Double Edged Sword?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30000472
Yes they charge a silly amount but the sorts of people that use these, do so because they have poor credit ratings. Where will they now borrow? Yep, back to the tally man!

[Zeuhl]

i think you're right T3 - the Loan Sharks will do well out of this

the PayDay lenders don't charge much if the loan is paid back quickly - i think more regulation regarding 'rolling up' the loans was called for

my company worked with one of the established sub-prime lenders and we were uncomfortable enough to politely decline a second project but we did interview a lot of customers who relied on them and valued the service they provided

[youngmafbog]

It's a real problem, but no one will lend to anyone who is not likely to pay back unless they can cover their costs from somewhere.

[Old_Geezer]

Allowing the poor to be abused is no way to avoid solving the real issues behind it. There is a moral duty to set reasonable limits.

If there is a concern that the poor will find worse ways to get by that merely indicates society needs to understand why, in these days of welfare, this would seem necessary; and solve it.

[Zeuhl]

/Allowing the poor to be abused is no way to avoid solving the real issues behind it. There is a moral duty to set reasonable limits. /

That could imply restrictions on the sale of lottery tickets, scratch cards, booze and access to betting shops or online gambling.

[Old_Geezer]

:-) Well if being strict in one's definition, it could, but I think most would agree that may be going a lot further.

One can become desperate for finance without it being an addiction or lifestyle choice. Booze & gambling are more akin to pastimes.

A 'grey area' since I dislike authority interference in what folk choose to do, I see that as unacceptable. But there is a balance to be struck; and I do see a need to protect those with a flawed mental condition from harming themselves.

It would be debatable who fits the bill though. Maybe there could be set limits on how much folk should be allowed to risk ? After all, do we just stand by and let someone wager away all that they have to live on ? It's a difficult issue.

And another problem is how one would define and enforce any limits. It might not prove practical. One for the government to debate perhaps.

But in the meantime preying on the vulnerable desperate for money to live; that is more clear cut. It is immoral and can be tackled.