I've heard reports of upwards of 4,000% interest being charged and that this is now affecting more and more military families (as they go to war, they make less $$$ and their families rely on these "advancements"). Should the gov't help protect these families from interest-gouging?
Teufel
Favorite Answer
Perhaps the families in question should read the fine print before they borrow money from a "Payday Loan" type of lender. Better yet, being more responsible with your financial matters usually helps out alot. These businesses while charging way too much for their services and preying on those who are in need of quick cash, have the right to operate this way. The charges for their services are not "secret" and if cost is a concern then I would recommend asking the right questions, i.e. How much???
I am in the Army and know that it is not necessary to starve unless you can't keep your unnecessary spending in check. As for deployments? I am inclined to ask how all the increased family separation pay, the hazardous duty pay, increased BAS and BAH and the other support benefits are not enough?
Should the government help protect these poor poor souls? Yes, by strengthening our education system and releasing graduates into the world that have enough sense to find their way home at the end of the day.
Do you really think that we need to be protected from our own choices? Go to payday loans....Choice. Spend responsibly and cut back when necessary....Choice. Frankly I think it is sad that you would ask for the governments help in the form of limiting freedoms and in the same breath bring up our military who if you are unaware, are charged with protecting freedom.
I agree that these businesses are wrong to prey upon those in need. In fact I think their practices are unscrupulous and un-American, but their right to charge what ever they wish for THEIR product or service is theirs to cherish, appreciate or take advantage of. It's too bad that they choose to take advantage rather than to contribute, but that's life. Get your affairs in order the old fashioned way. Don't live outside your means and quit expecting someone else to pick you up when you throw yourself to the ground. I for one can more than relate to having debt issues and tight times, but I also know who is to blame and exactly who will have to pull me out when I find my self in such a place.....ME.
Anonymous
Interesting question. I realize that this is a hypothetical question, but seeing as the existence of such a being would also require supporting laws, etc., then you'd be forced to incorporate the application (or lack thereof) of those related laws. Since the question regards a legal charge, Vampires would have to be recognized as existing beings, otherwise the charge would not be contemplated. Therefore, there would be prior legal debate on whether or not Vampires are actually 'people' - seeing as they are medically dead - whether or not they deserve rights, etc., and laws would be passed accordingly. This would be the deciding factor - The real question seems to be, 'If Vampires existed, would society accept them as other people, deserving of human rights?'. So, simply put, if vampires were legally human beings, then your answer would be yes. Because then, under law, it would be a person killing another person. If it was decided that Vampires did not have any human rights, then no, it would be not be murder, because it would be viewed as a human killing a non-human being. However, the latter would open up an entirely different can of worms: You'd think that if it wasn't murder to slay a vampire, then it would likewise not be murder for a vampire to have slewn a human being, since they are not considered human themselves. If it were still decided to not consider Vampires as people with rights, then it would have to be further decided what to do if they were a threat; put them down like animals, throw them in jail as punishment for murder besides the fact that the mirrored situation would yield an entirely different outcome? You would also have to take into consideration that if it were a human who slew a vampire, that it may have been self-defense. If what you were seeking for your question was based on curiosity of opinion, then in my opinion, disregarding any hypothetical laws the situation would most likely require, then no. Not because I am not against murder - because I am, as I consider myself to be a person with good morals, and I am not heartless. Nor do I have any problem with the fictional character, I enjoy a good Vamp movie every now and then. However, in my opinion, and speaking strictly from knowledge of the fictional character as well as medical knowledge, I don't see how it could be considered murder seeing as the Vampire is medically dead anyhow, and 'murdering' it simply destroys whatever force is animating the deceased corpse. I myself wouldn't be the one doing the murdering unless it was in self-defense, because I believe that if such a thing would have ever happened for a force to animate a corpse, then there must be some meaningful explanation in Nature for that occurrence, revealed or not. However, I just don't see how it could medically or lawfully be seen as murder in the first place. Hope this helped to answer your question. :)
RYSN1979
There should definitely be a cap. There really isn't any reason for a military family to rely on these types of advances as long as they budget themselves. They actually get more pay when going to war. They get danger pay and family separation pay. When you get married, you get more pay also. Privates don't make much money, but they do make enough to live on. Medical expenses can really hurt a family, but if you're in the military, you don't have to worry about those things.
Anonymous
Yes, there should be a cap on ripping people off.
n/a
no