@p- wrote:
Open123 wrote: While a noble and worthy idealistic pursuit, the results of trying implement a system which works for "everyone" will ensure it works for no one. A few people are allergic to peanuts, but it makes no sense to ban peanuts from the rest, only to ensure no one will ever suffer an allergic reaction. It's far more efficient to have a system where those who do suffer from peanut allergies or a troubled credit history has the tools available to navigate pass their obstacles, i.e., peanut warnings, credit education.This, like many other debates comes down to the definition of "fair." Some say that fairness is everyone dealing with the conscequences of their choices, while others say fairness is equal results regardless of choices. Call it equal opportunity versus equal results.
Mediocrity by another name.
Getting back to this topic, @juggalo9er you'd be surprised at how many truly wealthy people have uglier reports than I do: they don't care. As for the trust fund kids, well their concept of money management and credit reports is pretty limited too: don't read too much into this forum on people adding their kids as AU's to give them a jump start, one's actions still dictate the results in this instance.
If one never misses a payment that individual will have a 720ish FICO score after a year, and better after that. Being late or missing payments and other things is not intrinsic to any economic class, one little boost does not equate to superstardom. It is an education issue, but it's not unilaterally tied to a given social or economic strata.
This applies elsewhere too: my father was Yale//Harvard educated and he didn't tell me a bloody thing about navigating college. Thanks dude!
Fundamentally a classic parenting goal is to have your children be more successful than you were: if I do ever raise children, you can be darned well assured they will absolutely be taught about what I've learned about credit reports / scores / etc. among other things (*cough* college assuming they go).
