Credit card debt collection

Are the debt collectors not recording the calls? As far as I know, if they say "this call may be recorded" you can record it as well.

How are they being penalized? Nothing was owed to them, so withholding something not theirs isn't a penalty.

Why should the company assume higher risk merely to protect people it has no obligation to?

Sure, but that doesn't answer my question. What I'm saying is, the Ämter in Berlin are explicitly using the term "Kreditkarte" to refer to all Visa/Mastercard/Maestro cards, including debit cards. In Berlin, only the locations that say they accept Kreditkarten, will accept debit cards that are backed by Visa/Mastercard/Maestro payment infrastructure. If they only say they accept Girokarte, then they will not accept debit cards. What I'm asking is, does Hamburg use the same language at Ämtern as Berlin, or does it differentiate explicitly between Girokarte, Kreditkarte, and Debitkarte? I've tried to find this myself online, but I don't see anything official.

Here's another example [1, page 116] from the BMI (so, federal now): "Haben Sie ein Konto bei einer Bank oder einer Sparkasse, wird Ihnen häufig eine Giro-card oder eine Kreditkarte ausgestellt (zum Teil gegen Gebühr), mit der Sie bezahlen können. Der bezahlte Betrag wird dann automatisch von Ihrem Konto abgebucht"

> If you have an account by a bank or a Sparkasse (special kind of bank), you will often be issued a Girokarte or a Kreditkarte (sometimes for a fee), with which you can pay. The paid amount will then be automatically deducted from your account.

Note that Debitkarte isn't even mentioned, and the behavior described for both kinds of cards is the same. This is not true of Kreditkarten that operate on a revolving credit basis; the amount is not automatically deducted from your account, but rather paid later. To me, this language is pretty clear: the federal government sees the system as "you either have a Girokarte or a Kreditkarte" and that Debitkarten are included in Kreditkarten.

And, actually, even better, this bit from wikipedia [2] is explicit: "Der Begriff Kreditkarte wird international nicht einheitlich verwendet. In den deutschsprachigen Ländern werden damit sowohl echte Kreditkarten als auch Chargekarten, Daily-Chargekarten, Scheck- bzw. Debitkarten und Prepaidkarten bezeichnet"

> The term Kreditkarte is not uniformly used internationally. In German-speaking countries it may refer to real credit cards, as well as charge cards, daily charge cards, check-cards or debit cards.

[1] https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/publikatione...

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreditkarte#Kartenarten

I think the burden of proof is in the other direction: if someone is going to use some sort of signal or test to determine if someone is eligible for employment, it is on them to present evidence that the signal/test actually accomplishes the objective they expect it to.

In California, it is illegal to use a credit report in employment decisions (unless the position is in finance/accounting). Clearly lawmakers have decided that this sort of test isn't helpful, and is abused to deny qualified people employment.

The point is that a credit report is probably a poor signal of risk when it comes to the kinds of things most employers care about when considering hiring someone.

If you have evidence to support the idea that a credit report actually is a good signal here, then by all means, present it. If not, then the default assumption should be that it's not useful, or at the very least not equitable. We shouldn't be adding qualifications to things based on guesswork.

And in general, we very often legally require companies assume higher risk in various things (including hiring) in the name of anti-discrimination (for one thing). We consider this to be a benefit to society. In this specific case, I want the person who has bad credit to be able to obtain steady employment (and on decent terms; not just one out of the fewer jobs they'd have to take because the others disqualified them based on their credit) because that's pretty much the only way they'll be able to improve their credit. They'll be able to become more financially stable, perhaps be able to buy a home. All of this is a benefit to the stability of society.

The thing that generally pisses me off about attitudes like yours is that it advocates for a system where when you do one thing wrong, you get further restricted in ways where you're guaranteed to do more wrong things, and every step you take -- even steps taken in good faith, in seemingly the right direction -- makes it harder to dig yourself out from under the mess.

I've found that the people with these attitudes are usually those who have either a) never experienced much in the way of hardship, or b) are one of the rare cases who managed to dig themselves out, despite all the adversity, and now have a chip on their shoulder that makes them advocate for continuing to make it hard for everyone else.