Credit: Pervis (@PervisTime) - Twitter
Nitter link: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/status/1700928952670245321
RSS Feed: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/rss
Credit: Pervis (@PervisTime) - Twitter
Nitter link: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/status/1700928952670245321
RSS Feed: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/rss
Idk if that’s a passive or active you, but anyway that level of effect sounds quite large, maybe folk should find ways to make their credit rating better.
But I restate I have no clues as to the inner workings of this “credit rate” and if it’s indeed impossible or otherwise unrealistic to effect, I’m willing to grab an implied L on that one.
You positively affect your credit rating over long periods of time by taking out loans and paying them back. If no one will loan you anything, you can’t affect your score. If you can’t pay the loans back, it damages your score.
What happens if you don’t take loans at all before applying for a mortgage/house loan? You’re just at like a N/A rating?
Then they just deny you for “lack of credit history”.
That’s just kind of nonsensical, isn’t it better for someone to not have needed a loan before? To me that seems like the more mature creditor compared to someone who’s pulling credit constantly, regardless how well they pay it back.
That indeed does seem to suck, apologies for having to deal with a system as shit as that sounds.
this is what i thought and did not use credit cards for years. i was only able to buy a car with a co-signer. since then, i pay for everything with credit and pay it off all the time to build a credit history. i will need another car at some point.
It just seems silly to “force” people to use credit just for that. Out here credit cards are only used for international payments, if even that. I mean I don’t have a credit card and probably never will.
if you never take loans or use credit cards, your score won’t be very good. you have to prove that you can take on debt and repay it, not just that you can be responsible with your money (by, for example, never taking debt).
That sounds unfathomably stupid.
I mean if I’d have to choose between giving money to someone who’s never before had to take a loan vs someone who lives from credit to credit, I’d choose the first guy any day.
i mean, yeah. i agree. but those are rules of the game for plebs in the US. (i’m sure things are different for the super-rich.) you wanna rent an apartment or buy a new car? you have to show good credit or have someone with good credit co-sign any agreement/loan. you might do it on your own if you can show enough income (for rent) or can purchase a car outright (pay the total amount).
you can do these things with bad credit, but you will pay a higher interest rate or settle for something sketchy.
i can’t speak to house-buying (looooool, add me to the list of americans in this thread who will never own a house), but i’m pretty sure it’s the same.
It’s not really stupid from their perspective. It’s about risk analysis. Unknown is riskier than someone who has been proven to pay off their debts.
You have to take loans and make financially risky maneuvers to prove you can pay back the bank (which incidentally is covered by FDIC, unlike the average person).