An extremely expensive truck is a bad example usually, but this idea of things being “voluntary” is a core myth of capitalism. There are many times where, in a person’s estimation, they need something but can’t buy it and therefore need to use one of these plans, and are in effect punished for it by paying a massive amount extra. Fundamentally, it’s a coerced choice, but the coercion is being carried out by the rest of society (sometimes with lobbying from the company offering the payment plan).
There’s also the fact that education on finance is very poor and frequently the idea of genuine informed consent needs to be questioned, but it extends beyond the legal liability of these companies, so they are free to abuse it.
I fully agree with your generalized version, but I was specifically taking about this exact case: The photo seems to be of a document that very neatly and clearly summarizes the involved costs (and the effective price for the fact that it’s a loan being about 50k$). So I’m assuming here that during the negotiating or signing of the contract/loan, this information or document is available. Then I really don’t buy the education argument (again in this specific case).
This is a truck costing 110k$, leading to payments of 1.8k$ per month. It’s about the relative value, too. From my frame of reference it’s just a (big) car and costs about a third of what is expect a house to cost, if it isn’t in a city (suburban to rural), which obviously might be very different in the US. This is very much a luxury or vanity item, at least to me. Even for a monthly mortgage payment for a house I wouldn’t go much higher than the rate they are accepting to pay for a car.
Yeah, I somewhat agree on the truck not because the financing isn’t predatory but because this plainly seems like a luxury item, as you say. It should still be illegal to engage in such drastic usury, but I don’t find it a compelling case.
Even in this case! Financing a six figure depreciating asset with $0 down is absolutely predatory behavior. Loan shark shit but you’ve got the backing of the state monopoly on violence.
The reason I was avoiding this case is that it seems, in effect, like very transparent overpricing on a luxury item, but I agree with you that it should still be illegal.
An extremely expensive truck is a bad example usually, but this idea of things being “voluntary” is a core myth of capitalism. There are many times where, in a person’s estimation, they need something but can’t buy it and therefore need to use one of these plans, and are in effect punished for it by paying a massive amount extra. Fundamentally, it’s a coerced choice, but the coercion is being carried out by the rest of society (sometimes with lobbying from the company offering the payment plan).
There’s also the fact that education on finance is very poor and frequently the idea of genuine informed consent needs to be questioned, but it extends beyond the legal liability of these companies, so they are free to abuse it.
I fully agree with your generalized version, but I was specifically taking about this exact case: The photo seems to be of a document that very neatly and clearly summarizes the involved costs (and the effective price for the fact that it’s a loan being about 50k$). So I’m assuming here that during the negotiating or signing of the contract/loan, this information or document is available. Then I really don’t buy the education argument (again in this specific case).
This is a truck costing 110k$, leading to payments of 1.8k$ per month. It’s about the relative value, too. From my frame of reference it’s just a (big) car and costs about a third of what is expect a house to cost, if it isn’t in a city (suburban to rural), which obviously might be very different in the US. This is very much a luxury or vanity item, at least to me. Even for a monthly mortgage payment for a house I wouldn’t go much higher than the rate they are accepting to pay for a car.
Yeah, I somewhat agree on the truck not because the financing isn’t predatory but because this plainly seems like a luxury item, as you say. It should still be illegal to engage in such drastic usury, but I don’t find it a compelling case.
Even in this case! Financing a six figure depreciating asset with $0 down is absolutely predatory behavior. Loan shark shit but you’ve got the backing of the state monopoly on violence.
The reason I was avoiding this case is that it seems, in effect, like very transparent overpricing on a luxury item, but I agree with you that it should still be illegal.