As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: paycheck

While the mainstream financial industry has faced a dizzying array of government and quasi-government regulations through most of the last one hundred years, non-bank financial products have, for the most part, evaded regulations. Catering to lower-income communities, payday loan storefronts and check cashing establishments have managed to justify their business models. The more desperate you are to pay your electricity bills and your rent before your power is turned off and you’re evicted, the more likely you are to willfully ignore the fact that the companies helping you are taking advantage of you in ways that a traditional bank would never be allowed to do.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is now charged with recommending new regulations that go beyond retail banks, thrifts, investment banks, and credit unions into the murky world of non-bank financial products.

If you compare a short-term payday loan with a loan from a bank, you might see that the payday loan’s equivalent interest rate (APR) is 450% or even higher. Mortgages tend to be 3% to 7%, business and personal loans could be 5% to 10%, and credit cards are 10% to 20% unless you default. Anything higher, and the loan might be considered usurious. So how do payday lenders get away with charging 450% or more?

Well, these lenders frame what they charge as a flat or sliding fee, not interest. The loans are typically due in two weeks, the expected arrival of your next paycheck. It might not be fair to compare these fees with interest rates, because the borrower doesn’t hold onto the loan for a long time.

Or does he? There’s some evidence suggesting payday loans create a cycle; rather than paying off the loan when the next paycheck arrives, lenders offer an enticing deal to encourage borrowers to begin the next loan. The two-week cycle repeats.

The CFPB wants to hear from people who have had experiences with payday lenders. In order to get a good grasp on how non-bank financial products can and should be regulated, the organization is seeking comments from the public. What have been your experiences with payday loans? Feel free to share here on Consumerism Commentary, or tell the CFPB your story directly.

Photo: bigburpsx3

{ 7 comments }

An elegant answer to the over-complicated tax system is to shift the basis of the system from income to spending. There have been a variety of proposals to make this happen. It’s the core of the so-called Fair Tax and Herman Cain incorporated its concept into his 9-9-9 tax plan. Other proposals have called for a value-added tax similar to the system in the United Kingdom.

FerrariWorking to earn a living contributes to society, as does investing in businesses. Taxes on income, whether wages or dividends, could discourage this type of economically-beneficial activity. Consumer spending also benefits the economy, though, and if this tax system discourages spending, it might have a negative effect on the economy initially.

Also, lower-income households and those who live paycheck-to-paycheck would bear a higher burden. When almost all of a family’s income is spent, this family would be taxed on a high percentage of their income. On the other hand, a corporate executive earning more than a million dollars does not need to spend all of his money. His tax burden is more affordable. Under today’s tax environment, someone with the means might put money into real estate, invest in businesses, and shelter assets in offshore accounts. Under the new system, a wealthy individual might stay away from buying houses if those transactions are taxed, while bringing more offshore assets back to the United States.

Rather than adding a national sales tax to determine consumption, one solution is to report all income, as is currently done, as well as all contributions to savings, just like what is done for IRA and 401(k) accounts. The difference between income and savings would be the basis on which the government levies the consumption tax. There could be a high standard deduction applied to the difference, so that lower-income families who are struggling to save do not need to pay an unaffordable tax bill, and so that the system remains progressive.

Reforming the tax system away from income tax is a tall order. Thanks to deductions for tax-advantaged savings, the income tax system has already begun to shift towards a focus on spending, but if you believe that the system could be vastly improved by focusing solely on consumption, the system has a long way to go before workers and savers aren’t punished by a tax collection system.

Would you prefer a tax system based solely on consumption?

Photo: exfordy
New York Times, Slate

{ 16 comments }

During the recession, my employer, a firm in the financial industry, eliminated raises for employees at the Vice President level and above for one year. The company, although continuing to perform well compared to its peers, cut back bonuses and other benefits. It’s easy for employers to demand higher productivity for less compensation when the job market is stagnant and the economy is threatened.

“You’re lucky to have a job” was the prevailing attitude. Many of my co-workers had family members or knew people who were out of work during the recession, and there was a lingering fear that, particularly after some internal consolidation, any of us could be out of our jobs at any time. Some were holding onto their jobs for dear life.

PaycheckThe power balance between employer and employee is always tilted in companies’ favor, but never more than during a period when the economy is falling apart. Unemployment may be at 8.5%, lower than during the height of the recession, but this is still high, and employees are still willing to put up with cutbacks just to keep their jobs.

What appears to be a short-term gain for an employer — reducing expenses in human resources, salaries, and benefits — can be a long-term loss. The recession ushered in a period of New Frugality. Consumers used credit cards less often and companies cut back spending and hoarded cash. The corporate balance sheet was important, and companies appeared stronger by reducing expenses to ensure profits for shareholders. Employees suffered as a result, and the stagnant — or in some cases, decreasing — compensation will not easily be forgotten.

Eventually, the job market will swing in the other direction. The top talent will feel no loyalty to the company that didn’t respect its workers during the recession, and they will leave for greener pastures.

The Wharton School highlights several recent surveys, showing that the short-term gains companies achieve by neglecting the benefits of their employees will likely result in long-term difficulties.

  • 36% of workers want to leave their companies.
  • 43% of human resources managers are concerned top employees will leave.
  • 35% of companies in the United States have smaller staffs than before the recession.
  • Companies have replaced full-time staff with temporary workers.

Companies cut compensation more for lower-level employees than higher-level, because executives view the average working middle class employee as easier to replace.

A company’s employees, literally its “human resources,” are the most important assets that a company can invest in. Proper handling and training will present a great return on investment. Spending money to support and enhance the lives of and benefits for employees keeps them engaged. If an employee believes he or she was treated well and respected during a time of economic upheaval, when employees at other companies are sharing their stories of frustration, the employee is more likely to appreciate the employer.

How has your employer treated you over the past few years? Have your compensation and benefits been scaled back? Will you stay when you know it will be easier to find a job?

Photo: dslrninja
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

{ 15 comments }

Good Debt and Bad Debt

This article was written by in Debt Reduction. 16 comments.

Misuse of credit can destroy a family’s financial life. A household can crumble under the weight of debt, whether it has increased from a poor house-purchasing decision, a drastic change in the real estate market, a shopping addiction, an unexpected medical bill, or the lack of preparedness for an emergency. It’s no surprise people consider debt to be “bad.”

Is there any situation where debt can be “good?”

I have a problem with the good debt vs. bad debt argument. Good and bad are polar opposites, and most issues tend to sit somewhere on a spectrum between two extremes. In fact, issues don’t often sit; they can shift position. The requirement to declare anything, particularly “debt” as a concept, as either good or bad is oversimplification. There’s a tendency to want to make issues simple. Catchy soundbites reducing issues to the most basic terms attract people, and no one ever won a Presidential election while talking about nuances.

See-sawPeople who are looking to sell you something, like car salesmen, college recruiters, investment professionals, and real estate brokers, are more likely to be willing to point out how debt can be used effectively.

  • In real estate transactions, debt allows more families to afford a house, and in some cases, that could mean a healthier environment for raising children. Leverage also helps you reflect a higher rate of return if your home value increases and you decide to sell.
  • If you can borrow money at a low interest rate and use that cash to invest at a higher rate of return, you are using someone else’s money to benefit yourself financially. You can pocket the difference in interest rates or rates of return.
  • Getting a college education increases your lifetime earning potential, and going into debt for a bachelor’s degree could pay off.
  • If you work in a career where image is important, a higher-priced and otherwise-unaffordable car could help you succeed in your business.

Risk makes debt dangerous. There’s a risk that house prices go down. Since the housing bubble burst, that risk should be more apparent. Leverage may amplify your return, but it also makes losses more severe. You could lose your house. If your hot investment doesn’t pan out, you might not be able to pay back your borrowed money. If you find yourself in a career not earning much money, you could struggle to pay off your student loan debt. Using debt to focus your image doesn’t always pay off.

You can only determine whether a risk, like borrowing, is worthwhile after the fact. Hindsight provides perspective. If borrowing allowed you to triumph financially, it was “good” debt. If the debt was unmanageable or caused financial ruin, it was “bad” debt. Taking on debt to purchase an asset that increases in value would always be “good,” while using debt to finance an asset that decreases in value would always be “bad.” The problem is being able to accurately predict the future. The assets we hope will increase would be a house, an investment portfolio, lifetime earning potential, and career opportunities.

The determination of whether debt is “good” or “bad” also depends on the individual or household involved. What could be a good use of debt for one family might not be a good use for another.

There are often other options rather than increasing debt. While it may be expensive to attend an out-of-state private college, you could save money by enrolling in an in-state public college or by taking advantage of grants and scholarships. The Consumerism Commentary Podcast interview with Zac Bissonnette, author of Debt-Free U: How I Paid for an Outstanding College Education Without Loans, Scholarships, or Mooching off My Parents, can offer more insights on how to obtain a valuable college degree without going into debt.

If you are able to postpone desires until you’ve diligently saved for a purchase, you can avoid debt and its possible pitfalls. Not everyone has the opportunity to save, though. A college graduate without any money might need to buy work-appropriate clothing in order to get a job. The credit card comes out, and she buys a week’s worth of outfits to get her to the first paycheck. This may not be “good” debt, but if she didn’t earn and save enough money while achieving her degree, it could be a short-term necessity.

Then again, another way to look at this need for credit to prepare for the first week in a professional environment is an excuse for not following a solid financial plan over the course of her higher education and the start of her life as an adult.

In another example, a savvy investor could use borrowed money to invest in a business that succeeds. Financial analysts can often determine whether a risk is acceptable, and individual investors can use the same approach. For example, if you could borrow a sum of money at an introductory rate of 0% APR on a credit card for 12 months with no fee, as new customers of this Discover More Card offer can do right now, deposit that in a savings account with 1% interest, you can keep the proceeds as long as you pay the credit card bill on time each month and in full by the end of the introductory period. Back when interest rates were higher, this “credit card balance arbitrage” was a more worthwhile endeavor.

Today, however, most investments that would make borrowing money from a 0% APR credit card worthwhile are riskier than a savings account. Even when the safe interest you could earn was more favorable, there was always a risk of missing a credit card payment and owing penalties and interest to the issuer. If you completed the arbitrage scheme and succeeded in increasing your bank account balance, you’d consider that debt to be good. If not, the debt would be bad.

Do you believe that all debt is bad debt, or are there some situations where it’s worthwhile to pay interest and accept the risk of defaulting?

{ 16 comments }

Verizon Wireless Plans Then Rescinds $2 Fee for Paying Your Bill

by Flexo
Verizon Wireless

Update: Less than a day after a Verizon Wireless employee leaked a memo with this information, the company has announced that it will not be moving forward with the implementation of this $2 fee. The sad fact is we now live in a world where many companies have left their customers behind in the search ... Continue reading this article…

27 comments Read the full article →

Year End Reminder: Change Your 401(k) Contribution Level Now

by Flexo
Winter Snow

At the end of the year, most people in the United States are thinking about the holidays and the potential credit card bills for gifts and family visits. One good way to control this potentially stressful month is to take some time to breathe and get your own finances in order. There are several actions ... Continue reading this article…

16 comments Read the full article →

Wal-Mart Offering Check Cashing Services

by Flexo
Wal-Mart

Many Wal-Mart locations around the country now have Money Center departments. These developments create an incredibly convenient way to take your paycheck into the store, have it cashed at the Money Center, and use your cash for your shopping trip. With Wal-Mart’s trend to become a one-stop shop for all household needs, including groceries, each ... Continue reading this article…

9 comments Read the full article →

Podcast 131: The $60K Project

by Flexo

Today on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, Bryan and Flexo talk with Sarah from The $60K Project about how she and her partner Mike paid off many thousands in debt in less than a year, what they learned along the way, and what they want to do now that they can afford to take some risks. ... Continue reading this article…

1 comment Read the full article →
Page 1 of 2712345···Last »