If you have terrible credit, you likely know how difficult it is to get approved for a personal loan. In fact, many people with good credit cannot acquire a personal bank loan. Fortunately, there are other options for getting quick cash. Cash advance lenders approve loans for all people regardless of credit and income.
How to Qualify for a Cash Loan?
Qualifying for a cash advance personal loan is simple. The majority of banks and credit unions will not approve a loan request without a credit check and collateral. Hence, it is impossible for some people to get extra funds. Moreover, unless an applicant has a vehicle title or owns a home, getting approved is equally hard.
Payday or cash advance loans make the loan process simpler. If you need extra cash, completing an online application may get you approved for up to $1500 in minutes. The money can be used to pay an unexpected expense.
Cash advance lenders have easy requirements. Naturally, loan applicants must be employed. Secondly, applicants must meet the minimum monthly salary. If an applicant earns a small salary, the likelihood of the loan defaulting is higher.
Additional requirements include having a valid checking or savings account. Applicants must be at least 18-years-old and have no previous outstanding cash advance balances. Payday loan companies do not perform credit checks. Hence, you may obtain a sizeable short-term loan with bad credit, no credit, recent bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.
Convenience of a No-Fax Cash Advance Loan
There are two types of cash advance lenders. Those who require fax copies of documentations, and lenders that do not require faxing. If choosing a lender that requires fax copies of banking information, paycheck stubs, and driver's license, applicants must forward this information before the loan is approved.
During an emergency, faxing is a huge inconvenience. Instead, select a no-fax cash advance lender. The lender will verify employer and banking information. After information is confirmed, the cash advance is deposited into your banking account. Loan approval notifications are received in minutes. You can expect funds deposited by the next business day. In some instances, funds are received within an hour.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ban payday loans? Big mistake.
Washington - Fed up with politicians incapable of balancing budgets? Well, now state legislatures across the country want to take a crack at balancing your checkbook – whether you like it or not.
Paternalism – the idea that government must take care of adults because they aren't able to do so themselves – is the ideology behind the wave of politicians determined to limit how much and how often Americans can borrow money. By putting stringent restrictions on borrowing, these politicians would effectively ban the practice of short-term "payday" lending, no matter how many people use it responsibly in times of crisis.
For those who enjoy access to high lines of credit, these short-term loans – which essentially let customers borrow cash from their next paycheck – may be a bad deal. But many of the less prosperous don't have such attractive alternatives to the kind of loans that politicians like to demonize.
So when Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton prey on people's emotions by calling short-term lending "abusive" and "predatory," the result of their actions will be leaving low-income borrowers stranded in debt.
Most financial institutions aren't willing to cover the risk that these loans incur, so real alternatives don't exist. Why is that the case? Consider this scenario.
In some states, lawmakers have tried to pretend that they're not banning the service, only capping its price at a "reasonable level." If a complete stranger walked up to you on the street and asked you for a $100 loan and promised to pay it back in two weeks, but only give you $1.38 for your troubles – would that be a "reasonable" deal? Of course not. And no business could survive making these kinds of loans.
In fact, after Washington set a 24 percent cap on interest rates last fall, payday lenders left the city in droves, leaving consumers hard-pressed to get cash in a pinch.
So once the paternalistic rhetoric is switched off, payday lending's usefulness to borrowers in tight spots is fairly easy to understand. The quick cash means that the car gets an urgent repair, a critical check doesn't bounce, or the heating bill gets paid. Used responsibly, payday lending can help a borrower stave off financial calamity.
And it's that idea of responsibility that the activists and lawmakers trying to kill payday lending can't get their heads around. Personal responsibility is what makes adult life possible. Take something away because a small minority of adults can't use it responsibly and you treat everyone like children.
The injury on top of the insult is that laws against payday lending do serious economic harm to the people likeliest to use such a service, as confirmed by multiple teams of researchers.
One consequence of payday lending restrictions is that they force would-be borrowers into alternatives that are far more costly. Georgia, for example, has outlawed the practice – mistakenly, as a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study indicates.
The study found that bounced-check fees grew by $36 million and Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings rose by almost 9 percent in Georgia after payday lending was banned. What's worse: Bouncing checks and wrecking your credit rating, or paying a lender $15 for a $100 advance on your paycheck?
Given these facts, it's clear that those guilty of exploitation are not the short-term lenders, but politicians who are trotting out the poor to score a political victory.
The message sent by lawmakers who want to ban payday lending is to declare that consumers capable of opening a checking account and earning a paycheck can't act like adults when it comes to managing a three-figure loan. This lesson from government will only erode personal responsibility, to the detriment of a healthy society.
Americans don't need their money managed by paternalist politicians. Government should instead trust that, when given personal freedom and the maximum amount of options, consumers can decide how to responsibly use their money themselves.
• Tim Miller is the communications director at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices.
Paternalism – the idea that government must take care of adults because they aren't able to do so themselves – is the ideology behind the wave of politicians determined to limit how much and how often Americans can borrow money. By putting stringent restrictions on borrowing, these politicians would effectively ban the practice of short-term "payday" lending, no matter how many people use it responsibly in times of crisis.
For those who enjoy access to high lines of credit, these short-term loans – which essentially let customers borrow cash from their next paycheck – may be a bad deal. But many of the less prosperous don't have such attractive alternatives to the kind of loans that politicians like to demonize.
So when Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton prey on people's emotions by calling short-term lending "abusive" and "predatory," the result of their actions will be leaving low-income borrowers stranded in debt.
Most financial institutions aren't willing to cover the risk that these loans incur, so real alternatives don't exist. Why is that the case? Consider this scenario.
In some states, lawmakers have tried to pretend that they're not banning the service, only capping its price at a "reasonable level." If a complete stranger walked up to you on the street and asked you for a $100 loan and promised to pay it back in two weeks, but only give you $1.38 for your troubles – would that be a "reasonable" deal? Of course not. And no business could survive making these kinds of loans.
In fact, after Washington set a 24 percent cap on interest rates last fall, payday lenders left the city in droves, leaving consumers hard-pressed to get cash in a pinch.
So once the paternalistic rhetoric is switched off, payday lending's usefulness to borrowers in tight spots is fairly easy to understand. The quick cash means that the car gets an urgent repair, a critical check doesn't bounce, or the heating bill gets paid. Used responsibly, payday lending can help a borrower stave off financial calamity.
And it's that idea of responsibility that the activists and lawmakers trying to kill payday lending can't get their heads around. Personal responsibility is what makes adult life possible. Take something away because a small minority of adults can't use it responsibly and you treat everyone like children.
The injury on top of the insult is that laws against payday lending do serious economic harm to the people likeliest to use such a service, as confirmed by multiple teams of researchers.
One consequence of payday lending restrictions is that they force would-be borrowers into alternatives that are far more costly. Georgia, for example, has outlawed the practice – mistakenly, as a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study indicates.
The study found that bounced-check fees grew by $36 million and Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings rose by almost 9 percent in Georgia after payday lending was banned. What's worse: Bouncing checks and wrecking your credit rating, or paying a lender $15 for a $100 advance on your paycheck?
Given these facts, it's clear that those guilty of exploitation are not the short-term lenders, but politicians who are trotting out the poor to score a political victory.
The message sent by lawmakers who want to ban payday lending is to declare that consumers capable of opening a checking account and earning a paycheck can't act like adults when it comes to managing a three-figure loan. This lesson from government will only erode personal responsibility, to the detriment of a healthy society.
Americans don't need their money managed by paternalist politicians. Government should instead trust that, when given personal freedom and the maximum amount of options, consumers can decide how to responsibly use their money themselves.
• Tim Miller is the communications director at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)