Ethics and Credit

[Anonymous]

---

@drkaje wrote:

Only the person making a choice/decision can know if it's ethical or not.

---

The ole' ethics is in the eye of the beholder argument. Here's a question...

The big wigs here at Myfico have placed a set of rules and guidelines as to how to post here. Member #1 makes a post that states he is going to freeze all but 1 of his CRs as said report is "clean" boasting a 775 CS. The other two reports are sub 700. His thread is ultimately mod cut due to a violation of Fico's TOS. Member #1 thought nothing was wrong with his actions and felt that the freeze method is fair game. The mod and Admins at Myfico disagreed and though his actions to promote this type of gaming of the system to be a bit shady.

In this example who is right? Member #1 or Myfico? They both have their opinions as to what is acceptable however they are not the same and create a conflict. ?Both of them made the decision based off their view of "ethics" How do we determine who's actions were ethical, and who's actions were not?

[Anonymous]

---

@thankfulheart wrote:

Very interesting thread.  In my opinion, it is vital that our young people be educated around credit, starting early on.  Thankfully, my teenagers are watching me go through the rebuilding process and can see the importance of sound financial management and credit smarts.  I did not have the benefit of that and suffered for it far too long.  Thank GOODNESS I found MyFico and the folks here who can continue educating people.

I absolutely think GWs are ethical.  It is a decision between a creditor and debtor to show mercy. Nothing wrong with that.  Was I late? Absolutely. Did my circumstances stink? You bet. Did I do the right thing and PAY those bills rather than easy out with BK? Yep. Thank you to the many creditors who showed compassion, I truly appreciate it.  As for the creditors who did not? That's OK, I appreciate your taking the time to read and respond in a compassionate manner and I understand.  I don't like looking at the consequences for something that was out of my control every day, but so be it. Lesson learned.

Let's not even discuss self-employment and insurance (or uninsurability). 

As far as the question of my auto and home insurance premiums being based on my credit score...THAT is an outrage and I still can't believe we allow that.  I have never had a claim (or a late payment) in 30 years, yet my premium went up 30% the second the state insurance board allowed the insurers to use credit scores. INSANE.  And, now that my scores have climbed, I don't see the rates going down any, either.  That is unethical to me.

---

Is it ethical that Bank #1 allows "Suzie" to GW her payment based off of her circumstances. But does not allow "Toby" to GW his payment (with identical circumstances to Suzie) just because Bank #1 says so?

[Anonymous]

 Ethics are subjective, are they not? No one is Wright or wrong in ethics.

So to answer your question was it ethical?  That is a matter of personal opinion.  

Do I win a prize?

TBC

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@drkaje wrote:

Only the person making a choice/decision can know if it's ethical or not.

---

The ole' ethics is in the eye of the beholder argument. Here's a question...

The big wigs here at Myfico have placed a set of rules and guidelines as to how to post here. Member #1 makes a post that states he is going to freeze all but 1 of his CRs as said report is "clean" boasting a 775 CS. The other two reports are sub 700. His thread is ultimately mod cut due to a violation of Fico's TOS. Member #1 thought nothing was wrong with his actions and felt that the freeze method is fair game. The mod and Admins at Myfico disagreed and though his actions to promote this type of gaming of the system to be a bit shady.

In this example who is right? Member #1 or Myfico? They both have their opinions as to what is acceptable however they are not the same and create a conflict. ?Both of them made the decision based off their view of "ethics" How do we determine who's actions were ethical, and who's actions were not?

---

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 Ethics are subjective, are they not? No one is Wright or wrong in ethics.

So to answer your question was it ethical?  That is a matter of personal opinion.  

Do I win a prize?

TBC

---

Good questions! You (and everybody else) wins the opportunity to answer more questions

Ethically speaking under what circumstance is it okay to lie on a credit application? Does a person deserved to be punished or receive AA with a creditor when they are found to be dishonest during apping? Why have any regulations if ethics are subjective according to the subjective argument there is no corruption. Do you agree?

I don't know who is right or wrong in that exaple. I just posed the question to see if we can get a little closer to the truth regarding ethics. We can also discussed what is fair or unfair however, I wouldn't want the fairness debate to be confused with one of ethics

[Anonymous]

Edit... I'm going to back out of this conversation and just watch. Everybody here is doing a much better job of getting to the core of the situation than I could hope to in a brief post.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 Ethics are subjective, are they not? No one is Wright or wrong in ethics.

So to answer your question was it ethical?  That is a matter of personal opinion.  

Do I win a prize?

TBC

---

Good questions! You (and everybody else) wins the opportunity to answer more questions

Ethically speaking under what circumstance is it okay to lie on a credit application? Does a person deserved to be punished or receive AA with a creditor when they are found to be dishonest during apping? Why have any regulations if ethics are subjective according to the subjective argument there is no corruption. Do you agree?

I don't know who is right or wrong in that exaple. I just posed the question to see if we can get a little closer to the truth regarding ethics. We can also discussed what is fair or unfair however, I wouldn't want the fairness debate to be confused with one of ethics

---

Is it against the law?

Once ethics becomes a law or a rule it is no longer subjective. Ethic law by its very definition is an oxymoron.

TBC

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Edit... I'm going to back out of this conversation and just watch. Everybody here is doing a much better job of getting to the core of the situation than I could hope to in a brief post.

---

Oh No!!! Don't playa Hate... Participate

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 Ethics are subjective, are they not? No one is Wright or wrong in ethics.

So to answer your question was it ethical?  That is a matter of personal opinion.  

Do I win a prize?

TBC

---

Good questions! You (and everybody else) wins the opportunity to answer more questions

Ethically speaking under what circumstance is it okay to lie on a credit application? Does a person deserved to be punished or receive AA with a creditor when they are found to be dishonest during apping? Why have any regulations if ethics are subjective according to the subjective argument there is no corruption. Do you agree?

I don't know who is right or wrong in that exaple. I just posed the question to see if we can get a little closer to the truth regarding ethics. We can also discussed what is fair or unfair however, I wouldn't want the fairness debate to be confused with one of ethics

---

Is it against the law?

Once ethics becomes a law or a rule it is no longer subjective. Ethic law by its very definition is an oxymoron.

TBC

---

The Law is a seperate can of worms you can open if you wish but is it necessary? You can have ethics without the law, but I'm not sure if you can have it the other way around...

[drkaje]

The lies we tell ourselves are far bigger than any of those that work their way onto an application or credit report, LOL!

In a nutshell: Much of the negative behavior that lead to needing repair is driven by a strong sense of entitlement.

Skipped ahead but, restricting the report someone can see is a lie. If it were my money, loaning it to someone with a locked report wouldn't even be an option. Even a clean report wouldn't give me much confidence, now that I know what can be done to pretty things up.

I do feel 7 years is too long for something simple (like a 30 day late payment) to stay on one's report.

[CreditCrusader]

---

@LS2982 wrote:

Filing BK because you were stupid and irresponsible with credit. You should have to suffer for that.

I think the AMEX backdating is a little suspect but its a nice benefit from them to prior cardholders.

I think AU's are totally blown out of proportion and alot of gaming going on with that. (The ones that have alot of AU accounts to bolster their numbers)

---

1. BK filers DO suffer...your credit score sinks like a rock, and you spend the next 10 years trying to run up a never-ending set of escalators. Sure, sub-prime lenders will give you AF, fee-filled cards with sky-high APRs, but prime lenders won't touch you...regardless of the reason. A BK blacklist is no laughing matter...take it from one who knows. I filed because of unending medical bills so my son could breathe. I pay the price years later...maybe not the price you feel I deserve, but I pay one nevertheless.

2/3. People who are careless with their credit often swim out of quicksand by virtue of absolutely NOTHING they did on their own. They piggyback someone else's credit.

Here's the thing, LS..and there really is no way around this one: BOTH ARE LEGAL. We have BK laws in large part because the Bible makes mention of forgiving debts (Deuteronomy 15:1-6), which tests the ethical component dramatically IMHO. Some companies allow AUs as a reward to their most valued cardholders...which some might find shady, but it's legal and allowed by both parties.

This is one of those areas of debate where there are no winners or losers - just opinions - and thank God for our right to express those