it lasts for five years i think. some places have a three-strikes system.
here, there’s also a system that allows you to basically cancel your debt if it gets overwhelming. if you qualify, you can sign up to let the state take all the money you make above the level of minimum subsistence for five years, which they use to pay off your debt as far as possible, and after that the remaining debt is zeroed. there are a bunch of criteria, there basically has to be no way for you to pay it off by selling things, but it’s there.
no, your debts stay through a personal bankruptcy. this is different.
with a strike system, you’re good until you’re not. a score system means you can be rejected from some places and accepted at others, giving scummy lenders an in.
also, there’s none of that “your score is low because you have nothing to pay off” nonsense.
No, the whole point of bankruptcy is that your debts are cancelled.
At the end of the process, your qualifying debts will be discharged, meaning you’ll no longer be responsible for them, so long as you satisfy the bankruptcy terms.
with a strike system, you’re good until you’re not.
How is that better?
a score system means you can be rejected from some places and accepted at others
And that’s worse than being universally rejected? In reality, if you’re completely shut off from credit, it will just encourage illegal loans from loansharks, etc.
also, there’s none of that “your score is low because you have nothing to pay off” nonsense.
You don’t have a history of dealing with debt, so they don’t assign you the ultra-safe score. If another place doesn’t have that, they’ll simply have to charge a higher rate to everybody because they can’t tell who is going to be good at handling debt and who isn’t.
No, the whole point of bankruptcy is that your debts are cancelled.
no:
yes:
the answer was literally the sentence after the one you quoted.
No, it claimed without evidence that somehow a strike system prevented “scummy lenders”, whereas the reality is that it would result in the scummiest lenders of all, loansharks.
I wonder if that means that borrowers in the rest of the world have to pay a premium when they borrow money because the bank is taking a bigger risk.
i mean there’s still a way to mark that someone isn’t good at paying their bills. its just not a “score”. it’s yes or no.
Sure, so if you’re late once you’re a “no”? That’s gotta suck.
it lasts for five years i think. some places have a three-strikes system.
here, there’s also a system that allows you to basically cancel your debt if it gets overwhelming. if you qualify, you can sign up to let the state take all the money you make above the level of minimum subsistence for five years, which they use to pay off your debt as far as possible, and after that the remaining debt is zeroed. there are a bunch of criteria, there basically has to be no way for you to pay it off by selling things, but it’s there.
So, you can basically declare bankruptcy? That’s good.
Why is it you think a three strikes system is better than a score?
no, your debts stay through a personal bankruptcy. this is different.
with a strike system, you’re good until you’re not. a score system means you can be rejected from some places and accepted at others, giving scummy lenders an in.
also, there’s none of that “your score is low because you have nothing to pay off” nonsense.
No, the whole point of bankruptcy is that your debts are cancelled.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bankruptcy.asp
How is that better?
And that’s worse than being universally rejected? In reality, if you’re completely shut off from credit, it will just encourage illegal loans from loansharks, etc.
You don’t have a history of dealing with debt, so they don’t assign you the ultra-safe score. If another place doesn’t have that, they’ll simply have to charge a higher rate to everybody because they can’t tell who is going to be good at handling debt and who isn’t.
no:
the answer was literally the sentence after the one you quoted.
yes:
No, it claimed without evidence that somehow a strike system prevented “scummy lenders”, whereas the reality is that it would result in the scummiest lenders of all, loansharks.