General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUsury
Starting this thread because I've pointed this out a few times and have realized most people don't actually know this.
Point of information: banks are not under any usury laws. That is, starting in 1980, there was NO LIMIT to how much a bank could charge you for a loan. As of 1996, any limit on credit card and other fees was also repealed. History below:
Each U.S. state has its own statute which dictates how much interest can be charged before it is considered usurious or unlawful.
If a lender charges above the lawful interest rate, a court will not allow the lender to sue to recover the debt because the interest rate was illegal anyway. In some states (such as New York) such loans are voided ab initio.[44]
However, there are separate rules applied to most banks. The U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously in the 1978 Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. case that the National Banking Act of 1863 allowed nationally chartered banks to charge the legal rate of interest in their state regardless of the borrower's state of residence.[45] In 1980, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. Among the Act's provisions, it exempted federally chartered savings banks, installment plan sellers and chartered loan companies from state usury limits. Combined with the Marquette decision that applied to National Banks, this effectively overrode all state and local usury laws.[46][47] The 1968 Truth in Lending Act does not regulate rates, except for some mortgages, but requires uniform or standardized disclosure of costs and charges.[48]
In the 1996 Smiley v. Citibank case, the Supreme Court further limited states' power to regulate credit card fees and extended the reach of the Marquette decision. The court held that the word "interest" used in the 1863 banking law included fees and, therefore, states could not regulate fees.[49]
This is the principal reason the FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) part of the economy blew up post-1980. The profits you can make in this sector have been unlimited since this repeal.
The results of this are things like payday lending, where rates are measured in the hundreds. No lie. Once you get into the payday lending cycle, it's very hard to get out.
As Daily Kos pointed out a few years ago, this is an ancient, Biblical sin.
From a practical point of view, it holds back the recovery. Just ask Citi (yes, Citi, or at least its recently sacked CEO Vikram Pandit):
The Citigroup executive did not endorse a specific ceiling, but cited the example of the 10 percent credit cards his bank introduced several years ago, believing other banks would follow and lower their rates too (when they didn't, Citi lost money in the venture). The Globe's exchange with Pandit was most likely inspired by news stories about the anti-usury actions in Boston.
Pandit made the telling observation that sky-high interest rates are among the impediments to ending the recession. If interest rates are curbed, he explained, banks would likely defend profitability by reducing the available credit and some high-risk borrowers would doubtless be cut off (the banking industry is already pursuing this strategy). However, Pandit added, a dramatic reduction in rates would help deeply indebted families recover their purchasing power. "I don't disagree," he said, "with the notion that having high rates in this environment is not conducive to driving economic recovery."
Want to rein in the banks and get a recovery going that's for real? Get some new usury limits in place.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)banks are concerned, was made legal. Looks like around the time we got Reagan in office, 1980. I did not know this. Basically you are saying that we DO have usury laws, but since 1980 with the exception of Banks!
However, there are separate rules applied to most banks.
Point of information: banks are not under any usury laws. That is, starting in 1980, there was NO LIMIT to how much a bank could charge you for a loan. As of 1996, any limit on credit card and other fees was also repealed
That really is outrageous. I don't know who is most to blame for the people being unaware of what Congress has been doing, but I blame mostly the media who are supposed to be educating the public.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)at least before 1996. That's why Citibank put their headquarters in Sioux Falls for their credit card. Because South Dakota had no state usury laws, Citi could charge whatever they wanted on their credit cards no matter where the cardholder lived. Most other credit card companies were headquartered in Delaware, which also had no state usury laws.
That was well before 1996, because my brother-in-law has been working for them since at least 1988 that I can remember.
Whatever that does for the national economy it sure has been good for the city of Sioux Falls, which has grown by leaps and bounds, at least partly because of all the jobs from Citi.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)1996 was the year they decided not just the interest rate, but the fees as well, could not be regulated under existing law on a national basis.
So, in order to get this re-regulated, new laws have to be passed. As the Wiki notes, a solution to this was conspicuous by its absence in the Dodd-Frank law. It is, in my opinion, the single most important thing that Congress can do. Without it, profits in this sector are unlimited and it will continue to distort the economy as a result. With it, you cap the profits and everyone who is drawn to it for the huge sums that can be made will have to find something else to do. Possibly even something productive.
bgill100
(2 posts)Yes, and a side effect of not having effective usury laws is that money that might have gone to small business loans (paying 8-15%) is now moved into "payday" loans, where the net return is over 100%. So the lack of usury has caused a squeeze of the small business funding market.
bgill100
(2 posts)The Supreme Court decision basically said that the only banks that the individual state could control were banks chartered in that state, not all banks operating in that state. This effectively ended any state usury control for any lender who wanted to crush their customers with sky high interest rates (as long as that lender is 'associated' with a bank).
This decision basically eliminated any useful usury law, and the 'fix' would be a Federal usury limit. There IS currently a Federal usury limit for anyone lending money to an ACTIVE SERVICE PERSON. It is 36%. But somehow lawmakers haven't found it important to actually protect ALL Americans in this manner. Mostly because they are regularly paid off by Wall Street interests.