VERY unethical question
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
If they are stupid enough to extend credit to those who are not credit worthy they must accept the risks of default whether it be by crime or recklessness.
Just like anybody who wants to commit theft and fraud should be prepared to face the civil and criminal consequences.
Just like anybody who wants to commit theft and fraud should be prepared to face the civil and criminal consequences.
I don't sure how this would work in Canada, but I saw it mentioned on an American board that if you have a large amount of CC debt and call your cards company telling them that you're considering moving it to another firm offering a lower rate, there's a good chance that they'll counter with a lower rate offer. There's apparently lots of options banks don't advertise, but will offer if it means keeping you as a customer. It never hurts to ask; the worst they can do is say no.
Sadly, when you put your card in the ATM machine and it shows your available credit, a lot of people tend to think of that as a bank account balance. Remember: it's not your money.
Sadly, when you put your card in the ATM machine and it shows your available credit, a lot of people tend to think of that as a bank account balance. Remember: it's not your money.
Why is it different? If enough people scam the country, the government has to raise taxes and everyone pays for the scammers. If enough people scam a corporation then they have to raise the amount it costs people to do business with them and again everyone pays for the scammers.stinkynuts said:
The fact that you don't like what profits the CC company makes or the interest they charge is irrelevant. No one is forcing you to use a credit card. If you don't like the game don't play it. And the amount of interest you have to pay is completely up to you, pay your statement off fully and in time and you never pay one cent of that 29% interest.
btw I agree with fuji on the question of ethics here, but do feel that there is a form of "duty" to the CC company. When you signed for the card you accepted the responsibility of paying back the monies the CC company paid out on your behalf. IMO whether you're borrowing money from a friend or a corporation, ethically you are bound to repay it.
After 7 years, you'd have the option to apply for credit again , yes, but not excatly with a clean past cred history.stinkynuts said:
First of all I don't condone such action, and it is not a victimless case by any means, law abiding CC holders will pay in the end, and , having said that, I know friends that have done that recently for amount even less than what was mentioned. Stinky I suggest you consult a bankruptcy lawyer if you are seriously looking into going that route or just for the sake of getting proper info.
In Ontario they will take your house as part of a bankruptcy. Certain assets are protected, such as RRSPs. Certain U.S. states, such as Florida, have "homestead" laws that allow bankrupts to keep their houses. This allows people who are subject to large judgements, such as O.J. Simpson, to transfer their assets into a giant mansion and protect them from creditors.
If you sign up for a credit card and agree to the terms, then intentionally steal the money, then it is stealing. If you claim it is not unethical because you do not like corporations, you are kidding yourself. I realize that the question here is the more practical question of whether you can get away with it, to me, if you are going to commit fraud to get money, you should be able to do better than $40K.
If you sign up for a credit card and agree to the terms, then intentionally steal the money, then it is stealing. If you claim it is not unethical because you do not like corporations, you are kidding yourself. I realize that the question here is the more practical question of whether you can get away with it, to me, if you are going to commit fraud to get money, you should be able to do better than $40K.
Let's split some hairs (ethics debates are so much fun that way).Moraff said:
The argument that you don't owe a duty to a corporation is essentially that the corporation doesn't feel it owes any duty to you. A corporation, generally, considers only the interests of its shareholders. Unless you're one of them it won't consider your interests at all when making its decisions. Since it isn't considering your interests, why on earth would you consider the interests of the corporation when making your own decisions?
On the other hand, when it comes to the laws of the land, we're talking about a social contract with one another via the government. Arguably you DO have a duty to obey the law not because of the corporation but because that's what you've agreed to with the rest of us, and, unlike a corporation, society as a whole often DOES consider your interests when passing laws--setting up things like welfare, bankruptcy protection, subsidized education, healthcare, and justice systems that benefit you as much as anyone else.
If you can screw a corporation over without any other harm to your fellow citizens, without undermining the rule of law, etc., then more power to you--bend them over the counter and screw away. Rest assured that if a corporation can screw you for profit without breaking the law (or sometimes just without getting caught breaking the law), it absolutely will bend you over and fuck you as hard as it can in the name of increasing shareholder value.
(A caveat to that is often there are stakeholders, like co-workers and friends or other members of your community, who have an interest in the wellbeing of the corporation, and it is sometimes necessary to consider their interests--if you're going to screw the corporation so hard that they're out of a job perhaps you've gone too far because you've harmed their interests.)
