• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where you use credit cards may affect your score

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Good Morning Yahoo!

So apparently, some credit card companies are now profiling their customers. Your credit score can be affected depending on WHERE you shop. If other people who shopped at the same establishments (such as marriage counselors) have low credit scores, it sends a red flag to your credit card company about YOUR credit-worthiness, even if you always pay your bill on time and don't carry a balance. To make matters worse, they won't even TELL their customers which establishments lower their credit score.

And before we hear the expected chorus of "zomg they can do what they want" from the usual suspects, I'd like to point out that if this becomes the norm, most people won't have a choice but to A) not own a credit card, or B) subject themselves to this. And for most of us, shocking invasions of privacy are just as bad whether they come from the federal government, individual snoops, or multinational corporations. I think there definitely need to be some regulations on how credit scores are calculated so that we don't have crap like this.
 
Last edited:
I'm against this for a different reason. I don't give a rat's ass about the privacy non-issue, but what I DO have a problem with is the profiling. I think it would be fair to say that as a general rule African Americans have a worse credit score than Caucasian Americans based solely on the fact that the average income is less and therefore a lower credit score average is almost certain. With that in mind, with lower income comes less available housing options and a greater density of that specific group than would otherwise exist. With such a high population density you are undoubtedly going to see similar shopping patterns because so many people live in the same neighborhood with the same stores. So, at the end of the day, what's to keep these credit card companies from starting to ding peoples credit because they shop at the same neighborhood grocery store? People are going to start being punished for living in specific neighborhoods before long. THAT I have an issue with.
 
I dont have a credit card, so no worries here :mrgreen:
 
Pretty much everybody who shops at Wal-Mart is screwed....
 
Good Morning Yahoo!

So apparently, some credit card companies are now profiling their customers. Your credit score can be affected depending on WHERE you shop. If other people who shopped at the same establishments (such as marriage counselors) have low credit scores, it sends a red flag to your credit card company about YOUR credit-worthiness, even if you always pay your bill on time and don't carry a balance. To make matters worse, they won't even TELL their customers which establishments lower their credit score.

And before we hear the expected chorus of "zomg they can do what they want" from the usual suspects, I'd like to point out that if this becomes the norm, most people won't have a choice but to A) not own a credit card, or B) subject themselves to this. And for most of us, shocking invasions of privacy are just as bad whether they come from the federal government, individual snoops, or multinational corporations. I think there definitely need to be some regulations on how credit scores are calculated so that we don't have crap like this.

I honestly don't have that big of a problem with this, for several reasons:

1) It's another way for credit card companies to assess the risk involved in lending cardholders credit. I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to use whatever information they have available in making their decisions.

2) In response to the argument that the information gathered here is not very useful at all - I think that's an argument for it. The credit card companies are not stupid - they're going to make their decisions in whatever fashion they think will work best, and that includes weighting the different factors appropriately. If someone has a 20 year record of always making payments and being fiscally responsible, I doubt their credit score will drop 50 points if they stop by Chuck E Cheese one time. I very much doubt they're using this as much of a factor either way.

3) Given our current situation, I think it's more important than ever that lenders have accurate and complete information when deciding how to lend credit. This is just one small piece of the picture.

I'm against this for a different reason. I don't give a rat's ass about the privacy non-issue, but what I DO have a problem with is the profiling. I think it would be fair to say that as a general rule African Americans have a worse credit score than Caucasian Americans based solely on the fact that the average income is less and therefore a lower credit score average is almost certain. With that in mind, with lower income comes less available housing options and a greater density of that specific group than would otherwise exist. With such a high population density you are undoubtedly going to see similar shopping patterns because so many people live in the same neighborhood with the same stores. So, at the end of the day, what's to keep these credit card companies from starting to ding peoples credit because they shop at the same neighborhood grocery store? People are going to start being punished for living in specific neighborhoods before long. THAT I have an issue with.

People have long suffered financial penalties based on where they live. One very recent example - A group of friends wanted to rent a car to drive upstate with me. The kid who lived in Staten Island had to do the rental, because there's a surcharge on people from Brooklyn.
 
I honestly don't have that big of a problem with this, for several reasons:

1) It's another way for credit card companies to assess the risk involved in lending cardholders credit. I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to use whatever information they have available in making their decisions.
Exactly. Its their money. So long as they don't discriminate on basis of race, etc, they can create whatever terms they want. If you want their money, you agree to those terms.
 
This is purely unacceptable. All I see is a complete abdication of individual responsibility for some statistical BS attempt at fast cash. This screws honest consumers who are responsible with money and pay their debts. Only harm can come from this practice, and should simply be made illegal. This is exactly the sort of short-sighted bull**** that brought about our current crisis, and its high time we stopped putting up with it.
 
I honestly don't have that big of a problem with this, for several reasons:

1) It's another way for credit card companies to assess the risk involved in lending cardholders credit. I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to use whatever information they have available in making their decisions.

2) In response to the argument that the information gathered here is not very useful at all - I think that's an argument for it. The credit card companies are not stupid - they're going to make their decisions in whatever fashion they think will work best, and that includes weighting the different factors appropriately. If someone has a 20 year record of always making payments and being fiscally responsible, I doubt their credit score will drop 50 points if they stop by Chuck E Cheese one time. I very much doubt they're using this as much of a factor either way.

3) Given our current situation, I think it's more important than ever that lenders have accurate and complete information when deciding how to lend credit. This is just one small piece of the picture.



People have long suffered financial penalties based on where they live. One very recent example - A group of friends wanted to rent a car to drive upstate with me. The kid who lived in Staten Island had to do the rental, because there's a surcharge on people from Brooklyn.

Just curious, does that include medical, legal and mental records? That is of both the person involved and his/her family? Say a family has had 3 of its female members with breast cancer, then all female members have higher credit rating because they are a bigger risk of contracting cancer and hence dieing and hence not making her payments? How about genetic information? How about where you live or come from? Say a guy who fought his way out of the slums of a major city and made something out of himself, but he is a higher risk because he might have "bad friends" in the old neighbourhood, where his parents still live, which could lower his life expectancy or even put him in jail.. is that okay to lower his or her credit rating for?

Bascily where does the profiling stop? I understand that they can and should look at your financial situation (job, bank account and such), but what about the other stuff?
 
Bascily where does the profiling stop? I understand that they can and should look at your financial situation (job, bank account and such), but what about the other stuff?
Its this simple:

You do not have a right to the money the credit card companies loan you.

If you do not like how they determine their interest rates/penalty schedules, do not take their money.
 
Just curious, does that include medical, legal and mental records? That is of both the person involved and his/her family? Say a family has had 3 of its female members with breast cancer, then all female members have higher credit rating because they are a bigger risk of contracting cancer and hence dieing and hence not making her payments? How about genetic information? How about where you live or come from? Say a guy who fought his way out of the slums of a major city and made something out of himself, but he is a higher risk because he might have "bad friends" in the old neighbourhood, where his parents still live, which could lower his life expectancy or even put him in jail.. is that okay to lower his or her credit rating for?

Bascily where does the profiling stop? I understand that they can and should look at your financial situation (job, bank account and such), but what about the other stuff?

Do you not see the difference between a credit card company keeping track of where its credit card is used, and a credit card company snooping in someone's medical/legal/mental background?
 
1) It's another way for credit card companies to assess the risk involved in lending cardholders credit. I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to use whatever information they have available in making their decisions.

By the same logic, do you have a problem with them charging blacks higher interest rates, since blacks have lower credit scores on average? Should their be a box on the credit card application to mark your ethnicity, or should your banker just make his best guess?
 
Just curious, does that include medical, legal and mental records? That is of both the person involved and his/her family? Say a family has had 3 of its female members with breast cancer, then all female members have higher credit rating because they are a bigger risk of contracting cancer and hence dieing and hence not making her payments? How about genetic information? How about where you live or come from? Say a guy who fought his way out of the slums of a major city and made something out of himself, but he is a higher risk because he might have "bad friends" in the old neighbourhood, where his parents still live, which could lower his life expectancy or even put him in jail.. is that okay to lower his or her credit rating for?

Bascily where does the profiling stop? I understand that they can and should look at your financial situation (job, bank account and such), but what about the other stuff?

Exactly. This is the type of thing that could easily get out of hand and invade our privacy more and more...and *will* unless it is stopped now. As technology continues to reshape the world, there will be more and more people, governments, and corporations prying into more and more details of our personal life...if we allow them to do so.
 
Its this simple:

You do not have a right to the money the credit card companies loan you.

If you do not like how they determine their interest rates/penalty schedules, do not take their money.

9 posts...that didn't take long. :roll:

It's this simple:
If this sort of **** becomes the norm (which it inevitably will unless it's banned), people won't have any other options for credit. Invasions of privacy aren't any less invasive or more ethical if they're done by corporations instead of governments.
 
Last edited:
Do you not see the difference between a credit card company keeping track of where its credit card is used, and a credit card company snooping in someone's medical/legal/mental background?

No. Maybe Acme Children's Hospital is one of the places on their ****list of places where low-credit people shop. In fact, it probably is. :roll:
 
Last edited:
No. Maybe Acme Children's Hospital is one of the places on their ****list of places where low-credit people shop. In fact, it probably is. :roll:

That also gives the credit card co. access to medical records if the card is used.
 
Yeah that's a very good point, you use your credit card for medical bills which would allow them to take a pretty good guess at your health.

Like say a 15,000$ bill from The Cancer Ward for People Who Will Die Soon might indicate a future inability to make payments.
 
9 posts...that didn't take long. :roll:

It's this simple:
If this sort of **** becomes the norm (which it inevitably will unless it's banned), people won't have any other options for credit. Invasions of privacy aren't any less invasive or more ethical if they're done by corporations instead of governments.
You say this as if the credit card companies don't have a right to know where you use thier card.
:roll:

Again:
If you do not like how they determine their interest rates/penalty schedules, do not take their money.

Free market principles dictate that if enough people think as you do, then the credit card companies that do this will not make money.
 
Yeah that's a very good point, you use your credit card for medical bills which would allow them to take a pretty good guess at your health.

Like say a 15,000$ bill from The Cancer Ward for People Who Will Die Soon might indicate a future inability to make payments.

"were sorry but your card has been CANCELLED"
 
Yeah that's a very good point, you use your credit card for medical bills which would allow them to take a pretty good guess at your health.
They have this information, no matter what.
 
You say this as if the credit card companies don't have a right to know where you use thier card.
:roll:

Those records are mostly A) for the consumer's convenience, and B) for their statistical data. When they actually try to modify consumer behavior then they have crossed the line. It's one thing to punish people for not paying their bill on time and holding a big balance on their credit card. It's another thing to punish responsible people for using the card at a hospital, or a marriage counselor, or even a strip club...ESPECIALLY when they won't tell the consumers where they can and can't use the card without incurring a penalty.

Goobieman said:
Again:
If you do not like how they determine their interest rates/penalty schedules, do not take their money.

Free market principles dictate that if enough people think as you do, then the credit card companies that do this will not make money.

You act as though access to credit is just any fungible product with an endless array of options available. If this is not banned, in a few years it will be impossible to get a credit card that doesn't do these things. And if you allow this, then the credit system will become progressively more and more invasive.

Perhaps your perspective is warped because you don't own a credit card. But many of us who live in the 21st century would prefer to see some 21st century privacy laws as well.
 
Last edited:
Those records are mostly A) for the consumer's convenience, and B) for their statistical data.
Whatever reasons you want to assign them, they still have the absolute right to know where their cards are used.

When they actually try to modify consumer behavior then they have crossed the line. It's one thing to punish people for not paying their bill on time and holding a big balance on their credit card. It's another thing to punish responsible people for using the card at a hospital, or a marriage counselor, or even a strip club.
Your recourse is simple:
Dont use the cards of companies that do this.

You act as though access to credit is just any fungible product...
You act as if it is your right.

Perhaps your perspective is warped because you don't own a credit card. But many of us who live in the 21st century...
Ah -- the inevitiable ad hom.
:roll:
 
Whatever reasons you want to assign them, they still have the absolute right to know where their cards are used.

Your recourse is simple:
Dont use the cards of companies that do this.

And again, you are simply ignoring the fact that at the pace information technology accelerates, that will not be an option in just a few years...unless it is banned.

Goobieman said:
You act as if it is your right.

If you shut off the credit spigot to responsible consumers, then it causes more systemic problems than just someone not being able to get a credit card (although that could certainly be a big personal problem as well). If there has ever been an economic climate in the history of the world where this should be more obvious, I can't think of it.

Goobieman said:
Ah -- the inevitiable ad hom.
:roll:

Not an ad hom, just making the point that we live in an era of high-speed communications and information technology. The laws that were applicable in 1980 are not applicable in 2009. If you don't stop these kind of intrusive methods now, they'll just become more and more flagrant and ubiquitous.
 
And again, you are simply ignoring the fact that at the pace information technology accelerates, that will not be an option in just a few years
Sure it will - as long as there is cash, you can -always- pay cash.
It might not be as easy as you might like; there is a price for convenience.

If you shut off the credit spigot to responsible consumers, then it causes more systemic problems than just someone not being able to get a credit card...
This doesn't shut off anything. You wasnt credit, you can get it.
You just have to play by the rules of the people that give you that credit.
Your choice, one you are free to make.

Not an ad hom....
Really.
But many of us who live in the 21st century...
How does this not imply that I do NOT live in the 21st century, with my backward ways of living, thinking, etc...?
 
Back
Top Bottom