I think, in the long run, it is a good idea. People often keep charging, as long as they can swing the minimum. Then something happens, and they're screwed, because they've been paying all this money out for yonks, and the principle has never been touched. But in the shortrun, it's going to hit a lot of people, really hard.

Yup. If my calculations are correct, if worst came to worst and Chase ups their minimums before I find a job, I could temp, and the typical local pay rate for a highly skilled clerical temp would be just enough to cover Annabel's day care and the increase in the minimum balances. But most households don't have a spare skilled worker sitting around who just needs to find the right job to get them out of paycheck-to-paycheck land.

I wondered about that, but this was from my parents' home address.

Oh. Hm. Maybe they just thought you should know and didn't think to put in a note? I've gotten stuff from my parents that way, though not funeral arrangements. So far.

My dad did show us what Yosemite meadow he wants us to illegally scatter his ashes in last time we were there. I should probably write that down somewhere.

Link marked.

Bleah. I forgot about Chase buying out Bank One. I really, really loathe Chase and I don't want one fucking penny of my money to enrich its coffers, ever -- like a good little lefty, I cancelled my card with them a few weeks after the Zapatista uprising in Mexico, when the CEO of Chase wrote a personal letter to the president of Mexico, promising him Chase's financial assistance to any amount necessary to quash the unpleasantness with those whiny Indians (okay, those weren't his exact words, but they were sure as hell the gist).

But I like my Bank 1 card; decent rates, special offers, and in the years I've had it I've gotten a couple of free flights and a metric assload of upgrades to business or first class, and I just like it. I like everything about it, except for the fuckholes who now own it and will be pocketing my interest fees and doing God knows what with them.

Personally, I think the law's a bad idea, as you can always pay more than the minimum amount, but sometimes when you're low on money it's nice to only pay a smaller minimum, even if you're just covering interest. But if that's all you ever do then you're screwed. So this is pretty much an attempt to legislate common sense.

Um, being kinda picky here, but it's more regulatory strongarming than law.

But most households don't have a spare skilled worker sitting around who just needs to find the right job to get them out of paycheck-to-paycheck land.

If you're still below your credit limit, what I think a lot of people will end up doing is charging an amount at least equal to the increased payment to cover the things that otherwise would have been paid directly. Which kind of defeats the purpose.

Go Jars!

If you're still below your credit limit, what I think a lot of people will end up doing is charging an amount at least equal to the increased payment to cover the things that otherwise would have been paid directly. Which kind of defeats the purpose.

So, win-win for the credit card companies.

What a surprise.

Um, being kinda picky here, but it's more regulatory strongarming than law.

Oh yeah, I finished reading the article and saw that. Oops.

I cancelled my card with them a few weeks after the Zapatista uprising in Mexico, when the CEO of Chase wrote a personal letter to the president of Mexico, promising him Chase's financial assistance to any amount necessary to quash the unpleasantness with those whiny Indians (okay, those weren't his exact words, but they were sure as hell the gist).