $1,000/month for 60 years. When he dies, his family has an asset to sell and get money back. Your family does not. He comes out ahead, you don't. The goal isn't to make money, it's to preserve as much wealth as possible. Where renting preserves zero wealth, owning a house preserves at least a percentage, if not makes you a profit in SOME cases.

I already provided a source to what I said earlier Also provide a source for your crude keynesianism tbh Do i literally have to break out a calculator. You don't get your rent money, but remember, that any money spent could have been spent elsewhere. In this case, the large cost of a house could have been put into investments and done more than just keeping up with inflation. The mortgage ends, and the money rewards you with a mediocre asset at the end. My family would have MORE money if I put that into a higher-performing asset. And remember, as I said, this thing isn't an "either/or" case. I plan on trying to buy a house eventually, or even better, getting some nice rural land and building one but I acknowledge that it's out of vanity and not because I'm making a rational financial decision. And in certain favorable conditions, you can win out by buying a house of course. The house I live in right now has damn near doubled in the last several years due to explosive economic growth, I'm talking average expectations however. this is a meaningless statement. When your money is doing one thing, it could be doing something else. This is one of the most basic principles of finance.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2011/12/07/10773/the-middle-class-grows-the-economy-not-the-rich-2/ And money put into rent could have been spent elsewhere. This is a null point. And renting leaves you with no asset whatsoever, so which one is better? And your family would also have more money if you put your rent money into a higher-performing asset instead of rent, but I'm guessing you need a place to live. It's not a meaningless statement. You keep saying that mortgage payments could be better used elsewhere, but that doesn't excuse the fact that if you're not paying a mortgage, you're paying rent. It IS a one or the other case, unless you already have your mortgage paid off, or you're homeless and don't want somewhere to live.

A lot of the time renting is more expensive than monthly mortgage payments, depending on where you live, with the added downside that you'll never see that money again. There is no benefit to renting other than mobility, any higher performing investments that can be made while renting can just as easily be made when paying a mortgage.

That isn't a source and it doesn't actually talk about your claim Yeah no I'm going to have to use some math for this (got class tho so ill be back in a few hours to post it)

btw in Europe people buy apartments

I'd like to add, you can determine how poor a neighbourhood is by the number of betting places and kebab shops too. The more a town falls into the doldrums, the more of these places show up.

Caveat Emptor is not an excuse for predating on people.

My mortgage payment is lower than rent payments in the same building that I currently live in would be.

I gave that citation earlier on page 1, and I said that it isn't always a worse decision financially. It's just that it often is (average case,) and I don't like people parroting mythical generalizations about rent throwing money away, and whatnot.

Give me the line between offering a legitimate service and predating.

When your business model relies on people who are so desperate that they think it's their only choice and then deliberately catch them in a debt that they may struggle to pay off for years, I'd say that counts as predation.

I'm far less willing to force people into decisions that I think are good for them. If the agreement is clear, then who am I to tell another equal and free adult that they aren't allowed to do it?

Desperation makes people stupid.

That may be true, but they are free adults just like I am. Me thinking a person is making a bad decision does not give me the right to force them to choose differently.

I think these machines are meant to profit over panic loans rather than allowing people to get loans after going through the usual process.

Your thinking that home OWNERSHIP is purely vanity is just dumb. It pretty much disqualifies your whole argument because its so blatantly wrong.

I don't see how that changes what I said. People make bad decisions all the time. It's part of life. It's part of living in a free society.

I dont think you understand how money, investments, interests, principle, or housing works. Did you get brainwashed by some corporate apartment cult?

I mean if that were the case why do we have laws to restrict gambling? It's a free society, but that doesn't mean that you should be trying to incentivize and profit off of self-destructive behavior.

Using emotionally laden words isn't an argument. You know what else I believe to be based on bad decision making? The sweets industry, the ice cream industry, the soda industry, the restaurant industry, the alcohol industry, the marijuana industry, much of the housing industry, much of the car industry, etc. If you consider offering people the free choice to make a bad decision "disenfranchisement," then much of the free economy needs to be shut down for the same reason.

Ah yes, emotionally laden words like "poor people" and "disenfranchised". How dare I make an argument against further ruining peoples lives. You can make retarded comparisons all day long but building an economy off people's bad decisions when stuck in shitty situations is part of the reason this country sucks so bad. Jimmy rolling an ankle when drunk is a bad thing brought on by a bad choice. Jimmy gambling away his paycheck is a bad thing brought on by a horrible addiction. Jimmy getting a payday loan that throws him further in the hole is a bad thing brought on by a bad situation. Yea, Jimmy is an idiot but his idiocy shouldnt be profitable. If you think its morally and ethically acceptable to have an economy based on keeping poor people poor, then thats cool. But dont sugarcoat this debate by watering down a payday loan with disgusting terms to "a choice".

I don't think it's a morally good thing at all, but we don't make laws because we think something is morally bad.

What these companies do is a wilful exploitation of people's desperate and possibly emotionally compromised states, it is not a case of them simply making "bad decisions". When a company like this gives you what seems like a golden option, dressed up with a neat little bow and obfuscated with financial terms that a lot of low-income people won't understand (shit even I don't understand all the legalese around payday loans and I've got an above-average understanding of the law) when all your others are to languish in poverty and possibly starve, how can you say it's anything but predation?

Can confirm. When I was student and had fuck all money - When my car broke down, I was desperately looking for money, banks refused me because I am a student, I was considering going to loan sharks or getting money by any means possible. If it wasn't for few friends who lent me money - I would've definitely be in dept. P.S - I needed 1500 Eur back then.

Actually morality is a big reason why laws exists lmfao. If morals were irrelevant there would be no society. I'm using the exact same logic as prohibitionists if you take it to a comedic extreme. Alcohol can be detrimental. No reason to get rid of it. Predatory lenders are only detrimental. Thats a pretty good reason to get rid of it. Do you thinj loan sharks should be legalized? Theyrethe exact same as these lending machines, only the consequences for a late payment is broken knee caps instead of high interest.

For every concious carefully laid out decision that you make you make hundreds of automatic ones. One might brush off taking a loan from something like this as "Eh, it's convenient and I don't have to walk to the bank", but they aren't fully realizing just how much it being that convenient is actually making them take out more loans then they ever would have otherwise. Humans are very very bad when it comes to choosing immediate gain at the expense of future suffering, addiction is am example of this.

I'd say morality isn't necessary for there to be society. Laws provide stability and make it much easier for people to invest resources and produce value. Even if people are just screwing each other over all the time, a master would benefit from protecting his slaves. Quite a few of the things we do or don't do for moral reasons are also rational.

Laws provide order but theyre based on morality for the most part. Otherwise things like slavery and murder would be legal because they are immensely easy to profit on.