Can someone settle this debate?

[SRT4kid93]

Well I was feeling pretty good about this post as it seemed most people said to let it report high balances. But now it Seems the opinions are still split again, with some saying to charge it up and others saying to report low util.

my starting limit was 1500 and that's what it's at currently. I would love to get it up to 5-10k. I would be happy with that for now. 

obviously the best case scenario would be for me to get increases without ever needing to hurt my score. 

[ptatohed]

I can't figure C1 out.  My WM card?  $3,000 CL.  My lowest of all my cards.  My SavorOne?  $20,000.  My second highest CL.  

I can't remember what my QS was before I let it close due to non-use.  

[Gregory1776]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

Well I was feeling pretty good about this post as it seemed most people said to let it report high balances. But now it Seems the opinions are still split again, with some saying to charge it up and others saying to report low util.

my starting limit was 1500 and that's what it's at currently. I would love to get it up to 5-10k. I would be happy with that for now. 

obviously the best case scenario would be for me to get increases without ever needing to hurt my score. 

---

Dude, read the first two comments. 
and stop worrying about the score.

[SRT4kid93]

I get what your saying and it makes logical sense, but it will wreck havoc on my anxiety. What if I need an unexpected loan quickly and I can't get one cause my scores tanked? Not likely but possible. Not to mention it goes against everything you are taught about good credit management. So it's just hard to wrap my head around.

why do companies like to see that? Someone who constantly charges up their card should be considered a risk to them. Even if they pay it off in full. Why would they extend more credit to someone who constantly is near their limit?

but on the other hand, why would they extend credit to those who don't need more credit. 

[JSUB]

Regardless of if a large payment posts the credit card companies know how much spend you're putting on cards and paying off. Why would you ever want a 90% of your available credit statement to post to the CRAs even if you pay off in a month. I might be wrong but that seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. 

[IsambardPrince]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

I have read vastly different opinions on the matter. 

I am trying to get my credit limit increased on my capital one card. 

there's a large group of people out there that say the best way to get increases is to let your reported balance be very high(90%) when it posts. Because doing that proves the need for more credit. Apparently capital one is very fond of this?  Obviously this is terrible for your credit score. But people say unless you are applying for new credit, it doesn't matter cause it can be fixed in a month.

then there's a large group of people who say responsible use and low reported balances are the best way to get increases cause it shows responsible credit habits and less risk.

so what is the actual deal?

---

Doing this just to get available credit that you don't need is stupid because then it will be there and tempt you somehow.

The credit cards are like the devil tempting you in the wilderness, right? They say look upon the land and you can have all that you see.

And you do, then you find out you'll be paying on that trip to the shopping mall for 14 years and the stuff will cost you 5 times what you spend.

There's a fellow named Andrew Kahr who worked with the credit card banks back in the 90s to figure out how to manipulate people to stay in debt, and one of the ways was to reduce the minimum payment from 5% of the balance to 1%. That way people would run bigger balances and end up paying more interest. The credit card industry is a pretty evil business and the people running it are morally bankrupt. 

If you look at a video of Andrew Kahr explaining his "innovations", in my opinion it does a lot to help along the conspiracy theory that lizard people are running things.

It's always wise to remember that they want you to max these things out so that they can triple or quintuple what you actually spent and maybe even sue you. Bigger limits make them more dangerous.

You don't need to max out the card to get a higher limit anyway. Most of the time they'll just give you one if you keep asking.

[SRT4kid93]

While that is true,

I feel it really only applies to irresponsible teenagers. 

i am someone who is simply looking to grow their credit profile to help my util ratio in the future and get the best score possible. Just because I have available limit doesn't mean I need to use it, and it doesn't mean I will use it. 

anyone who is tempted that badly by available credit needs to learn self control, responsibility, and most of all gratitude and overall perspective. If you are someone who is never satisfied in the moment and happy for what you have. Available credit can be a problem. If you are someone who is thankful for the small things, and able to see things for what they really are. It shouldn't be an issue.

i am extremely thankful to be in a position to get credit cards. And im in a position where I don't NEED to use them for anything. At this point my credit card use is all part of the larger game to improve my credit profile. At this point, I have very few wants, and few very needs. 

[CreditCuriosity]

---

@IsambardPrince wrote:

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

I have read vastly different opinions on the matter. 

I am trying to get my credit limit increased on my capital one card. 

there's a large group of people out there that say the best way to get increases is to let your reported balance be very high(90%) when it posts. Because doing that proves the need for more credit. Apparently capital one is very fond of this?  Obviously this is terrible for your credit score. But people say unless you are applying for new credit, it doesn't matter cause it can be fixed in a month.

then there's a large group of people who say responsible use and low reported balances are the best way to get increases cause it shows responsible credit habits and less risk.

so what is the actual deal?

---

Doing this just to get available credit that you don't need is stupid because then it will be there and tempt you somehow.

The credit cards are like the devil tempting you in the wilderness, right? They say look upon the land and you can have all that you see.

And you do, then you find out you'll be paying on that trip to the shopping mall for 14 years and the stuff will cost you 5 times what you spend.

There's a fellow named Andrew Kahr who worked with the credit card banks back in the 90s to figure out how to manipulate people to stay in debt, and one of the ways was to reduce the minimum payment from 5% of the balance to 1%. That way people would run bigger balances and end up paying more interest. The credit card industry is a pretty evil business and the people running it are morally bankrupt. 

If you look at a video of Andrew Kahr explaining his "innovations", in my opinion it does a lot to help along the conspiracy theory that lizard people are running things.

It's always wise to remember that they want you to max these things out so that they can triple or quintuple what you actually spent and maybe even sue you. Bigger limits make them more dangerous.

You don't need to max out the card to get a higher limit anyway. Most of the time they'll just give you one if you keep asking.

---

Only if you don't have self control.  I have close to 800k in credit between personal and business and would be well over 1 million if didn't cancel cards.  One can have a lot of credit if they live within their means and know how to play the game.  I am one of those "deadbeats" you speak of that cost banks money on bonuses whether airline, hotel nights or good ole cash for sign-up bonuses plus if not chasing a bonus the $/Miles/whatever they pay me a month by using their credit card and then paying it off monthly.  Do I need this much credit?  Certainly not as could hang myself with it but rather have and not need than to need and not have scenario as well as the saying is life happens.  Never had a BK and scores close to perfect but never know either when the stuff will hit the fan then protected by BK laws(don't advocate this but medical emergencies and other things certainly can put a person in this position)

[Gunnerboy]

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

I have read vastly different opinions on the matter. 

I am trying to get my credit limit increased on my capital one card. 

there's a large group of people out there that say the best way to get increases is to let your reported balance be very high(90%) when it posts. Because doing that proves the need for more credit. Apparently capital one is very fond of this?  Obviously this is terrible for your credit score. But people say unless you are applying for new credit, it doesn't matter cause it can be fixed in a month.

In my experience, this behavior can trigger AUTO-CLI's.

then there's a large group of people who say responsible use and low reported balances are the best way to get increases cause it shows responsible credit habits and less risk.

This behavior seems to trigger algorithms more often for CLI-approvals.

so what is the actual deal?

---

[IsambardPrince]

---

@Gunnerboy wrote:

---

@SRT4kid93 wrote:

I have read vastly different opinions on the matter. 

I am trying to get my credit limit increased on my capital one card. 

there's a large group of people out there that say the best way to get increases is to let your reported balance be very high(90%) when it posts. Because doing that proves the need for more credit. Apparently capital one is very fond of this?  Obviously this is terrible for your credit score. But people say unless you are applying for new credit, it doesn't matter cause it can be fixed in a month.

In my experience, this behavior can trigger AUTO-CLI's.

then there's a large group of people who say responsible use and low reported balances are the best way to get increases cause it shows responsible credit habits and less risk.

This behavior seems to trigger algorithms more often for CLI-approvals.

so what is the actual deal?

---

---

The reason it triggers auto-CLIs is because the bank wants to debt-trap you. Citi Bank auto-CLId me when the correct move would have been to shut down the account or at least absolutely refuse to CLI, this was in 2019.

The CLI did not end up being in the bank's best interest.

The algorithms don't appear to actually punish anyone for being in too much debt or stop-loss. They only react by slamming accounts shut when they see a string of LATEs start flashing red across the board.

Today I ran into an old PBS documentary on credit cards from 2004. While some of what they investigated is no longer possible thanks to the CARD Act, thepart where the man and his wife went bankrupt with lots of maxed out credit cards due to losing their jobs at the same time and living on credit, then the credit card offers started rolling in from the same banks that said they would never do business with them again right after the bankruptcy discharged, is still accurate.

Bankruptcies don't seem to matter much to most banks with credit cards. They'll be really cautious with you for a couple of years and then after that you'll have the same cards on the same terms most people can get.

While things are more lenient under the US bankruptcy laws than they are in most of the English-speaking world (for example, you'll lose more stuff in most countries, and in Australia you'll need permission from the bankruptcy court to even leave the country for three years each time you do it), and many have a "Bankruptcy 'Riot Act'" where you have to go in and announce yourself to people as a bankrupt or risk prosecution for a long time, they still manage to have the same fools that live on credit and worry about it later.

At least my reasons for becoming a bankrupt weren't trips to a mall and Disney resorts. Mine was just plain old personal tragedy. Most people are still managing to get themselves in trouble with credit cards largely because they saw something at a store.

Pretty much all the major banks have turned into Providian.

"In a March 1999 memorandum published by the San Francisco Chronicle, the founder of the company, Andrew Kahr, asked company executives about its customers: 'Is any bit of food too small to grab when you're starving and when there is nothing else in sight? The trick is charging a lot, repeatedly, for small doses of instrumental [sic]credit.'"

(Joke) I continue to wonder if Andrew Kahr is a lizard person. I did notice that he never blinked. I was quite uncomfortable just listening to him.