• @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    341 year ago

    Some things just shouldn’t be allowed, especially when this is aimed at the most vulnerable of society.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Ok, what is it specifically that shouldn’t be allowed here? Renting items? Setting prices higher than somebody else?

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        28
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In this case it’s through the Centrelink specific Centrepay system. Given it’s a government approved system they can presumably remove approval of this company for any reason, so it doesn’t have to reach a level of law breaking, just an obvious to everyone ethical breach.

        In any case, as stated in the article, Rents4Keep are currently being sued by ASIC for breaches of the Credit Act.

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        241 year ago

        Usury is a crime in most places. This kind of transaction is just usury dressed up in the legal fiction of a rental.

          • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not at all. A rent to own scheme is essentially legally identical to getting a seller or third party loan except for when title passes over to the consumer. In most other respects, especially in outcome, it’s the same transaction dressed up specifically to avoid existing usury laws.

            Even Rent4Keeps’s own website calculates costs by comparing it to an installment loan for sale of goods. Doesn’t get more transparent than that.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              A rent to own scheme is essentially legally identical to getting a seller or third party loan except for when title passes over to the consumer

              Interesting point. Though I have to wonder if making it illegal would just change their sales pitch to permanent rental, instead of rent to own. Ultimately, I feel the solution should lie more in educating consumers on financial literacy.

              • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                201 year ago

                Ultimately, I feel the solution should lie more in educating consumers on financial literacy.

                You can crack down on predatory lending and educate consumers. However, you’ll never be able to educate the average consumer to be immune from sophisticated schemes simply because most people have other things to do on life and scammers devote a lot more time creating new scams than the average person can devote to learning about avoiding scams.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  I’m not sure this qualifies as sophisticated - or even a scam, when everything is specified in plain text.

                  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    15
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Except obviously it is because nothing on that website alerts the buyer to the possibility of paying 4x the price of the good as the total cost of transaction. 33% to 38% interest pa is already egregious enough as it is but 4x the base cost of the good is absurd and usurus.

                    Sounds like you just have an ideological bias against consumer regulation and are trying to fit the facts into your framework.