• 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.

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

                Sounds like you just have an ideological bias against consumer regulation

                I’m in favor of consumer protection laws on aspects like quality, safety, etc. Things that are more nebulous and harder or impossible to check. But at some point, I do believe consumers have a responsibility as well. I understand that convenience stores charge me more than groceries, and it’s fully on me if I shop there. In the same vein, if I buy a car that’s going for 50% above market value, I’m not about to scream fraud, provided all information on costs and fees were given to me.

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

                  Things that are more nebulous and harder or impossible to check.

                  Then please demonstrate how easy it is for the consumer to check their total payments by posting a screenshot from that website that alerts the consumer to the possibility of paying 4x the cost of the device as the total cost of transaction.

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

                    check their total payments

                    If you’re signing a contract with no idea how much you’re going to be on the hook for, no amount of govt protection will keep you solvent.

                • BelieveRevolt [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  181 year ago

                  You can look at this from another perspective, which is the benefit of allowing a scam like this to continue vs. regulating it out of existence. The only upsides of allowing this to continue is the company perpetuating it making money and a smug lemmitor getting to feel superior to the poors and disabled people, so it’s obvious that it shouldn’t be allowed to exist.

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

                    It’s amazing how many hexbears can’t have a simple discussion without getting personal.

                    I agree this BS needs to stop. I disagree on HOW it should be stopped. The market (and people out to make a quick buck) will always move faster than the govt can respond. Especially when the victims involved here have shown absolute zero financial literacy. Rather than treating the symptoms, I believe there should be more focus on education.