DISQUS

Pay Day Defender · 1 year ago

Your editorial against payday lenders is tantamount to the religious right's views on abortion clinics. You want to "protect us" from ourselves. God gave us freedom of choice. Who are you to tell us what we can or cannot do financially? It's amazes me when people force their will upon others in the name of "doing good". Mind YOUR OWN business or some day you may find yourself faced without the freedom of choice you desperately need at some point in the future. And don't be so quick to judge people. Everyone makes mistakes, fortunately we also have the ability to correct them and move forward.

Freddie L. Hinton · 1 year ago

Ma'am, no one, let alone The Star, is trying to tell you how to waste your money. Payday loans are just another example of predatory lending. Before most people realize it, they have dug a financial hole for themselves that they can't get out of.

You said that everyone makes mistakes. That is true. But, few people ever learn from those mistakes. If that were not true, customers wouldn't be in a constant state of debt to payday lenders. I think that The Star's series was trying to point out how easy it is to fall into that trap.

Bill Smith · 1 year ago

This newspaper was swayed by the propoganda provided to them by CRL, a group backed and funded by credit unions. The interesting thing is that they have not even attempted to seek out the facts and report them in a faif and balance manner.

Cigarettes continue to kill people.....we all know that. Why is this newspaper not attacking the tobacco industry. Maybe there is not a group such as the CRL that need to profit from putting a viable business out of business that can afford to tackle tobacco.

JohnJ · 1 year ago

Why is it that all these different names say the exact same thing?

OR...they try to deflect the conversation? This has nothing to do with cigarettes.

Mr. Right · 1 year ago

WOW, thanks for another balanced article... If we are going to have civil discourse then lets talk honestly and openly about the issues. When you start with the basis of putting them out of business, there is no discourse left. Civil discourse speaks directly to communication, analysis, and allowing all of the issue to be discussed. It is apparent by this and the last article that there is no discourse left as you have made up your mind, but thank you for skewing perceptions and weighing issues only one sided.

JohnJ · 1 year ago

Well..we see the local owners are using unregistered names to make comments again.
The business model is a scam to take from the poor and uneducated. Pure and simple. Yes, the Star is biased..hell...anyone with half a brain can see what a rip off the industry is.
It figures it would thrive in Alabama. Stupid people make stupid decisions.

Payday Lending Rep · 1 year ago

People have a right to react to what is a transparently biased attack form the Star that is being pushed by the agendas of national activist groups.

JohnJ · 1 year ago

Doesn't the Star have a right to an opinion?

Your allegation that the Star's editors are being "pushed" by national activists groups is unfounded unless you can prove otherwise. Up to now you haven't proven a thing other than you have an opinion driven by your pay check.

LBG · 1 year ago

I only read part of the series of articles that the Star did. Although I respect the right of business owners to operate said business's as they see fit, one CANNOT deny, that with the high interest rates. Obscenely high, that is, you are praying off other peoples misery. You profit off the already poor and disadvantaged. That's the truth of the matter. Should the government regulate it? If I didn't have such a distaste for big government I would say yes. Just another symptom of the downward spiral society is going into.

Jon Schultz · 1 year ago

Breathtaking revenue, my ass. It's a matter of public record that payday loan companies make a considerably smaller return on their investment than banks and many other kinds of businesses. You idiots just can't seem to understand that "triple-digit interest rates" doesn't necessarily mean a huge markup on the product.

If I say, "I will lend you $100 today if you will pay me back $101 tomorrow," that's a 365% interest rate but is it really an outrageous statement? It obviously isn't, and in fact most people would not make that statement because they wouldn't want to risk losing $100 for just $1 in profit. And that doesn't even consider any cost in making the loan!

It costs money to issue a loan. The employee who interacts with the customer for 15 to 30 minutes has to be paid. Then there's rent, utilities, database checking, and in addition the cost of the loan has to make up for all the loans which some people just don't repay. At 36%, a lender could only charge $1.38 for two-week $100 loan. That's why there are no more payday loan stores in North Carolina and the people who used to get payday loans there are now paying more money than payday loans used to cost them in bounced check and overdraft fees, credit card late payment and overlimit fees, or Internet payday lender fees which are generally more expensive than the stores were. And that's just the lucky ones. The unlucky ones have been evicted or lost their jobs because they couldn't get their cars repaired. Children may have been evicted in the dead of winter and died because of fools like you who want so much to be one of the good guys that you are blind to the destructiveness of the reforms you dedicate yourselves to implementing.

If you want to help the small percentage of payday loan customers who can't resist the temptation to overborrow and get themselves into a debt trap then lobby the goverment to provide them with no-profit loans or free credit counseling, work to make the industry properly regulated so it is certain that every payday loan customer completely understands the charges and the potential consequences of not paying the loan back, go into the business yourselves and charge less if you still think that small-dollar short-term loans (the only type of loan that people with bad credit can qualify for) can be issued profitably for a lower APR - but don't trample on what should be the inalienable right of a merchant or service provider to set his own price (if he doesn't utilize limited public resources in the operation of his business) and the inalienable right of a consumer to decide for himself which products and services he wishes to avail himself of. This is the United States of America, supposedly the land of liberty, and if I want to sell my autograph for $10,000 on eBay I should have a right to do so, even if some fool throws away all his savings on it.

JohnJ · 1 year ago

Interesting how you avoided the truth.

LBG · 1 year ago

Oh please, the profit on said loans isn't that marginal. If it were there wouldn't be title loan-payday loan- pawn shops infesting Quintard Avenue. Do what you want, someones gonna make money off these people, might as well be you, right? But don't fool yourself into thinking you have an admirable profession helping society. You also failed to mention most of these seedy joints pay there employees on commission (upon collection of the debt). Meaning you're not just ripping off customers, you rip off your employees to. You may be a richer man at the end of the day for selling your autograph for 10,000 bucks, but it sure don't mean you're a better person.

Jon Schultz · 1 year ago

The bottom line is customer satisfaction surveys. When a large majority of people who have used a service report that they consider it to be a useful option, then that service is doing considerably more good than harm and the government should LEAVE IT ALONE. Such surveys can be seen at http://www.cfsa.net/customer_demand.html

LBG · 1 year ago

I never said the government should interfere. I'm simply saying you make a living preying off others misery. I get tired of pawn shop owners making it sound like they're working towards the greater good. No, the government should not regulate it, people shouldn't turn to shady loan sharks to make ends meat. But why in the hell is it you all are so proud of what you do? Because regardless of your opinion of government regulation on such businesses, stop telling yourself you are helping society, because you are not. And the world would be better of without all of it.

Jon Schultz · 1 year ago

If payday lenders "prey" on people who are financially strapped - by offering an option which, although somewhat expensive (mostly because providing the service is expensive) may be the best option they have - then doctors "prey" on people who are sick. And remember that a lot of people get bad results from using doctors. Iatrogenic illness (i.e. hospital infections and side effects from prescription drugs) is one of the leading causes of death in this country. But most people still go to doctors because overall they do more good than harm. And in the absence of any government agency or private charity that people can turn to when they have an emergency or immediate need for funds, payday lenders do too.

JohnJ · 1 year ago

Using your logic then pot and prostitution should be be legal.
See? We can agree on something!

AtrioVent · 1 year ago

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

Capitalism thrives when government stays out of the way of business. When government gets involved we move toward socialism. What "prey tell" would you provide for the people who find this service necessary? government assistance? Does government really need to be larger?
Banks won't make these types of loans except through the exercise of return fees.
Perhaps the paper could take the roll of reporting facts rather than moral indignation through opinion.

JohnJ · 1 year ago

"When government gets involved we move toward socialism"
Really? What class did you learn that in? Not any economics class I ever took. A very broad brush at best and certainly just an opinion which you're provide no facts to back up.

The paper reported the facts: the industry rips off the less educated. And every news organization passes on their opinion every day using facts that they present in the story. And then you have the opinion\intertainment media like Faux News and Lush Dumbo who don't let facts get in the way.

Atrio · 1 year ago

JohnJ

Perhaps the classroom failed you?
The paper presented negative verbage presented as fact. They failed to provide full disclosure of the facts of the industry. When members of the industry presented their side. The paper quickly disregarded those comments with out even taking the time to adequately evaluate that information. That is one sided and proves a bias on the part of the Aniston Star which is a disservice to all.
If we are to make an educated decision we must have clear facts from all sides of the issue in question. The paper has exerted effort to prevent that in this issue. If your doctor did this, you would sue for malpractice and/or neglegence and you would win. Could it be that the paper is practicing journalitic malpractice?

Who is more wrong an industry trying to meet the needs of customers if only for profit, or a media outlet that would overtly suppress one side of the issue?

JohnJ · 1 year ago

It's Alabama's classrooms and students that rank at the bottom. That's a fact I've proved.

You're first 3 sentences are all opinion with no facts...which is just what you accuse the Star of doing. So it's ok if you do it but not the Star? The Star presented the facts as they see them. You see them differently. I agree with the Star and did long before they printed any articles. They did nothing to change my opinion.

As I said before ALL media has a bias. Why are you so confused by that? And the Star presented 7 days of stories backed up with facts. You're presented none. But it's ok for you, right?

This isn't about doctors, stop trying to change the subject.

Atrio · 1 year ago

JohnJ

Confused? Not at all.

Again, my only point is as stated before,
"Who is more wrong an industry trying to meet the needs of customers if only for profit, or a media outlet that would overtly suppress one side of the issue?"

Good luck to you JohnJ.

JohnJ · 1 year ago

As I said Atrio (unregistered)
It's just your opinion, and a biased one at that, that the Star overtly suppressed one side of the issue.

So your only point is unproven. Again.