Towncar

It's a utilization thing...gone over in numerous threads "why do you need all those high limits?" Utilization isn't the only thing that is important. The credit crisis has shown us that no bank can be trusted to be there when we need them the most. Therefore, we have to assume that the CLDs, RJs, and closures will cripple our card portfolios and leave us with severely reduced access to credit. I have spent years diversifying, and any of my 7 good cards (from 5 different banks) could pick up the slack if the rest were lost. Sure, my FICO wouldn't be great, but each card has enough credit available to see me through an emergency, based on a spendthrift existence, if every other one of my issuers flips out. Trust no one, and assume that anyone may be all you have left. Why are my cumulative limits $212,000? If I lose 90% of my credit lines, I still have enough credit to get me through a reasonable emergency or slow income period, FICO be damned.

Is DCU open membership?

Cash discounts are allowed, if disclosed in a clear fashion. Fees, surcharges, minimums, maximums, and ID checks are prohibited. Do not allow merchants to get away with any of these. If you see a violation, report it.

Interesting! Why do you think it's like this? as per people I know who know, fraud scores used by credit card companies suggest consumers who overpay, on average and ceteris paribus, have a higher probability of a fraudulent payment (now or in the future) Overpayments are considered a risk, as crooks will send in unneeded payments on fraudulently opened accounts by means of forged checks or ACH. This lets them siphon off checking balances for spending on a fraud spree.

That is so far above the default rate that it must be a computer error.

2000 seems about right, I guess about the time the media declared ID and credit theft to be the next big problem. ID requirements were violations before then, and merchants chose to make their own rules, probably due to the reporting. The important thing is that all violations are promptly reported, and that merchants never ask for ID again. Make sure your community is 100% violation free. Take back Raleigh from the violators by promptly filing incident reports whenever violations occur.

Are identity thieves actually stupid enough to use fraud to connect power at the address they live at? It seems that if the stolen identity were discovered, the police would come pick them up in no time, and all over a power bill. Besides, if they don't pay the bill, the service gets shut off and they have to steal a new identity.

Every BOA/FIA card I have ever applied for has always been XP (across multiple parts of the country), and the database seems to agree. I have seen them pull TU and EQ for CLIs, but never on the initial pull.

What about the small business owner who offers a nice cash discount, pockets the cash without declaring it, then writes off a portion of the unaccounted inventory as shrinkage? The ability to make some tax free money or keep some earnings away from family seems to be enough of an incentive for a cash discount.

what "rules" are you referring to? which merchant is hiding the cash discount information? I'm not aware of any...and if there ARE any...by all means, contact your AG The merchant rules requires that cash discounts are clearly disclosed. Any merchant which fails to clearly disclose the discount prior to the point of checkout is out of compliance. The advertising laws of most states are also quite clear about disclosing any requirements to get advertised and/or labeled prices, whether that requirement is a specific form of payment, enrollment in a loyalty card program, combination purchase, minimum purchase, maximum purchase, etc. AGs love to hear about stores advertising or labeling goods with conditioned prices as if they were standard prices. For example, if an item listed on the shelf at only $1.49 suddenly rings up at $1.99 if you don't scan a loyalty card, the AG will step in and stop the deceptive marketing. Poorly disclosed cash discounts are no different.

more proof that there are no smart thiefs. It's easy to get away with padding a couple of bucks, either on the tip or charging for food not ordered or served (especially on large parties) - but only an salamander would add a large amount. Not exactly. As far as tips go, the dumb thieves steal small and steal often. The smart thieves steal big and steal rarely. They have a good idea of who is wealthy and who isn't, and the smart thieves target people who appear to have plenty of money and be loose with it (and, by assumption, not scrutinize what is assumed to be a large monthly credit card bill). They also go after extremely intoxicated patrons unlikely to remember what isn't a valid tip, or those who are too embarrassed to argue about it, much the same way that nobody ever complains about being overcharged for condoms (and asking for a price check) $5.00 becomes $50.0 $20.00 becomes $200.0 If it is caught, they have a valid defense of mistake. Very rarely will you hear about one of these people being hauled away after being reported by a co-worker. One of my (married) friends fought against a outrageous $400 tip left at a club, and when the waitress was confronted, she reportedly began crying and apologizing for inappropriate contact when she claimed that the tip was valid, because he had been physically flirting with her all night, the assumption being that a married, intoxicated patron would be unlikely to want to confront that allegation.

Probably. I wouldn't be surprised if his 6% savings account had its rate jacked up to 9%.

The problem, in context, is not one of politics, but rather, privacy problems brought by private sector actions. The post is about consumer rights and consumer privacy, and how both are being eroded by business decisions. This discussion is merely a different branch of the exercise of consumer rights and consumer privacy as it is applied to cleaning CA scum off of our credit reports. Consumer privacy is dying, and unless people stand up to business interests, it will be dead. We already have to opt-out of having our information sold by CRAs, or being used for junk mail by DMA members. Many banks, insurance companies, and other businesses we have accounts with bury marketing clauses in their terms of service. Unless a consumer scrutinizes those terms and follows the proper opt-out procedure, his or her information will be turned over for purposes of marketing and profiling. Several electronics retailers used to be notorious for collecting phone numbers and mailing addresses at the point of purchase, and lawsuits were filed over repeated failures to disclose the fact that providing information was optional, and information provided was to be used for marketing purposes. Many consumers, for right or wrong, assumed that the information was required for credit card billing, warranty claims, return service, etc. Enough complaints by people sick of junk mail and other associated ills finally curbed the practice in general, and made it more transparent where it was used. Other channels (loyalty cards, warranty registrations, mailing lists, etc) have suffered from many of the same problems related to failure to achieve affirmative consent, and this is why many things which can opt you in to third-party data sharing or co-marketing now provide an explicit box to opt in or opt out. Although the language varies, enough complaints finally changed industry practices regarding privacy policies. Most companies which trick consumers into signing up for junk mail or profiling quickly feel a backlash. Banks, insurance companies, and utilities still obtain "consent" by less than upfront means, although their greater discretion in the sharing of information has prevented a mass backlash. Medical privacy would never have been strengthened through HIPAA if it weren't for persistent calls by consumers to keep their private information private without clear, informed consent. The Federal HIPAA rule regarding medical history disclosure, which has served many of us well in keeping our billing history out of the hands of sleazy CAs, was brought about in part by consumers angry about weak medical privacy. People are inclined to believe that ID checks are effective at stopping crime, because criminals and kids buying adult products hate showing ID. When a retailer repeats the myth that ID is for their protection, they are inclined to believe it. If consumers don't assert their desire for privacy and the privacy rights they already have, then merchants are going to continue to feel free to do as they please. It doesn't take very many consumers to push back and let merchants know that they are still accountable to their customers. This is why education on the evils of ID is so crucial, so that the general public will understand that ID requirements are a violation, but more importantly, understand why ID requirements are a violation.

Some polls are not well suited to the inclusion of an "other" category. This poll is one of them. Including an other category would introduce an unpredictable amount of skew to the poll due to votes from consumers who did not lodge effective complaints or did not follow up on the effectiveness of their complaint. The posts in this forum have clearly established that an assertive, well-structured complaint can be effective at correcting merchant violations, therefore we only want to sample those who have had clear success. Furthermore, the more effective reporters have demonstrated that repeat success is something to be expected, therefore we must assume that one pathway exists among the major four networks for shaping up horribly behaved merchants. Granted, if we wanted to be more precise (and the forum software allowed for more precise polling), we could have asked a separate question to ascertain if a respondent was generally frustrated with the response of all networks, but had seen enough success from one to warrant a vote for a specific network. The resulting data could then considered among both subsets of consumers who had experienced repeat success, and those that had experienced some success among mostly frustration. This is not a scientific poll, and its results are skewed, mainly due to the differing number of issued cards among the four major networks. This can be accounted for. If, for example, Discover held its own with Visa, we could assume that Discover is much more consumer friendly due to the much larger number of consumers using Visa. An other category is generally only suitable for polls of opinion, not experience, and only when the results desired should measure the affinity for listed choices amongst both each other and unlisted but still valid choices. As we assume that a non-major payment network is too obscure to be a valid choice, we need to limit the choices to the major networks.

I should also mention that his ownership in in common stock, which is subordinate to the government's preferred stock. The US government is the majority holder of Citi's equity. The shots are being called by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC.