I've tried getting other cards no dice, I suppose I'm one of the cases that shouldn't be lent credit. I'd hate to cancel it because I've had it for a year and just charge like a tank of gas on it a month and pay it off. Just something to try and rebuild my credit.
I was under the impression that having a CC and making timely monthly payments was the best way. I've tried getting a loan for a used car but after my two repos(long story), lenders are a bit hesitant.
Credit card payment are nice but car payments are better. Basically shows you can be trusted with buying a big ticket item. Of course house payments are best.
Actually, from what I understand, the best way to rebuild your credit is to make your monthly payments on time for a long period of time. The more on time payments you make, the better your credit will be. Sometimes, creditors will actually look down on you paying something off early because, if you do it a lot, they don't think they can make any money off of you and thus, they won't lend to you. Creditors are fickle bunch. Not saying it's bad to pay your debts off (it's obviously a good thing) but when you're trying to rebuild your credit, borrowing and then paying off early isn't really going to help you. It's all about on time payments. The more the better. Like pirc1 says, car payments and house payments are better than credit card payments but in order to get a house or a car (and a decent interest rate) you have to have above average credit and the way to get above average credit is to do what you're doing. Besides, with a credit card, you don't have to pay any interest if you pay it in full every month. With cars and houses, you do.
Time for class warfare yet? Senate passes tougher bankruptcy bill Friday, March 11, 2005 Posted: 11:10 AM EST (1610 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate passed legislation Thursday making it easier for banks, retailers, credit card companies and other creditors to recoup some money they're owed by many of the 1.5 million people who file for bankruptcy every year. Eighteen Democrats and the Senate's lone independent joined Republicans in approving the bill on a 74-25 vote. It goes to the House next month and onto President Bush, who made it a priority after the GOP increased its majorities in the election last fall. "I applaud the strong bipartisan vote in the Senate to curb abuses of the bankruptcy system," Bush said in a statement. "Reforming the system with this common sense approach, more Americans -- especially lower-income Americans -- will have greater access to credit." Lenders had been pushing the legislation for eight years. They argued too many people with ability to repay at least a portion of the money they owe were walking away from all their debts under current law. "Those who can pay their bills should pay their bills. That's the American way," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Democrats had succeeded in blocking the legislation year after year. They argued the changes advocated by Republicans would keep people who are overwhelmed by medical costs or loss of a job hopelessly in debt the rest of their lives. "It will have a real impact on real people all over this country," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin. Over the past two weeks, Republicans knocked down Democratic attempts to ease the impact of the legislation on people facing huge debts they cannot pay, including single parents, the unemployed and the ill. Wall Street investment bankers won a provision that will enable the same firm to work for a company both before and after it files for bankruptcy. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson opposed the measure; he said it would further undermine investor confidence already shaken by the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals. Supporters of the bill said bankruptcy often was the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires -- often celebrities -- who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors. Each year, somewhere between 30,000 and 210,000 people -- from 3.5 percent to 20 percent of those who currently dissolve their debts in bankruptcy -- would be disqualified from doing so under the legislation, according to American Bankruptcy Institute estimates. The institute is a group of bankruptcy judges, lawyers and other experts. The legislation would set up an income-based test for measuring a debtor's ability to repay debts. It would require people in bankruptcy to pay for credit counseling and stiffen some legal requirements for debtors in the bankruptcy process. Under the new income test, those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which if approved by a judge, erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited. But those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years -- $100 a month -- would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would then order a repayment plan. About 70 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy now do so under Chapter 7, while the other 30 percent or so fall under Chapter 13, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute. Most of the Chapter 7 filers "don't have the income to fund a (repayment) plan that won't fail," said Samuel Gerdano, the group's executive director. Under current law, a bankruptcy judge determines under which chapter of the bankruptcy code a person falls. The bill is the second piece of pro-business legislation that Congress is acting quickly on this year. Last month it sent him a bill placing most large multistate class action lawsuits under federal court jurisdiction, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to join together and win multimillion-dollar judgments in state courts.
I accidentally missed a payment on one of our large credit cards, and they jumped the rate about 8%. We've had the card for ten years, so I called them and asked them to lower it some and they refused. I took money out of savings, paid it off, and called to cancel. Now they were willing to drop the rate to less than half of what they were charging me ... by 10%. Too freak'n late.
I hadn't realized that bankruptcy attorneys (I don't practice in this area) may have potential liability for any inaccuracies in their clients' debt schedules or repayment abilities. If the bill passes the House as is, the cost of bankruptcies is going to skyrocket, and there will be many more pro se (without attorney) filings. The system will choke and the greedy, lazy credit card companies will be big losers. Sometimes I wonder about exporting democracy *********************************** From the ABA Journal Report: http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/m18bankrupt.html BANKRUPTCY BILL HOLDS LAWYERS ACCOUNTABLE Expect Passage and New Challenges on Both Sides BY MARTHA NEIL That controversial major rewrite of the nation’s bankruptcy code, almost certain to win final approval and a presidential signature soon, is likely to create a lot of change for some lawyers. "I don’t know anybody who practices in the bankruptcy arena, creditor or debtor lawyer, who thinks this is a good law," says Marc S. Stern, a Seattle lawyer who co-chairs the Bankruptcy Committee of the ABA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Section. Lawyers representing creditors "thought it was great until they realized they were going to have to deal with pro se debtors," says Stern of the planned legislation, known as the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. At one gathering of creditor lawyers, faces literally paled when this point was made for the first time, Stern recounts. Although the legislation is intended to make it harder for lawyers representing debtors to help clients walk away from credit card debt and the like, this change "doesn’t mean these cases are going to go away," Stern says. "It means they’re going to be filed pro se." The ABA has taken no position on the overall bankruptcy legislation, Senate Bill 256, which the U.S. Senate approved March 10 in a 75-24 vote. The House is expected to pass the bill next month. If the legislation is enacted, a few provisions would take effect immediately, but most would not kick in for 180 days or more. The ABA has, however, been lobbying to change several aspects of the bill that are viewed as problematic for lawyers. These include requiring attorneys to certify clients’ debt schedules and holding attorneys personally liable if the schedules (listings of the clients' debts) are inaccurate, as well as requiring attorneys to certify clients’ repayment abilities. The latter requirement, the ABA argues in lobbying material, could require costly financial audits of client finances. Proponents say the legislation would close longstanding loopholes that allow debtors to spend and spend, then declare bankruptcy rather than pay their bills. For example, a tightened means test is intended to steer struggling debtors to Chapter 13 filings that require ongoing payments to creditors rather than allow them simply to wipe their financial slates clean with Chapter 7 filings. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce describes the legislation as pro-business. The chamber says the bill would help keep prices and interest rates down by riding herd on the abusive debtor who could pay but instead chooses to walk away from financial responsibility and "transfers the debt burden from the individual consumer to businesses." Opponents, though, complain that the bill seeks to force struggling middle-class and working-class consumers to pay bills with money they don’t have, based on what they see as a largely fictitious scenario of abusive debtors gaming the bankruptcy system. A Feb. 17 letter signed by nearly 100 bankruptcy and commercial law professors throughout the country contends that "bankruptcy abuse" doesn’t really exist. "This bill seeks to shoot a mosquito with a shotgun," it states, arguing true abuse of the bankruptcy system by debtors is relatively rare and bankruptcy judges already have (and exercise) the power to hold such debtors accountable. The means test to be imposed on all debtors just adds to the difficulties already faced by those drowning in debt, the letter says. "Some people do abuse the bankruptcy system, but the overwhelming majority of those in bankruptcy are in financial distress as a result of job loss, medical expense, divorce or a combination of those causes," it says. To the extent that consumers are voluntarily taking on more debt than they can afford to pay, blame should be placed on credit issuers who willingly lend to borderline borrowers, the professors write. "Nonetheless, consumer lending remains highly profitable even under current law." The "deeply flawed" bankruptcy bill should be of concern to practitioners, the law professors write, because "it takes direct aim at attorneys who handle consumer bankruptcy cases by making them liable for errors in the debtors’ schedules." The legal profession should also be concerned, Stern says, because the bill, by mandating that bankruptcy lawyers advertise themselves as "debt relief agencies," restricts attorneys’ ability to represent their clients as they think best. "It is an attack on the attorney-client privilege," he says. "It’s part of the camel’s nose in the tent." Another organization that opposes the bill is the Commercial Law League of America, which has a 1,200-lawyer bankruptcy section made up of lawyers and judges from throughout the country. In a Tuesday letter, the league argues that "abusive filings [will] continue unabated under the act because it does not address forum-shopping by corporate debtors." Often, the league says, corporate debtors opt to file in a state such as Delaware—where companies routinely elect to incorporate because of its high-quality and business-friendly judiciary—even though their creditors may do no business in the state and hence find it too expensive to travel there to pursue collection efforts. An earlier amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have restricted the venue for filing bankruptcy cases has been withdrawn. However, the issue is being pursued as a separate bill, known as the Fairness in Bankruptcy Litigation Act of 2005.
I've done a few personal bankruptcies and been through more than a few corporate bankruptcies. How in the world could I certify the financial statements of the people or companies that file?? Might be easier for companies...but for people like Refman who help with the filing of personal bankruptcies, how in the world could he possibly certify those very detailed financial statements? That is ridiculous.
ugh. this thread made me want to call my company to see about a lower rate..... yeah, they will give me a lower rate. but also said that my terms have changed because of cost of business so my rate actually just went up.... so the new lower rate i just requested. is higher than what I had like a month ago . grr. I think I'll be calling them back
Thanks for the intro Max...don't mind if I do. The Bankruptcy Reform Act (hereinafter called "BARF") is worse than described above. Every provision in the act is a raodblock to people in need being denied relief. It seeks to force people from a Chapter 7 liquidation to a Chapter 13 reorganization. In a Chapter 13 case, a percentage of what is owed is paid to the unsecured creditors via monthly payments to the U.S. Trustee's Office. Problem: Many of these persons should be in a Chapter 7 because they cannot afford the payments to the Trustee. They, so to speak, become a man without a country. Additionally, BARF places restrictions upon Debtor's attorneys which are onerous. All attorneys representing debtors must refer to themselves as "debt relief agencies." What? No..I'm an attorney who provides legal advice and assistance in obtaining relief under Title 11 of the United States Code. If I wanted to be a debt relief agency, I'd open up CCCS. This is potentially confusing to debtors and comes with other requirements which are beyond the scope of this post. The Senate has requested the Supreme COurt to revise the rules to require a debtor's attorney to certify the accuracy of all financial information. This would seem to require attorneys to have audits and appraisals performed. This would exponentially increase the cost to the debtor of a personal bankruptcy. It also provides for sanctions against attorneys whose clients have forgotten to list anything. Many practioners will leave the practice. Competent counsel will be harder to find, and be prohibitively expensive once located. The desired result is that people will attempt to represent themselves...and fail. Just a short synopsis...barely scratching the surface. BARF is a terrible bill.
so are you guys working against it in anyway, Refman?? what do you think you guys would do if it passed??
NACBA (the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys), which contains both debtor and creditor counsel has lobbied extensively against BARF. In addition, 17 state bars and the ABA has lobbied against it and sent proposed draft amendments to BARF to lessen the effects on Chapter 13 debtors. Apparently Congress has been unimpressed. When it passes, there will be a severe chilling effect on filings. If it only effected Chapter 7, that would be one thing, but it will have a chilling effect on Chapter 13 filings. The thing is, since a number of attorneys will leave the practice due to some of the requirements imposed by BARF, I suspect we will do reasonably ok. At my firm, we are more concerned about the effect this will have on people who are already in financial peril (most of whom not of their own making). What Congress (and some posters) fail to realize is that the OVERWHELMING majority of debtors were living their lives and paying their bills when something catastrophic happened. Anybody remember the recent recession? As far as what we will do, it will be a wait and see. Nobody knows how some of the ambiguous provisions will be construed by courts and the interpretation will be further applied globally within a circuit or district. Once I am finished moving this week, I would be more than happy to have you at my table as I cry into my beer.
I give them hell when they get it wrong....so when they get it right, I have to give them credit: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3117031 Supreme Court shields IRAs from creditors Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that creditors may not seize Individual Retirement Accounts when people file for bankruptcy, giving protection to a nest egg relied upon by millions of Americans. The unanimous decision sides with a bankrupt Arkansas couple fighting to keep more than $55,000 in retirement savings. As a result, IRAs now join pensions, 401(k)s, Social Security and other benefits tied to age, illness or disability that are afforded protection under bankruptcy law. IRAs should not be treated any differently because the benefits are tied to people's age, the court said. IRAs allow most investors to contribute up to $4,000 in earned income annually to a fund that grows tax-free until withdrawals. It is the only retirement plan available to the self-employed and small business owners and is typically used by workers between jobs, according to AARP. But unlike many other retirement plans, IRAs permit cash withdrawals for any reason at any time so long as holders 59 1/2 and younger pay a 10 percent penalty tax. Some lower courts had ruled that makes IRAs different, because people could make withdrawals at any time, regardless of age. "That penalty erects a substantial barrier to early withdrawal," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. "Funds in a typical savings account, by contrast, can be withdrawn without age-based penalty." Last year, more than 1.6 million people filed for personal bankruptcy, compared with 875,000 a decade earlier. Experts say much of that is being driven by people 55 and older who lose their jobs and cannot pay off debts. The case involves Richard and Betty Jo Rousey of Berryville, Ark., who accumulated $55,000 in company-sponsored pension and 401(k) plans at Northrop Grumman Corp. before he took early retirement in 1998. When Betty Jo Rousey was laid off a month later, they rolled the funds over to IRAs. The Rouseys have been unable to hold down new jobs, in part due to his chronic back pain, according to their lawyers. Richard, 60, and Betty Jo, 57, now live on $2,000 a month. Under bankruptcy law, the retirement savings won't be given blanket protection. A separate provision in the law shields the assets only to the extent the money is "reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent." The case is Rousey v. Jacoway, 03-1407
How does a case like this even get to the Supreme Court? I mean it should be clear as day to anyone that if 401ks, etc are protected, so should IRAs. Seriously, creditors have their heads suck up theirs on this...
i agree. that's WHY it got that far. because the Supreme Court needed to address it, directly. affects a whole lot of people, needless to say.
