Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 313 posts

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#281

Post by jpatokal »

CaptSpify wrote: post #252
blakeyrat wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every State in the US has ID cards, but citizens aren't required to obtain one at any point. (Although a heck of a lot of basic things-- driving a car on a public road, boarding an airplane, buying alcohol-- are gated by them.) What we don't have is a Federal ID card. The TSA tried to impose one, but a lot of States are pushing back against it. (Washington State called the TSA's bluff and obtained a 2-year "extension…

> The SSN was never intended to be ID... Wasn't that basically BS from the beginning though? What other purpose would it serve?

It was supposed to a unique ID for Social Security and nothing more, but then the IRS and the Army (among others) started using it, and lots of others suddenly thought it was a good idea.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#282

Post by mikeash »

ThomPete wrote: post #269
mikeash wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two basic scenarios that credit card companies want to avoid with their customers. There's the scenario where the customer buys a bunch of stuff they can't afford and then can't pay their bill, and there's the scenario where the customer can pay their bill but just doesn't feel like it. Both scenarios are fundamentally impossible with a debit card, so I really don't see how there's any relevance here. It's…

You are way too tied up on the credit vs. debit part. Thats not really important here. You are not suddenly going to become financially irresponsible just because you get credit and yes you can determine someones financial responsibility by looking at their debit card usage that is why you can actually convince someone if you get rejected to look at your case again to show them additional information. This is why you…

And you're not nearly tied up enough on the credit vs debit part. The whole point of a credit report is to determine your suitability for credit, which is something that simply doesn't apply to a debit card.

A ton of people suddenly become financially irresponsible just because they get a credit card. It's a massive problem, and that's why companies want to see some history. Being responsible with a debit card where there are hard limits on how irresponsible you can be doesn't mean a whole lot for how you'll be with a credit card.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#283

Post by randombacon2 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #191
superuser2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you are trusted by definition I felt pretty "trusted by definition." Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen. A few years later I had an $8,000 limit card and a $10,000 limit card. I bought my car certified-pre-owned under a program that writes favorable low-cost loans to recent college graduates with no or limited credit history (with an offer letter or paystubs). You just aren't truste…

"I felt pretty "trusted by definition." Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen. A few years later I had an $8,000 limit card and a $10,000 limit card." As a recent immigrant I felt pretty untrusted. In my late 20s, despite being able to show a year of income in the six digits, no overdrafts, I had to go to four separate banks before finding one that was willing to give me a $300 limit ca…

Find a secured credit card. I was able to get one from USAA with a $5,000 limit (you just deposit $5,000 in a CD to cover it). Not many people realize this, but you do not have to be in the military to bank with USAA (you do if you want their insurance products, but not for banking).

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#284

Post by nommm-nommm »

geoka9 wrote: post #280
nommm-nommm wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have about $150k limit on my cards combined. It would be a lot higher but I asked most of them to lower my limits. I just have a lot of cards. If they want to give me bonuses for signing up I will take them. Free money.

Don't you have to pay annual fees?

Sure but you don't have any obligation to keep the cards and pay fees year after year. When the annual fee is coming up on a card I call up and cancel it. Most cards give you the first year free anyways. Plus the no annual fee cards add up if you've been "collecting" them for a while and there's not usually a reason to cancel no annual fee cards.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#285

Post by nommm-nommm »

ThomPete wrote: post #269
mikeash wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two basic scenarios that credit card companies want to avoid with their customers. There's the scenario where the customer buys a bunch of stuff they can't afford and then can't pay their bill, and there's the scenario where the customer can pay their bill but just doesn't feel like it. Both scenarios are fundamentally impossible with a debit card, so I really don't see how there's any relevance here. It's…

You are way too tied up on the credit vs. debit part. Thats not really important here. You are not suddenly going to become financially irresponsible just because you get credit and yes you can determine someones financial responsibility by looking at their debit card usage that is why you can actually convince someone if you get rejected to look at your case again to show them additional information. This is why you…

>You are not suddenly going to become financially irresponsible just because you get credit

Uhhhhhh... You haven't been in the United States for very long, have you?

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#286

Post by Osmium »

FireBeyond wrote: post #191
superuser2 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you are trusted by definition I felt pretty "trusted by definition." Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen. A few years later I had an $8,000 limit card and a $10,000 limit card. I bought my car certified-pre-owned under a program that writes favorable low-cost loans to recent college graduates with no or limited credit history (with an offer letter or paystubs). You just aren't truste…

"I felt pretty "trusted by definition." Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen. A few years later I had an $8,000 limit card and a $10,000 limit card." As a recent immigrant I felt pretty untrusted. In my late 20s, despite being able to show a year of income in the six digits, no overdrafts, I had to go to four separate banks before finding one that was willing to give me a $300 limit ca…

Also in my late 20s, in the US temporarily and nowhere near six digits (academia, sigh) and I've found it okay. You just have to be selective where you apply. I got an unsecured $1000 from Discover (since been increased) and an unsecured $300 from Capital One. I applied for those cards because they both have a reputation for being more friendly to people with empty credit files, and my credit score is now around 715 (TransUnion).

I mean, it's not great, but you have to start somewhere, and I've only been here 9 months. Was very frustrating to have to start from scratch when I have good credit in my home country, but completely understandable.

The really frustrating thing is how your credit score influences everything - apartment hunting, mobile phone contracts, etc. That's the only reason I'm trying to build my credit at all here. It feels like having a bad credit score puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the US, which is something I've never felt before.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#288

Post by markdown »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #287
markdown wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://e-estonia.com/component/electronic-id-card/

That is just an idiotic idea, especially the voting part.

Wonderful. A downvote and a "that's stupid" comment.

Is there a reason you can't articulate your views on a system that is live and working successfully?

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#289

Post by ThomPete »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #271
ThomPete wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are an american right? You spent your whole life in the US? So you have a history with a bank I am assuming. I don't understand exactly why I am being down-voted. The system is at it is it's not something I made up.

You are being downvoted because you are spouting falsehoods about the US credit/financial system.

Which falsehood exactly?

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#290

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

markdown wrote: post #288
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just an idiotic idea, especially the voting part.

Wonderful. A downvote and a "that's stupid" comment. Is there a reason you can't articulate your views on a system that is live and working successfully?

I can, and it isn't. It cannot be.

First of all, I wrote above you in this thread, regarding smart cards for government ID:

> That's not really a good solution either, though, because that requires trust in an essentially unverifiable system and the entity producing it.

So, maybe you want to address that instead of just pointing out that people are in fact using a system that obviously has this problem that I already mentioned.

As for why electronic voting or electronic counting of votes is a terrible idea (I would have thought everyone on here knows that by now): It's impossible to audit. Elections are the failsafe of a democracy that has to be able to remove a government from power that tries to prevent being removed, and they are about the control of huge amounts of recources. Therefore, you cannot have trust in a small minority as the basis for its reliability, you have to have a system that is very hard to corrupt even by the government. A government server counting votes is the exact opposite of that.

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

The fact that, so far, noone has seen any problems is completely missing the point. First of all, the whole system is set up such that it's really difficult to find out if something went wrong/was manipulated (that's just the nature of electronic voting). Secondly, most elections aren't all that problematic. In times of peace and prosperity, there usually isn't much contention over the results of an election. What makes a voting system good is when it's able to stay reliable and trusted in times of political unrest.

Post reply on HN