• volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    The thing is you’re forgetting who are good borrowers and who are bad borrowers. A person with a low income with a precarious job will be a very bad borrower, and imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin. We generally believe universal healthcare is good, and we don’t want to discriminate “good health” and “bad health” people and make unhealthy people pay more, do we?

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.

      That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        If the lenders operate with the purpose of maximizing profit, then yeah, it makes sense not to loan money to people in precarious situations except at high interest rates, that’s my whole point: that’s evil, the profit motive leads to evil decisions. Let’s have public banks instead, where interest rates for loans are equalised, in the same way that every taxpayer gets identical access to healthcare regardless of how much they contribute through their income.