SugarCatDestroyerThe Reality of Digital ID... But I'm afraid that this kind of crap will end up happening not only in the UK.
9point6I find this kind of sentiment a bit funny, because we already have much worse
Credit scores are opaque ratings of people kept by private organisations used to refuse business to people effectively based on their spending & borrowing behaviour, many of these will now happily encourage you to link your accounts so they get itemised data from some people now too.
This could literally be happening today and they would just need to say “sorry your credit isn’t good enough”. Credit score factors into your ability to rent & buy accommodation in the UK already.
There’s no reason for these companies to switch to using a government ID for these kinds of decisions because that would have to be a more transparent process and less easily used to their benefit.
FWIW, I’m against mandatory ID even though we effectively already have it in the form of national insurance. IMO the ID being digital should be a non issue as long as it’s optional (there also needs to be a free physical version of any national identity for those without phones).
A bad credit score won't prevent me from buying groceries.
Yes credit scores are bullshit and the capitalist drive to maximize profit returns that leads to the application of credit scores to all sorts of things is a problem, but you're delusional if you think credit scores are WORSE than the potential to entirely freeze bank accounts due to political opinions.
Yes credit scores are bullshit
They’re not. They exist for a very good reason, and are purely beneficial to people who repay what they borrow. They only ‘hurt’ people who don’t repay their debts, but only insofar as it makes it more difficult for them to take more money from people that they then also won’t pay back.
That's why my credit score went down when I paid off my student loans, right? Get the fuck outta here.
No, it didn’t. Maybe your score on Credit Karma did, but that’s because Credit Karma’s system of estimation (VantageScore I think it’s called) stops considering a loan the moment you pay it off, while the actual credit reporting agencies continue to consider it (re average age of accounts) for 10 years after closing if it was in good standing, or 7 years from ‘date of first delinquency’ if it was closed because of charge-off or something like that.
My own average account age is less than 10 years, yet my credit score is in the 800s, even though I have no outstanding loans, I just use my credit card for everyday purchases and pay it off every month.
Get your ignorance the fuck outta here and open yourself to learning how things work.
So all available reporting says my credit score went down when I paid off my loans and has remained in this new lower state for months since, but the secret real number used to decide my fate maybe didn't. Yeah you're right that's great. I feel better already.
Get the fuck out of here with that. Credit scores are purely a value used by lenders to determine how much money can be extracted from a consumer. It goes down if you're delinquent, it goes down it you pay things off early without racking up all the interest they wanted, it goes down if you don't run enough of a balance on your credit cards. It doesn't protect consumers, it barely protects lenders, it's purely used to determine how much can be extracted from a consumer's bank account.
So all available reporting says my credit score went down when I paid off my loans and has remained in this new lower state for months since, but the secret real number used to decide my fate maybe didn’t.
There’s no maybe. I already explained how it works. The only part of it that’s ‘secret’ is the minutia of the score tabulation, to make it harder to game. Loans closed in good standing (i.e. you paid them off) are part of your credit report for 10 years.
Get the fuck out of here with that. Credit scores are purely a value used by lenders to determine how much money can be extracted from a consumer.
This is demonstrably bullshit.
Someone who maxes out a credit card, and then only pays minimum payments, and always makes them late, is, via interest accruing and late payment fees, making the lender basically the maximum amount of profit possible. And yet doing this will result in a garbage credit score, because using every penny of your credit limit is very detrimental to your credit score, and not making payments on time is extremely detrimental to your credit score.
Meanwhile, take me, someone who never pays a cent of interest, because he pays off his card every statement cycle (and on time, naturally), and because of card rewards, I’m the one profiting, the lender is literally the one paying me, and ‘yet’, my credit score is in the 800s.
So how do you reconcile that with your assumed truth quoted above? It’s very hard to understand how anyone can arrive at the conclusion you did, while also knowing (as I assume you do) that late payments simultaneously hurt your credit score and increase profit for the lender, just as one example.
It goes down if you’re delinquent
As it should—the whole point of the score is to rate your reliability in repaying what you borrow.
it goes down it you pay things off early without racking up all the interest they wanted
False. You will never be worse off after paying a loan off early than you were before you took out the loan. Again, I haven’t paid a cent of interest on my credit cards in over a decade, and I paid off the only car loan I ever had, really early, less than a year into it.
it goes down if you don’t run enough of a balance on your credit cards.
Also false. Higher utilization is BAD for your credit score, not good. You’re saying literally the opposite of what’s true, do you realize that? You might want to google ‘credit score myths’ and find an article on bankrate or nerdwallet to educate yourself, you’ve been massively misled about this, honestly.
It doesn’t protect consumers
It gets good borrowers like me lower interest rates, and higher credit limits.
it barely protects lenders
Pretty sure the lenders would heavily disagree with that, lol. For very obvious reasons, anyone who’s considering lending someone money is going to be very interested in what happened the last X times that person was lent money.
it’s purely used to determine how much can be extracted from a consumer’s bank account.
Still false the second time.