Existing Credit Card Debt Costs

The Outrage In Your Credit Card's Fine Print

Blue Ridge Summit, PA. - Would you sign a contract that says, "Any term can be changed at any time for any reason, including no reason"? Anyone who uses a credit card already has.

Such are the absurd terms of the consumer credit-card industry, which is poised to be the next big crisis (after housing) that banks have aided and abetted in US households.

Americans have now racked up nearly $1 trillion in credit-card debt. As housing equity shrinks and costs rise, agencies such as Moody's report swelling numbers of accounts with balances three or more payments past due. Reinforced by abusive industry practices, the plastic safety net is becoming a permanent cage.

But here's the good news: If you've ever been steamed by surprise fees on your credit-card statement or had your interest rate cranked up without warning, the Federal Reserve Board wants to help you. The Fed? That oracular secret society whose chairmen say Yoda-like things about interest rates? Well, actually, yes.

Ever since its remarkable "oversight" of junk lending led to the mortgage melt-down, the Fed seems determined not to let credit-card defaults drive the American banking system any closer to Third World standards.

There's plenty to reform. During the housing bubble, credit-card vendors inflated interest rates – even as the Fed slashed them – and found increasingly sneaky ways to usher their customers into perpetually indebted servitude. Such as:

•Raising rates as high as 32 percent on existing balances, with no notice, even when they've always been paid on time.

•Compressing the time between statement mailings and due dates.

•Charging interest on debt already repaid.

•Posting on-time payments after their due date – and then charging late fees.

•Neglecting to disclose how much interest and time it will take to pay off a balance with minimum payments (if ever).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ylange;_ylt= AgZpM2IUNMSAWdos.8g_WlkDW7oF

You have changed my way of looking at my credit card..........lol

2008-08-14 02:51:44 by J.B. Holiday

www.letsforgetdebt.com - An excellent informative site and service to help anyone with credit card debt. A step by step video talking about the ...

Will it be a more cost effective option for me to place a portion ($1000) of my student loan debt ($29,000) with APR of 6.75 unto my existing credit card (no current balance) with a 5% APR?

My obvious intentions are to reduce principle on my loan total and to be able to reduce the amount of accrued interest over the life of the loan.

All suggestions/strategies are welcome.
Thanks in advance

Mathematically, maybe. But, you have to consider if you are getting a tax deduction on your student loan interest, and how long the credit card will be at 5%. You also should consider how much of an emergency fund you have in case anything happens to your job, car, or health.

From a pure math point of view, moving $1,000 to a card with 1.75% lower interst rate will save you $17.50 per year - almost $1.50 a month. Not zero, but not a whole lot either. If you don't have any savings account, then I would keep the student loan where it is, and keep the credit card available in case you need an emergency source of funds.

Now if you were able to find a way to refinance the whole $29,000 to a 5% loan, then the savings would be substantial - about $40 a month.
The best way to reduce your overall cost is to put as much money as you can against the principal amount. If you get a second job, or get gifts, or find rebates, or get a tax refund, use it to pay down the loan and you will see the interest rate decrease.

2009-03-10 10:11:14 by digimac8984

Details in the recent correspondence between me and the lawyer -

" I am greatly disturbed, astonished, concerned and disappointed to receive this document reflecting a disproportionate value of assumed charged services from your office. The timesheet - invoice has been altered, embellished and does not reflect a real occurring exchange between us. Their was no written signed or approved client engagement or retainer agreement that was yet determined between each other. Without signed approval or even having a clear direction in the nature of the reasonable value of legal services to be rendered, I recommend you honestly reevaluate and disaffirm this invoice.

Based on our phone correspondence, you requested for me to provide you with relevant facts to describe the circumstances related to the business, my involvement and gather information on the other partner's position and status around the separation of the verbal business venture and partnership, and to subsequently follow-up with you. With candor I shared with you in very short, explicit and brief phone conversations the relevant facts and circumstances of the business decision that I needed to make with this matter, offering the current status of the business, the assets, vendor debt, clients, lease agreement, role and responsibilities that we had and the existing position with ..... the partner having uncertainty, being ill equipped with the matter and unable to bring a plan of action or resolution. You did not answer any questions nor in return bring me a clear rational exit strategy or substantive legal advise. Entrusting you to help with this matter "my livelihood" - I did not receive any substantial guidance - you did not instruct me in considering my options and to offer me a systematic evaluation of probabilities and consequences. In our meeting I introduced the urgent need to prepare a legal written document to solidify my separation and departure from the company and seek to negotiate concessions as well as to protect me from existing and future liabilities, for which I did not receive such a letter nor advise on what liabilities to be concerned with, instead I was mailed a impersonal embellished invoice from your office. This should be beyond dispute, I have not received adequate services, a clear rational exit strategy communicated to me, nor a legal document that would support this matter to be resolved in a quick and amicable manner for the both of us to agree and sign. I feel you did not provide relevant advise, clear perimeters of your counsel, time, as well as us having agreed on fixed terms for the fees based on actual work completed and or to be provided.

This is not what I anticipated from you or your law firm, at this point, this has cost me valuable time, agony, distress, significant loss of money, loss of any controlling interest in the business " ....." with the result of us separating from each other with no clear written resolve, it’s brought me significant credit card debt, and with the impact of the economic conditions I’ve been unemployed for months. I find it would be difficult for your firm to restore client confidence going forward and assume this matter to be closed. "


Note: He has chosen to disregard the letter and the facts. His office has sent me a invoice with added interest in the past 3 months for 1,900.00 . What further steps can i take or should do ?

What you can do depends partly on where you are. If you believe the law firm has acted irresponsibly or unprofessionally, and you have exhausted all complaints procedures that the law firm itself has, then you could write to the law firm's supervisory body. Certainly, if you are in England and Wales, there would be a prima facie case against the law firm (the lack of an engagement letter between you and the firm being unprofessional in the first instance).

Ultimately, unless there is a specific law about legal fees in your jurisdiction, it would be up to the law firm to sue you for non-payment of fees. In the absence of a written contract, you would have to pay them a fair price for the services provided. You seem to be arguing that that fair price is nil - and you may be able to get a Court to agree to that. Alternatively, the law firm may be able to get a Court to agree to its position. Whether the law firm has a right to pay interest is down to local law. In the absence of a local law allowing them to charge you interest, and in the absence of an agreement between them and you allowing them to charge you interest, then no interest would be payable.

2009-09-14 12:58:26 by B

Oprah's mother racked up about $175,000 in credit card debt, and I have no doubt that she made it known that Oprah was her daughter and demanded special attention for it. None of us can rack up $175,000 at department stores... never gonna happen.

But Oprah's complaint is, the store should eat the costs because "they never explained to her that she was responsible for the charges":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_o n_en_tv/people_winfrey_s_mom

NOOOO, of COURSE not. The STORE is responsible for the charges, and all the rest of us in society.

Sounds awfully familiar.

Obama and his cronies are saying the EXACT SAME THING about the shady home loans that they gave out like candy to the poor black communities. Now that those loans have collapsed and many of the properties have become worthless, it's OUR FAULT because we allowed Fannie/Freddie Mac to EXIST and didn't explain to these folks that these weren't free loans.

Is it no coincidence that Oprah is so enamoured with Obama? He shrugs off personal liability and responsibility just like her. The IMAGE is all that matters. HE IS GOD. HE IS THE CHOSEN ONE. THIS IS HIS TIME. And nothing shall stand is His way.

When she received the merchandise, who did she think should pay for it? I think what some people "don't get" is that the tax payers WORK for their money and are sick of paying other people's bills. If you can't pay for an item....DON'T CHARGE IT!

2008-10-01 15:13:01 by MissDeviance

One year ago, I had no debt. My credit score is in the 800's. I had a couple credit cards from BoA, neither opened with them originally. I've also got 4 other cards. I use them all periodically and pay them off in full each month. I had the cards because my job had me travel around the world and I generally would have expenses up to $20K per month that I needed to float until I got reimbursed.

But I no longer travel, and no longer need such large credit amounts. Anyway, I took a large advance ($45K) on my credit card from BoA. I spoke with them on the phone and I wanted to make sure that after the 0% promotional period was over, it would remain locked in at 7.99% (my "fixed" rate). I then played the stock market and had some in the money options that did a U-turn, costing me approximately a year's salary.

While certainly hurt financially, I learned my lesson. (PS Ameritrade will exercise you for $2.3 Million on $1,000 of options....even if you don't want them too but don't say it correctly) I won't be in the derivatives market anytime soon.

Anyway, I cut expenses, changed lifestyles, moved into a rented room and had it setup so that I could repay everyone in about 3 years and move on. It was a pretty militant plan. I'm paid bi-weekly. The first check was divied to my biggest debtors in entirety, my second would pay rent, car, operating bills and I'd squeeze by on what's left.

That is, until BoA decided I know longer had a fixed rate but a variable one. BoA wants to jack up my interest rate to 26.99%. The reason being that as my bi-weekly checks came against a monthly statement, I began paying them too early. That is, my payments were after the prior due date, but before they'd printed my statement. Why this would have any effect is beyond me, but I know they didn't do this before. I've had this card for 13 years and spent hundreds of thousands on the thing. Anyway, I had back to back statements where my 3 payments, despite each being less than 30 days apart each gap, somehow were no good for their 30 day cycle time.

I've tried arguing with them. I'm sick of hearing, "because we can in the cardholder agreement" being given as an excuse. I don't recall any consideration from cardholder changes made beyond the original original terms had upon opening the account. I can't even get past their front line phone people to talk to someone higher up the food chain.

My problem is I make too much money for an existing bankruptcy to help me. I'm afraid if I just stop paying them they will garnish my wages. Basically, what I want to do is buy enough of a house that I will make myself illiquid at my income level, declare bankruptcy, but reaffirm all of my debt EXCEPT Bank of America.

The only assets I have with a title are two vehicles. One is not paid for and worth about $17K, the other is paid for and worth $4500. The debt owed is down to $29K and I just pulled $25K out of their bank when I closed one of my accounts there. I have no problem selling one vehicle to a non-related third party for $1.

I will do just about ANYTHING to not pay this institution. I double checked their financial statements (it's a long read) to see if their fees are anywhere near their actual losses. Not even in the same ballgame. Non-interest revenue in their global services was almost more than their interest revenue, and certainly with higher margins. Their reserve for non-payment was minuscule.

No, it's not using bankruptcy the way it was meant to be. But I want to tell them that it's this way because the law says I CAN when they want to warp their contract in the same way. And with a house and 2 cars, I won't be needing credit for a long time anyway.

Unfortunately, no.

When you file Ch 13 bankruptcy you are required to list ALL assets and ALL debts (just as in Ch 7). The reason for this is because one of the requirements for Ch 13 is that creditors must come out at least as well as they would have if you'd filed Ch 7. But that's getting kind of technical.

Anyway, after filing Ch 13, the court notifies ALL creditors and gives them the opportunity to file clams in your bankruptcy case. You - or your attorney - file a repayment Plan which must be confirmed by the court. The Trustee (who is really not on "your side" - the Trustee represents the interests of your creditors) can object to your repayment plan if it appears that you are not repaying your creditors what they are entitled. So far as specifying payments, all unsecured creditors are treated the same -- it is the Trustee who decides who, among those who filed claims, will get what part of what you pay into the Plan for unsecured creditors. Your Plan can contain language specifying full payment to secured creditors (mortgage, house) before unsecured creditors are paid.

PS - if you attempt to go this route, do NOT attempt to do it without the counsel of an experienced bankruptcy attorney. Writing a successful Ch 13 Plan is an art that requires a lot of knowledge of various laws, local practice, etc. It is NOT a DIY project.

2009-12-15 19:41:42 by Chris