Is this morally wrong?

[steve_t]

It's fine to have that business model AS LONG AS you are very clear with the customer about the terms of the contract. That is, you need to inform them of fact that their total repayment equals $xx. The biggest issue has been not the fact there is high interest but that some people are calculating and compounding interest daily/monthly. If you give people all of the information and they still want to sign up, that's up to them. Your contracts should include a waiver to consult with a lawyer if they don't want to do so.

[steve_t]

Well, if everything is laid out, and a normal person can put it all together, then it can't really be classified as misleading or false (those sort of things I have a problem with). Therefore its simply down to the buyer deciding if they accept the terms, as they are not being forced into it.

Much like whatshisname with the shares. He offers a low ball offer, if people did a quick check online, they would see the offer is low. Then he offers above, but doesn't have to pay for 10 years. That in itself is not technically illegal, but then he deliberately targetted the first campaign at Christmas, when more businesses are off on holiday and money is tight. It points to his thinking. He was definitely morally wrong, only slightly illegal, and he's being chased.

For the HP... well, people can walk in any time, and I wouldn't have a problem if the terms are all pointed out. A fool and his money are soon parted.

Dirty old Whimp was not upfront with his offers. If he had been, he'd probably have been OK

[tigertim20]

I don realy see the issue, there is a competitive market out there. People make the decision to buy now, or save the cash, and buy later.
This is absolutely NO different than a Mortgage. Do the maths on that, a 20 year mortgage, on a house worth 300k, what does that work out to?
A fucking lot, however, that is exactly what society expectsnormal individuals to do, grow up, get a job, and get a mortgage, and pay hundreds of thousands more for something than what its worth.

Its also the same as any market situation, where a new product is released. lets take hire purchase out of it, and look at cash purchases. I remember the Playstation 2 coming out, and it was alot of money. Many poeple went out and bought the item on the frst day of sale for say $600. two months later, its normal price was only $350-$400. Its the whole 'keeping up with the joneses' anaogy. People are prepare to pay more later, to get what they want now. Its the same with buying a brand new item thats new on the market, and buying a second hand (or brand new) car, whatever.

It is always prudent to shop around before you buy. It is my expectation that the group you referred to as being 'targeted' should, as a function of need, be more likely to shop around, to ensure their dollar goes further. Yes I know that doesnt always happen, but iys what Id expect. Its a buyers perogative to spend when where and how they like.

[Brett]

I don realy see the issue, there is a competitive market out there. People make the decision to buy now, or save the cash, and buy later.
This is absolutely NO different than a Mortgage. Do the maths on that, a 20 year mortgage, on a house worth 300k, what does that work out to?
A fucking lot, however, that is exactly what society expectsnormal individuals to do, grow up, get a job, and get a mortgage, and pay hundreds of thousands more for something than what its worth.

Its also the same as any market situation, where a new product is released. lets take hire purchase out of it, and look at cash purchases. I remember the Playstation 2 coming out, and it was alot of money. Many poeple went out and bought the item on the frst day of sale for say $600. two months later, its normal price was only $350-$400. Its the whole 'keeping up with the joneses' anaogy. People are prepare to pay more later, to get what they want now. Its the same with buying a brand new item thats new on the market, and buying a second hand (or brand new) car, whatever.

It is always prudent to shop around before you buy. It is my expectation that the group you referred to as being 'targeted' should, as a function of need, be more likely to shop around, to ensure their dollar goes further. Yes I know that doesnt always happen, but iys what Id expect. Its a buyers perogative to spend when where and how they like.

I don't disagree with any of the above at all.

[HenryDorsetCase]

It's fine to have that business model AS LONG AS you are very clear with the customer about the terms of the contract. That is, you need to inform them of fact that their total repayment equals $xx. The biggest issue has been not the fact there is high interest but that some people are calculating and compounding interest daily/monthly. If you give people all of the information and they still want to sign up, that's up to them. Your contracts should include a waiver to consult with a lawyer if they don't want to do so.

There is a raft of legislation mandating just that disclosure in this area. Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act in particular.

But any munter signing up for $8.30 a week for a year won't read it. Like I say to the customers "I have to tell you, but you don't have to listen"

[Camshaft]

its not morally wrong as no1 is forcing you to do it.
if ur stupid enought to pay 415 dollars for a 100 dollar phone then its your fault. or on the flip side, if having tht 100 dollar phone right then and there is worth paying the extra money for thn thats at the individual purchasers discretion. i paid too much for my first real mountain bike as im a terrible saver, sticker price was 3k i paid 3500 as i slapped it on tick, i was 15 and had to have it, but i was fully aware that i was going to more than i should and did it anyway.

[Laava]

Cash next week?
Get cash now!

Ring any bells? Fuckin leeches if you ask me! If you ask my missus on the other hand, she will tell you that as a 23yr old widow with 3 kids under 8, the only way she could survive was with HP on various things like fridge s and washing machines! So HP has it's place as it goes but I am sure there are a load of people who enter into an agreement not knowing how much real debt they will accrue esp if they miss payments.

[steve_t]

There is a raft of legislation mandating just that disclosure in this area. Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act in particular.

But any munter signing up for $8.30 a week for a year won't read it. Like I say to the customers "I have to tell you, but you don't have to listen"

LOL. I'd imagine the line has to be "I have to tell you and you have to sign something stating that you understand what I just told you"

[HenryDorsetCase]

LOL. I'd imagine the line has to be "I have to tell you and you have to sign something stating that you understand what I just told you"

you should hear my spiel about trusts, or mortgages.

[Katman]

Chriscos have been doing it for years.

Yes, there's plenty of stupid people out there.

[scissorhands]

Business is the art of extracting money from another man pockets without resorting to violence. Max Amsterdam

That said, I believe our Governments should protect its people from scams, mainly through public education on TV

[steve_t]

Chriscos have been doing it for years.

Yes, there's plenty of stupid people out there.

Chriscos is even smarter because it's got a 300% markup on a Layby. It's not even HP! They don't have to front up with the goods for 40-50 weeks!

[Usarka]

Maybe the question should be reworded - do we have a moral obligation to look after the stupid? Why not, we seem to think we have to look after the old, the sick, the poor, the unemployed, the single parents etc....

[Brett]

Maybe the question should be reworded - do we have a moral obligation to look after the stupid? Why not, we seem to think we have to look after the old, the sick, the poor, the unemployed, the single parents etc....

Well that is a valid point to consider, DO we have a duty of care towards looking after other peoples well-being? I personally do not think that there is a yes or no answer to that.

[steve_t]

Well that is a valid point to consider, DO we have a duty of care towards looking after other peoples well-being? I personally do not think that there is a yes or no answer to that.

Where do you draw the line between looking after them and removing their freedom to choose for themselves? Should ATGATT be made compulsory springs to mind