Nearly a year after last year’s legislative session, several news law went into effect today including increased minimum wage and increased tort liability limits for the government. [TNI]
Details emerge about the man who shot two neighbors last week. [Las Vegas Sun]
The man who sold ammo that was used in the October 1 shooting is sentenced to 13 months (and may get to serve the time in home confinement). [Las Vegas Sun]
Contract tracing at work in the fight against COVID-19 in Nevada. [RJ]
The US Supreme Court overruled a decision that booking.com was too generic for trademark protection. [NY Times]
I do consumer bankruptcy and regularly have clients come in with 5-10 payday loans, with one or two from online only sources not licensed in Nevada. I wonder if we'll start seeing more online unlicensed loans instead of more loans from licensed payday/high-interest lenders. With SB201, I'd guesstimate about 75% of clients with payday loans would have been rejected for new loans if they couldn't get them from licensed lenders once the monthly payments hit 25% of their gross monthly income.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 6:04 pm
How come we get leaks from every branch of government and government agency except for courts?
Court decisions take forever to write but judges have made up their mind long before the opinions are released. However, I'm not aware of any single instance (US Supreme Court, appeals court, state supreme court, state court, federal court) where the outcome was leaked to media by law clerks, staff, etc.
I know most big firms in town are able to get bar results a few hours earlier than they are released to public, but that's the only leak I've ever heard of.
You answered your own bizarre question in the second paragraph. The decision is in the judge's mind before it becomes a ruling. So the leak would have to come from the judge, which is not likely to happen, nor should it.
11:56 – You're not accurate at all. Judge's have law clerks. Decisions can take months to be released. Law clerks know what the outcome will be well in advance. Think of US Supreme Court. 9 justices, 5(?) law clerks each,each law clerk with at least 1 paralegal, a few other administrative staff. That's 100 people right there. Each of them have significant other or family.
Trump tax return decision probably comes out tomorrow, I'm just really surprised that the media don't get tipped off on any of these supreme court decisions that have a lot of media attention.
2:23- I completely agree. Just fascinating that there is the seal that is respected. I remember RBG kind of let they gay marriage decision slip early. If I recall, she went to a wedding a few weeks before the decision came out and said something like "soon all adults will have this right."
RBG is a wretched witch, so no surprise she refuses to honor the integrity and history of SCOTUS.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 6:04 pm
10:24, as far as pay day loans are concerned, although I concede that because you practice consumer bankruptcy that you know a lot more about this topic than I do, I note an undercurrent of your remarks that I find a bit unsettling.
You make these distinctions between unlicensed on line pay day lenders and licensed ones. I understand the practical legal points you are making, and that we will see more of these on line unlicensed pay day loans, the more people are rejected by licensed lenders.
But as far as the moral, ethical, and real life effects on people, even licensed pay day loans are far beyond horribly oppressive. You seem to believe that as people get more desperate they will resort to even more desperate means–the unlicensed online lenders.
That is presumably true, but what is the real difference? You seem to imply that proceeding to the next level(the unlicensed on line loans)is somehow far worse than the licensed pay day loans that have already destroyed these people's lives. That is your apparent point that I am somewhat perplexed by.
How could on line pay day lenders be that much worse than something which is already one of the worst and most soul crushing things in history–the licensed pay day lenders?
It's like saying if things continue to get worse and worse that a specific group of terrorists will kill and mutilate people in an even worse fashion than before. Obviously, under such example the far more humane and sensible discussion would be how to curtail or stop such terrorists.
Same thing with these pay day loans. Rather than bemoaning that some people will proceed from extremely horrible licensed loans to perhaps even more
horrible on line unlicensed loans, a far more fruitful discussion would be how can this horrible industry be more effectively regulated as the licensed loans are almost as terrible as the unlicensed ones.
Not sure what caused this parade of horrors, but when certain states don't have usury laws that must provide fertile grounds for such horrors to grow.
Also, back in the 90's the banks stopped making small consumer loans when it appeared that these loans were on account that thee borrowers could not pay their monthly bills, and thus the default rates became very high.
So, 11:04, is it your position that all borrowers are pure victims and have no responsibility whatsoever for their predicament? At any point does any person need be accountable for his or her own troubles? Or are we to just let every person who borrows money out of his or her repayment obligation because, after all, requiring someone to discharge an obligation is inherently unfair?
I agree that payday lending is the worst form of abuse. But the solution isn't to voluntarily take the abuse and then cry about it. The solution is to avoid the abuse in the first place.
I'd bet that in the history of man no person was ever compelled at gunpoint to take out a payday loan.
11:28–11:04 here.It appears that your view points as to personal responsibility, and the role of government as to people's lives and their personal decisions, is similar to mine.
I tend to be fairly conservative on economic matters, and generally believe in keeping government regulation of free enterprise to an absolute minimum. And I believe consumers should have very broad free choice to make whatever decisions, good or bad, that they choose to make as to their finances, without interference of the nanny state.
And I also acknowledge that not all pay day borrowers are solid and moral working class people who are simply encountering a financial rough patch. No. A lot of them are problem gamblers, and people who chronically make bad decisions and can't mange their own life and finances. Many(and perhaps the majority of them) of them are deserving of very little sympathy, and would never be considered by me to be victims.
Now how can I believe all thee above and still have such vitriol to pay day lenders? Good question. Perhaps the answer is that they are so cartoonishly bad to offend all senses of decency. Once in a while, the government does need to step in and protect its residents from horrific exploitation and abuse. Not to protect them from mere bad decisions, but, again, from this level of horrific exploitation.
An industry being permitted to exploit poor people is one thing. But to allow these poor people to be victimized by behavior which by any measure of decency should be codified as criminal? That's where I have a beef.
When things get so extreme, even many conservatives expect and advocate for a degree of government regulation.
Someone borrows $500., and within a matter of a few short months or less, it has mushroomed into $3,500. or beyond. Come on.
11:28–can't the line be drawn somewhere?
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 6:19 pm
Default is baked into the equation. Money has be working to make money, so lend to whomever. Some people will never be financially prudent, and so enter the cycle of borrowing, defaulting and maybe filing bankruptcy, and then starting all over again.
I remember being an idiot and needing both a payday and pawnshop loan. I took it in the shorts and learned. I am grateful there were lenders out there willing to give a high risk punk loans at ridiculously high interest rates.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 7:09 pm
Anyone else get the email from Tadas G Arlauskas yesterday? State bar refuses to provide regular relevant information to it's members (seriously, the fact that the State Bar did not send out emails providing us with various courts' coronavirus orders in March/April is ridiculous), but I get quarterly emails from a white supremacist because the bar provides anyone/everyone with our email addresses.
The issue of the ammunition manufacturer is disturbing. while i am not a criminal attorney, I wonder as to the basis for why the venue for the charge was not in Arizona. He was from Arizona and sold there. Any crime was committed there. I get why the prosecutor would bring it here, as it raises the stakes significantly and gives them the "edge". But isn't that the role of the judiciary, to correct this?
I know I am perhaps being a bit naive, but the deck is already stacked so much.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 7:49 pm
I agree with 11:28 as to personal responsibility and that most pay day borrowers are not helpless victims.
And 11:19,who in younger years resorted to such a loan, makes no excuse or victimhood claim and takes responsibility for a decision made in misguided youth(which is refreshing as almost no pay day borrowers ever acknowledge any responsibility for their plight).
But even if a lot of these borrowers leave much to be desired, and even though none of them were forced to take out such loans, 11:04 is right that the situation has gotten so incredibly out-of-control that we can't simply ignore it by citing platitudes and view points that the government should not interfere with free enterprise, that people should be free to make decisions, even horrific decisions, etc.
It is all now well beyond that point.
Some of these companies are now changing how they classify themselves, claim not to be pay day lenders, and in their ads admit that "pay day lenders suck" and here is how we are different and not pay day lenders, etc.
But it's all the same, as the distinctions are unimportant. Even if someone says we are not a pay day lender because we don't necessarily or always intercept the money from your next pay check, or we don't take your car title or whatever, the same incredible interest rates remain in effect.
So, when some of them claim we are "not pay day lenders' or "title lenders", but are instead "responsible short-term lenders" it is a distinction with no meaning. It's just a way to circumvent regulating attempts, and to present a better p.r. image in their advertising campaign.
So where exactly are people with very poor credit to go? Most of the comments about the industry have no idea what they are talking about. NRS 604A and the NV FID highly regluate the industry. The example of 500 turning into 3500 owed hasn't been allowed to happen in NV for years.
1:49. I agree that these comments are more motivated out of principle and emotion, and that these posters don't seem too directly aware of that area of law as it specifically relates to Nevada. But they are far from clueless, although you insist they are clueless.
But since you are condemning them as supposedly being totally clueless in this area, and setting yourself up as an expert, please be advised that you don't appear to be.
You quoting NRS does not make your statement true that $500, no longer turns into $3,500. Guess what? It still does no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, or quote regulations otherwise. Granted, it won't happen in the very short amount of time listed by the posters, but it can and does still happen in many states. Remember, none of the posters said that they were simply discussing Nevada pay day lenders.
And the tired "where are these people to go" remark shows a real separation form reality. It implies that these loans, at least temporarily, solve their problems. If you say "what do you expect them to do if they don't take out such loan, they will be living under a bridge." Guess what. If they take out the loan they will be more likely to eventually live under a bridge for a much longer time than if they don't take out the loan.
So, even if you quote the statutes better than those who you insist "don't know what they are talking about", I suggest that the problem goes well beyond who knows the statutory law better in this area. When it comes to the real life effect of all this, forgive me, but you know very little of what you talk of, and are divorced from the real world and the plight of these people, if you bring out the tired "where else can they go" cliché as if this is all some service that actually addresses their problems, when in actuality it only dooms them to a more violent and protracted cycle of poverty.
So, less quoting NRS, and more open your eyes to the actual human condition.
And by the way, when you say that no one knows what they are talking about, are you denying the causes(of the proliferation of these lenders) some have suggested–such as some states having weak or lacking usury laws, and banks ceasing to make small consumer loans back in the 90's? And another poster discussed Speaker Buckley's regulations that she advanced. Does that suggest the posters knows zilch on this issue?
Were you unaware of those, and other, causes and dynamics, or are you simply denying them?
Having an instructive debate is great, but when you condemn those who you differ with as being ignorant and clueless, you better be 100% right as to your representations.
But you are 100% wrong when you insist that nowhere can the $500. become $3,500. It can and it does. And if you still believe otherwise, you need to research this matter a lot more extensively than the statute you quoted.
That all said, although this is an important issue, I will spend no more time with it because, admittedly, and as someone already pointed out, so many of these borrowers insist on bringing all these problems on themselves and insist on making all these bad choices. As someone said, they are not all honorable working people who simply had a string of bad luck. A lot of them are very unappealing "victims. " But some of them are actually victims even if the choices were voluntary.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 8:44 pm
As to this discussion of pay day lenders, although I agree that the pay day lenders are horrible and ultra exploitive, the borrowers, as a whole, tend to make a very unappealing group of "victims."
Anyone who thinks that view is insensitive and elitist, simply has not encountered too many of these folks. As the one poster said, it is naïve to think that most of them are simply honorable working class people who encounter a financial obstacle. Instead, these tend to be people who live their lives as one non-stop cycle of crisis after crisis. Drugs and gambling are some of the common problems, among others.
It's a shame when we have a situation with no clear side to root for. The pay day lenders are beyond scummy, and the people who borrow from them tend to leave much to be desired.
We can improve matters but we can't "fix" this problem. Regulations(such as the ones Speaker Barbara Buckley spearheaded) are good and well-intended but can only accomplish so much as it is difficult to regulate pay day lenders in the absence of clear usury laws, and there is nowhere else to go(as one poster pointed out) as the banks stopped making small consumer loans in the 90's. Also, you can't really protect the "victims" as they are very willing victims who insist they have a compelling need and nowhere else to go.
I'm always a little annoyed by the tweaker mom with three dirty toddlers in tow who walks out of the payday lender directly to The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf to spend $6.50 on a Double Mocha Frappa Vanilla Soy Latte Macchiatto Six-shot Scamas Framas.
And she is far more likely than I to tip the barista $1.00.
It would not annoy me as much if that young woman and her unfortunate children were not receiving housing, healthcare, food, cel phone, and walking-around money on the taxpayer dime.
@6:09…that is completely wrong. The housing wait list in S NV ranges from 5-8 years. Any housing someone might get is just reduced a couple hundred below market value. Our section 8 is very lacking and nearly impossible to get on. Healthcare is a human right and if you disagree you're just irredeemable. Food is a human right and, again, if you disagree, you're just irredeemable. The cell phone is a right wing fantasy. A couple homeless people got flip phones under a Bush era program. That's all. And walking around money…presumably if you're on this blog, you're a lawyer. Please go read about TANF and the Clinton era welfare reforms. There is no walking around money. Now please tip your barista more than a dollar. Seriously. A dollar? That's quite possibly the most offensive thing about your whole post.
What does that mean, human right? I have always wondered what people are saying when they say we have "human rights." From whom, or from what? Please explain how it is that we gain any rights just from being.
Why do you tip people at the counter? (Yes, this includes Subway Sandwich artists, Jamba Juice Juiceers, Coffee shop baristas, pizza joint order takers, etc.) They don't make recommendations. They don't sit you in a quiet area. They don't keep your drinks full. They take your order, make it, and hopefully avoid any mistakes or health code violations along the way.
8:20 seeks to redefine "human right" from its normal and ordinary usage. In their view, a "human right" is an entitlement that must be provided by the public absent the individual's interest or ability to obtain it for themselves. It is not a "right" as that term has actually been understood for a much longer period of time, meaning that one has the ability to obtain or exercise the right at their discretion without the government stepping in and barring it. 8:20's understanding usually applies only to entitlements that the left would approve of, such as medical care, housing, food, etc. in that they want these to be provided to people on everyone's dime. The fact that there is a right to keep and bear arms, though, for some reason does not translate to the government providing people with firearms as an entitlement.
But I'm sure that's just an oversight on their part.
If one were to use the proper definition of a right, the argument presented by 8:20 would fall apart. These people do have the right to buy food, buy healthcare services, and obtain housing without the government acting to preclude them from doing so. It would be far better if they simply advocated for these things as "entitlements" or "government funded assistance" rather than "human rights" as it would at least be intellectually honest.
8:36 and 8:40 are both horrible. I don't know why I'm feeding the trolls, but I'll touch on a few issues and then go. Human rights…we hold these truths to be self evident kinda thing. There are rights that we are all afforded as human beings. Go read the UN's website on human rights if you really can't grasp that concept. Tipping people is basic decency. Your sandwich is so cheap because the corporation that made that sandwich paid campaign donations to various govt officials which allows them to keep wages below what's a living wage. Since you keep electing officials who are too cowardly to implement a living wage, tip the people at the counter or stay home and make your own sandwich. A dollar more an hour makes a huge difference to those people, and yet means virtually nothing to you in the grand scheme of things. If you can't get that, you're just a garbage human and there is no use for you in a decent society. Please wear a t-shirt or a button indicating that you don't tip people at the counter so the rest of us decent humans can avoid you.
9:57 is resorting to Fallacy of Name Calling. 8:36 was asking some questions and seeking answers. You did not provide answers. Your reference to the UN website on human rights is not answer. That is a proclamation by an international organization that is not binding on any nation. It expresses hopes and desires drafted by unknown and unnamed individuals who are not accountable to any community. Your reference to "we hold theses truths to be self evident" may give the impression to the reader that you rely on the Constitution for determining human rights. However, the Constitution makes no mention that individuals have the right to be fed and provided health care. Any rational person knows that for any right one may have, comes responsibility to care for oneself in exercising said right. If one chooses to care for others, then there is something else in play for that individual, not rights.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 10:31 pm
OP/@10:24 here – What I was trying to get at was that I'm expecting that once my next client tries to borrow from a licensed payday lender and is told NO because their income is not enough to support the payment that will happen if that loan is done, that the potential client will be out of licensed options and will get even more desperate and hit online options. Both of them – licensed and unlicensed are financial death spirals so both of them lead to being sued and wages garnished and bankruptcy eventually. The conflict I have is that it is good for business when individuals borrow from 300%-400% interest lenders, but doing so is an indicator of desperate times.
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 11:29 pm
3:31, 10:24. I for one understood the limited purpose of your points and that you were not trying to generate some major policy debate.
But, intended or otherwise, your comments hit some sort of nerve and inspired people to weigh in on the larger policy and societal implications
caused by this particular industry, and whether it should be regulated more effectively, the mass suffering of people caught in that cycle, etc.
So, even though you didn't intend to inspire all this, and are probably somewhat surprised by it, I say well done 10:24!
Guest
Anonymous
July 1, 2020 11:42 pm
PayDay loans used to be called loan sharks, which used to be illegal in most places. But change the name, get a storefront, and a catchy jingle, and now it becomes a business. Truly the American way.
But is it up to the courts to protect Nevadans in this scenario? Isn't that the legislature's job to set where the line in the sand is? The courts just apply whatever the legislature establishes.
Court of Appeals is the biggest scam brought to you deceptively by James Hardesty and perpetuated by the three stooges on their now and the Nevada Supreme Court.
I do consumer bankruptcy and regularly have clients come in with 5-10 payday loans, with one or two from online only sources not licensed in Nevada. I wonder if we'll start seeing more online unlicensed loans instead of more loans from licensed payday/high-interest lenders. With SB201, I'd guesstimate about 75% of clients with payday loans would have been rejected for new loans if they couldn't get them from licensed lenders once the monthly payments hit 25% of their gross monthly income.
How come we get leaks from every branch of government and government agency except for courts?
Court decisions take forever to write but judges have made up their mind long before the opinions are released. However, I'm not aware of any single instance (US Supreme Court, appeals court, state supreme court, state court, federal court) where the outcome was leaked to media by law clerks, staff, etc.
I know most big firms in town are able to get bar results a few hours earlier than they are released to public, but that's the only leak I've ever heard of.
You answered your own bizarre question in the second paragraph. The decision is in the judge's mind before it becomes a ruling. So the leak would have to come from the judge, which is not likely to happen, nor should it.
11:56 – You're not accurate at all. Judge's have law clerks. Decisions can take months to be released. Law clerks know what the outcome will be well in advance. Think of US Supreme Court. 9 justices, 5(?) law clerks each,each law clerk with at least 1 paralegal, a few other administrative staff. That's 100 people right there. Each of them have significant other or family.
Trump tax return decision probably comes out tomorrow, I'm just really surprised that the media don't get tipped off on any of these supreme court decisions that have a lot of media attention.
Working that Schiffty angle pretty hard aren't you? Maybe you should think about planting a whistleblower to further your diabolical plan.
1:56 – No angle or plan…just curious why there's never any leaks.
I rather prefer that at least the judicial branch can keep a tight seal on decisions prior to publication.
2:23- I completely agree. Just fascinating that there is the seal that is respected. I remember RBG kind of let they gay marriage decision slip early. If I recall, she went to a wedding a few weeks before the decision came out and said something like "soon all adults will have this right."
RBG is a wretched witch, so no surprise she refuses to honor the integrity and history of SCOTUS.
10:24, as far as pay day loans are concerned, although I concede that because you practice consumer bankruptcy that you know a lot more about this topic than I do, I note an undercurrent of your remarks that I find a bit unsettling.
You make these distinctions between unlicensed on line pay day lenders and licensed ones. I understand the practical legal points you are making, and that we will see more of these on line unlicensed pay day loans, the more people are rejected by licensed lenders.
But as far as the moral, ethical, and real life effects on people, even licensed pay day loans are far beyond horribly oppressive. You seem to believe that as people get more desperate they will resort to even more desperate means–the unlicensed online lenders.
That is presumably true, but what is the real difference? You seem to imply that proceeding to the next level(the unlicensed on line loans)is somehow far worse than the licensed pay day loans that have already destroyed these people's lives. That is your apparent point that I am somewhat perplexed by.
How could on line pay day lenders be that much worse than something which is already one of the worst and most soul crushing things in history–the licensed pay day lenders?
It's like saying if things continue to get worse and worse that a specific group of terrorists will kill and mutilate people in an even worse fashion than before. Obviously, under such example the far more humane and sensible discussion would be how to curtail or stop such terrorists.
Same thing with these pay day loans. Rather than bemoaning that some people will proceed from extremely horrible licensed loans to perhaps even more
horrible on line unlicensed loans, a far more fruitful discussion would be how can this horrible industry be more effectively regulated as the licensed loans are almost as terrible as the unlicensed ones.
Not sure what caused this parade of horrors, but when certain states don't have usury laws that must provide fertile grounds for such horrors to grow.
Also, back in the 90's the banks stopped making small consumer loans when it appeared that these loans were on account that thee borrowers could not pay their monthly bills, and thus the default rates became very high.
So, 11:04, is it your position that all borrowers are pure victims and have no responsibility whatsoever for their predicament? At any point does any person need be accountable for his or her own troubles? Or are we to just let every person who borrows money out of his or her repayment obligation because, after all, requiring someone to discharge an obligation is inherently unfair?
I agree that payday lending is the worst form of abuse. But the solution isn't to voluntarily take the abuse and then cry about it. The solution is to avoid the abuse in the first place.
I'd bet that in the history of man no person was ever compelled at gunpoint to take out a payday loan.
11:28–11:04 here.It appears that your view points as to personal responsibility, and the role of government as to people's lives and their personal decisions, is similar to mine.
I tend to be fairly conservative on economic matters, and generally believe in keeping government regulation of free enterprise to an absolute minimum. And I believe consumers should have very broad free choice to make whatever decisions, good or bad, that they choose to make as to their finances, without interference of the nanny state.
And I also acknowledge that not all pay day borrowers are solid and moral working class people who are simply encountering a financial rough patch. No. A lot of them are problem gamblers, and people who chronically make bad decisions and can't mange their own life and finances. Many(and perhaps the majority of them) of them are deserving of very little sympathy, and would never be considered by me to be victims.
Now how can I believe all thee above and still have such vitriol to pay day lenders? Good question. Perhaps the answer is that they are so cartoonishly bad to offend all senses of decency. Once in a while, the government does need to step in and protect its residents from horrific exploitation and abuse. Not to protect them from mere bad decisions, but, again, from this level of horrific exploitation.
An industry being permitted to exploit poor people is one thing. But to allow these poor people to be victimized by behavior which by any measure of decency should be codified as criminal? That's where I have a beef.
When things get so extreme, even many conservatives expect and advocate for a degree of government regulation.
Someone borrows $500., and within a matter of a few short months or less, it has mushroomed into $3,500. or beyond. Come on.
11:28–can't the line be drawn somewhere?
Default is baked into the equation. Money has be working to make money, so lend to whomever. Some people will never be financially prudent, and so enter the cycle of borrowing, defaulting and maybe filing bankruptcy, and then starting all over again.
I remember being an idiot and needing both a payday and pawnshop loan. I took it in the shorts and learned. I am grateful there were lenders out there willing to give a high risk punk loans at ridiculously high interest rates.
Anyone else get the email from Tadas G Arlauskas yesterday? State bar refuses to provide regular relevant information to it's members (seriously, the fact that the State Bar did not send out emails providing us with various courts' coronavirus orders in March/April is ridiculous), but I get quarterly emails from a white supremacist because the bar provides anyone/everyone with our email addresses.
"think tank"
The issue of the ammunition manufacturer is disturbing. while i am not a criminal attorney, I wonder as to the basis for why the venue for the charge was not in Arizona. He was from Arizona and sold there. Any crime was committed there. I get why the prosecutor would bring it here, as it raises the stakes significantly and gives them the "edge". But isn't that the role of the judiciary, to correct this?
I know I am perhaps being a bit naive, but the deck is already stacked so much.
I agree with 11:28 as to personal responsibility and that most pay day borrowers are not helpless victims.
And 11:19,who in younger years resorted to such a loan, makes no excuse or victimhood claim and takes responsibility for a decision made in misguided youth(which is refreshing as almost no pay day borrowers ever acknowledge any responsibility for their plight).
But even if a lot of these borrowers leave much to be desired, and even though none of them were forced to take out such loans, 11:04 is right that the situation has gotten so incredibly out-of-control that we can't simply ignore it by citing platitudes and view points that the government should not interfere with free enterprise, that people should be free to make decisions, even horrific decisions, etc.
It is all now well beyond that point.
Some of these companies are now changing how they classify themselves, claim not to be pay day lenders, and in their ads admit that "pay day lenders suck" and here is how we are different and not pay day lenders, etc.
But it's all the same, as the distinctions are unimportant. Even if someone says we are not a pay day lender because we don't necessarily or always intercept the money from your next pay check, or we don't take your car title or whatever, the same incredible interest rates remain in effect.
So, when some of them claim we are "not pay day lenders' or "title lenders", but are instead "responsible short-term lenders" it is a distinction with no meaning. It's just a way to circumvent regulating attempts, and to present a better p.r. image in their advertising campaign.
So where exactly are people with very poor credit to go? Most of the comments about the industry have no idea what they are talking about. NRS 604A and the NV FID highly regluate the industry. The example of 500 turning into 3500 owed hasn't been allowed to happen in NV for years.
1:49. I agree that these comments are more motivated out of principle and emotion, and that these posters don't seem too directly aware of that area of law as it specifically relates to Nevada. But they are far from clueless, although you insist they are clueless.
But since you are condemning them as supposedly being totally clueless in this area, and setting yourself up as an expert, please be advised that you don't appear to be.
You quoting NRS does not make your statement true that $500, no longer turns into $3,500. Guess what? It still does no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, or quote regulations otherwise. Granted, it won't happen in the very short amount of time listed by the posters, but it can and does still happen in many states. Remember, none of the posters said that they were simply discussing Nevada pay day lenders.
And the tired "where are these people to go" remark shows a real separation form reality. It implies that these loans, at least temporarily, solve their problems. If you say "what do you expect them to do if they don't take out such loan, they will be living under a bridge." Guess what. If they take out the loan they will be more likely to eventually live under a bridge for a much longer time than if they don't take out the loan.
So, even if you quote the statutes better than those who you insist "don't know what they are talking about", I suggest that the problem goes well beyond who knows the statutory law better in this area. When it comes to the real life effect of all this, forgive me, but you know very little of what you talk of, and are divorced from the real world and the plight of these people, if you bring out the tired "where else can they go" cliché as if this is all some service that actually addresses their problems, when in actuality it only dooms them to a more violent and protracted cycle of poverty.
So, less quoting NRS, and more open your eyes to the actual human condition.
And by the way, when you say that no one knows what they are talking about, are you denying the causes(of the proliferation of these lenders) some have suggested–such as some states having weak or lacking usury laws, and banks ceasing to make small consumer loans back in the 90's? And another poster discussed Speaker Buckley's regulations that she advanced. Does that suggest the posters knows zilch on this issue?
Were you unaware of those, and other, causes and dynamics, or are you simply denying them?
Having an instructive debate is great, but when you condemn those who you differ with as being ignorant and clueless, you better be 100% right as to your representations.
But you are 100% wrong when you insist that nowhere can the $500. become $3,500. It can and it does. And if you still believe otherwise, you need to research this matter a lot more extensively than the statute you quoted.
That all said, although this is an important issue, I will spend no more time with it because, admittedly, and as someone already pointed out, so many of these borrowers insist on bringing all these problems on themselves and insist on making all these bad choices. As someone said, they are not all honorable working people who simply had a string of bad luck. A lot of them are very unappealing "victims. " But some of them are actually victims even if the choices were voluntary.
As to this discussion of pay day lenders, although I agree that the pay day lenders are horrible and ultra exploitive, the borrowers, as a whole, tend to make a very unappealing group of "victims."
Anyone who thinks that view is insensitive and elitist, simply has not encountered too many of these folks. As the one poster said, it is naïve to think that most of them are simply honorable working class people who encounter a financial obstacle. Instead, these tend to be people who live their lives as one non-stop cycle of crisis after crisis. Drugs and gambling are some of the common problems, among others.
It's a shame when we have a situation with no clear side to root for. The pay day lenders are beyond scummy, and the people who borrow from them tend to leave much to be desired.
We can improve matters but we can't "fix" this problem. Regulations(such as the ones Speaker Barbara Buckley spearheaded) are good and well-intended but can only accomplish so much as it is difficult to regulate pay day lenders in the absence of clear usury laws, and there is nowhere else to go(as one poster pointed out) as the banks stopped making small consumer loans in the 90's. Also, you can't really protect the "victims" as they are very willing victims who insist they have a compelling need and nowhere else to go.
I'm always a little annoyed by the tweaker mom with three dirty toddlers in tow who walks out of the payday lender directly to The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf to spend $6.50 on a Double Mocha Frappa Vanilla Soy Latte Macchiatto Six-shot Scamas Framas.
And she is far more likely than I to tip the barista $1.00.
It would not annoy me as much if that young woman and her unfortunate children were not receiving housing, healthcare, food, cel phone, and walking-around money on the taxpayer dime.
Uh oh, you sound like a reactionary Republican knuckle-dragging hater!
Just kidding. I agree. WTF is a Six-shot Scamas Framas??
@6:09…that is completely wrong. The housing wait list in S NV ranges from 5-8 years. Any housing someone might get is just reduced a couple hundred below market value. Our section 8 is very lacking and nearly impossible to get on. Healthcare is a human right and if you disagree you're just irredeemable. Food is a human right and, again, if you disagree, you're just irredeemable. The cell phone is a right wing fantasy. A couple homeless people got flip phones under a Bush era program. That's all. And walking around money…presumably if you're on this blog, you're a lawyer. Please go read about TANF and the Clinton era welfare reforms. There is no walking around money. Now please tip your barista more than a dollar. Seriously. A dollar? That's quite possibly the most offensive thing about your whole post.
What does that mean, human right? I have always wondered what people are saying when they say we have "human rights." From whom, or from what? Please explain how it is that we gain any rights just from being.
Why do you tip people at the counter? (Yes, this includes Subway Sandwich artists, Jamba Juice Juiceers, Coffee shop baristas, pizza joint order takers, etc.) They don't make recommendations. They don't sit you in a quiet area. They don't keep your drinks full. They take your order, make it, and hopefully avoid any mistakes or health code violations along the way.
What about that calls for an extra payment?
8:20 seeks to redefine "human right" from its normal and ordinary usage. In their view, a "human right" is an entitlement that must be provided by the public absent the individual's interest or ability to obtain it for themselves. It is not a "right" as that term has actually been understood for a much longer period of time, meaning that one has the ability to obtain or exercise the right at their discretion without the government stepping in and barring it. 8:20's understanding usually applies only to entitlements that the left would approve of, such as medical care, housing, food, etc. in that they want these to be provided to people on everyone's dime. The fact that there is a right to keep and bear arms, though, for some reason does not translate to the government providing people with firearms as an entitlement.
But I'm sure that's just an oversight on their part.
If one were to use the proper definition of a right, the argument presented by 8:20 would fall apart. These people do have the right to buy food, buy healthcare services, and obtain housing without the government acting to preclude them from doing so. It would be far better if they simply advocated for these things as "entitlements" or "government funded assistance" rather than "human rights" as it would at least be intellectually honest.
8:36 and 8:40 are both horrible. I don't know why I'm feeding the trolls, but I'll touch on a few issues and then go. Human rights…we hold these truths to be self evident kinda thing. There are rights that we are all afforded as human beings. Go read the UN's website on human rights if you really can't grasp that concept. Tipping people is basic decency. Your sandwich is so cheap because the corporation that made that sandwich paid campaign donations to various govt officials which allows them to keep wages below what's a living wage. Since you keep electing officials who are too cowardly to implement a living wage, tip the people at the counter or stay home and make your own sandwich. A dollar more an hour makes a huge difference to those people, and yet means virtually nothing to you in the grand scheme of things. If you can't get that, you're just a garbage human and there is no use for you in a decent society. Please wear a t-shirt or a button indicating that you don't tip people at the counter so the rest of us decent humans can avoid you.
9:07 is where that phrase "the confidence of a mediocre white man" came from
9:57 is resorting to Fallacy of Name Calling. 8:36 was asking some questions and seeking answers. You did not provide answers. Your reference to the UN website on human rights is not answer. That is a proclamation by an international organization that is not binding on any nation. It expresses hopes and desires drafted by unknown and unnamed individuals who are not accountable to any community. Your reference to "we hold theses truths to be self evident" may give the impression to the reader that you rely on the Constitution for determining human rights. However, the Constitution makes no mention that individuals have the right to be fed and provided health care. Any rational person knows that for any right one may have, comes responsibility to care for oneself in exercising said right. If one chooses to care for others, then there is something else in play for that individual, not rights.
OP/@10:24 here – What I was trying to get at was that I'm expecting that once my next client tries to borrow from a licensed payday lender and is told NO because their income is not enough to support the payment that will happen if that loan is done, that the potential client will be out of licensed options and will get even more desperate and hit online options. Both of them – licensed and unlicensed are financial death spirals so both of them lead to being sued and wages garnished and bankruptcy eventually. The conflict I have is that it is good for business when individuals borrow from 300%-400% interest lenders, but doing so is an indicator of desperate times.
3:31, 10:24. I for one understood the limited purpose of your points and that you were not trying to generate some major policy debate.
But, intended or otherwise, your comments hit some sort of nerve and inspired people to weigh in on the larger policy and societal implications
caused by this particular industry, and whether it should be regulated more effectively, the mass suffering of people caught in that cycle, etc.
So, even though you didn't intend to inspire all this, and are probably somewhat surprised by it, I say well done 10:24!
PayDay loans used to be called loan sharks, which used to be illegal in most places. But change the name, get a storefront, and a catchy jingle, and now it becomes a business. Truly the American way.
…enter a sleezeball named Chuck.
You will not see the Court of Appeals protect Nevadans from predatory lenders. They are too corporate minded.
But is it up to the courts to protect Nevadans in this scenario? Isn't that the legislature's job to set where the line in the sand is? The courts just apply whatever the legislature establishes.
Court of Appeals is the biggest scam brought to you deceptively by James Hardesty and perpetuated by the three stooges on their now and the Nevada Supreme Court.