Congress Could Overturn a New Rule Limiting Credit Card Late Fees. Good.
Sen. Tim Scott introduced a bill Monday to block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's action by invoking the Congressional Review Act.

Last month's decision by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to cap credit card late fees at no more than $8 per month seems destined to earn a spot in the annals of unintended consequences.
On the surface, of course, it sounds great. No one likes getting hit with late fees for missing minimum payments, which previously averaged about $32 per month but vary from credit card to credit card. The CFPB estimates that the change will save American families about $220 per year in lower fees. In his State of the Union address last month, President Joe Biden hailed the change as part of his overall war on "junk fees."
"They don't like it. Credit card companies don't like it," he said.
Some Americans might end up not liking it either—particularly if the result is higher interest rates on credit card purchases or stricter limits on who gets access to credit in the first place. Those are a few of the likely outcomes that Vince Ginn, an economist and former White House associate budget director, identifies in a new post at the Econlib blog.
"While it could save us some money if we slip up and pay late, credit card companies will find ways to compensate for this lost income," he writes. "In trying to shield us from high late fees, the government will set us up for a situation where credit is harder to come by and more expensive."
These mandated changes always come with trade-offs that policymakers fail to see or understand. As I covered in a piece for this month's issue of Reason, the 2010 law that capped debit card swipe fees—in the name of saving consumers and businesses pennies on each transaction—resulted in consumers seeing few benefits and hastened a cultural switch towards credit cards, which usually charge even higher swipe fees to businesses. Now, predictably, there's a similar attempt to limit credit card swipe fees, which will inevitably have its own unintended effects.
As for the CFPB's move to cap late fees, there's the possibility that Congress could get involved. Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, introduced a bill on Monday to overturn the rule using the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to have the final say on executive agency actions.
"Now is the wrong time to play political games that limit access to credit," Scott said in a statement. "But that's exactly what the CFPB's rule to limit credit card late penalties will do—it will decrease the availability of credit card products and important financial services, particularly for Americans who need them most."
It's also worth considering the similarities between the CFPB's new rule and the Biden administration's ongoing attempts to forgive student loan debt. While capping late fees on credit cards isn't quite as outrageous—or as likely to provoke perverse incentives—both actions reflect the Biden administration's view that the government should shield people from the potential economic downsides of their own, voluntary decisions.
Despite Biden's attempt to call this a "junk fee," it's really not. The only people who pay credit card late fees are those who make purchases on credit, and then fail to make the minimum monthly payments on their balances.
It's certainly possible to have sympathy for individuals who have missed payments due to economic hardship, but that doesn't change the fact that those fees are a basic part of the contractual obligation that anyone assumes when using a credit card. Late fees are clearly spelled out on every monthly statement. They exist to encourage on-time payment of what is owed—the same reason why the IRS will charge you a penalty for failing to finish your taxes this week (but for some reason the CFPB doesn't seem interested in preventing those fees).
To the extent that capping late fees will translate into higher interest rates for all credit card users—not merely those who are delinquent with minimum payments—then the effect of the CFPB's rule will be to impose marginally higher costs on individuals and families who are using credit cards responsibly to cover the obligations of those who have not done so. That's fundamentally unfair, and none of the government's business.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Buying votes.
Buying votes on credit.
What's the difference?
Why doesn't Tim Scott introduce a bill to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
Because he wants his bill to actually be approved?
When reason starts charging me to make comments. I will leave the site
I’m sure many others feel the same way.
Unintended consequence?
Given their leftward lurches into Salon territory I find it hard to believe it's anything other than an attempt to stifle dissent and protect the egos of the gibbering retards they have as staff writers...er editors.
The question is are the consequences actually unintended. Just because the consequences are not what was advertised, that doesn't mean they are not what was intended.
Good! Then we won't have to wade through as many useless comments cluttering up the comments section - like yours.
YOURS are even less useful.
I'm afraid if I don't pay the late fees will pile up.
Wow, I never thought of that. If we keep commenting, will we get bills for hundreds of dollars in a few months?
I'm in that boat. I've left every site that's done it.
But hey if Reason wants me reading nothing but Substacks and Lew Rockwell (which at least is honest and has no comments) then so be it.
The paywalls have only radicalized me further, as I am sure as hell not *paying* to read a bunch of breathtakingly stupid globoblob drivel. On the plus side, I'm way less distracted overall with clicking about an internet that has become way less fun and way more rancid, and have plenty of time to get things done in realityland.
Don't have credit card balances. Problem solved.
^This
I have an 850 credit score and zero debt but the rate on my credit card is 30%. I don't care, it could be 100% and I still wouldn't care because I don't carry a balance. It took me years to get out of debt and I'm never going back.
I'm only 830 and no debt. I don't even know what the interest rate is on my card because I never carry a balance and don't care.
My score fluctuates between 815 and 830 depending on the balance of my credit card that I use for almost everything and then pay in full every month. Don't know what the interest rate is either.
I'm only 612 but I also never carry a balance.
Stupid people pay bank fees.
( I may end up being accidentally stupid at times.
Get a mortgage, a car payment, or some student loans, and then make every payment on time. Your credit rating will go up. What it represents is how likely you’re going to pay someone back. The financial guru Dave Ramsey claims to have a credit score of zero. Not because he doesn’t pay anyone back, but because he hasn’t borrowed money in decades. There’s no history to use for a credit rating.
Oh, right. You’ve got me on mute because you think I’m a leftist. Ok, for anyone else who wants to improve their credit score, do what I said.
Poor sarc. On mute.
White paying off a mortgage may improve your credit rating, anyone who *gets* a mortgage for that purpose is being kind of stupid.
Ramsey doesn't know what he's talking about. He likely has no credit score but a numerical score of zero does not exist.
30%? holy. It has to be a best buy card or something. I only have 760 score and my highest card is amazon at 20%
If you have zero debt, you do NOT have an 850 FICO score.
“Sen. Tim Scott introduced a bill Monday”
Ohhh, Buttplug loves that guy. He gets permission to be racist when there’s a black Republican wandering off the plantation:
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Tim Scott 400-1 Whuffo Bro? Whuffo is you in dis race fo, bro?
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 28 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Groveling like a shoe-shine boy, Tim Scott humiliates himself for Fatass Donnie.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 38 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
SE Cupp is a conservative commentator who is ashamed of Tim Scott’s groveling ‘Happy slave” act concerning Donnie. It is truly shameful.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Tim Scott’s Vice Presidential Debasement Is Almost Complete
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/donald-trump-vice-president-shortlist-tim-scott-laura-ingraham-vance-stefanik.html
Debasement? Are you for real? This smacks of racism.
Tim Scott’s twerking and jiving is just him feeling that ole-timey religion.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 7 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Fact checking Tim Scott – Trump’s black friend/shine boy:
I’d never listened to Tim Scott speak before so I looked him up on YouTube. He sounds like Dave Chappelle imitating white people.
Not too racist.
Not too much of a pathological liar.
Hey man. He spent all morning telling people what he thinks about Mexicans while disguising it as "thats what everyone thinks."
He is the one true Robin D'Angelo here.
"He sounds like Dave Chappelle imitating white people."
He sounds completely normal. Were you expecting a Minstrel dialect or Ebonics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIpXorm4BgY
The left/Democrats want to abolish private banking (I believe they’re doing that with USPS and cash equivalent gift cards in progressive house caucus districts ).
In populist scam news:
Ticker DXYZ, enabling the middle class union guy to invest in high private capital startups. The stock is trading at 1,961% premium to valuation. That’s a hell of a “fee”.
Magic money tree 2024!!
Credit cards were one of the only places that deadbeats paid through the nose while the responsible people reaped most of the benefits. Good credit and paying in full on time has literally been thousands in rewards for me, on purchases I was going to make anyway.
So of course the Demsheviks want to ruin credit, too, and make the responsible people pay a premium to subsidize the deadbeats. The song remains the same.
Problem here is the age old 'nothing is free'; what the banks do not collect from late payers, they will find a way to collect from those of us who never carry a balance and always pay on time.
Paying on time?... sounds awful white supremecy. The suits in Washington are here to dish out some equity. Maybe someday everyone can be poor... together.
'In his State of the Union address last month, President Joe Biden hailed the change as part of his overall war on "junk fees."
"They don't like it. Credit card companies don't like it," he said.'
I wonder what the companies will say when the feds mandate access to cards for everyone and also set interest rates.
They won't say anything because they won't want to get sent to the gulags.
I think this is an idiotic cross to die on for Libertarians. The credit card companies make incredible money off of the fees they charge businesses that take them, they charge arguably usurious fees to the poorest and dumbest of our population. Limiting minimal excess is fair. This a business that won’t stop without government intervention.
I mean, from a “libertarian principles” perspective, the idea that the government should be dictating terms of a private contract is quite objectionable on its face to any subscriber of “deontological libertarianism.”
But this particular issue is objectionable under consequentialist libertarianism as well. The end result of the government’s interference is, as it so often is, an assignment of winners and losers.
Capping late fees will push more people into serious delinquency and charge-off statuses, resulting in even more credit losses to the banks than those caused directly by calling late fees. As the article correctly states, these losses to financial institutions will be recouped in a few primary ways: (1) additional “universal” fees, like annual fees, that every user has to pay; (2) a reduction in “rewards” to desirable consumers, instead retreating to things like “no annual fee” as the incentive; (3) a tightening of credit approval criteria; and (4) an increase of interest rates.
In short, this will obviously screw the “good users” who don’t miss payments —they will have additional fees, fewer rewards, and higher interest rates (if they carry a balance).
But it will also screw the “victims” it’s designed to protect—the fees will be converted to flat annual fees (perhaps pushing certain low-income customers away from those cards), the approval criteria will mean more marginal applicants retreating to payday loans, etc., and interest rates being increased (I’d imagine the “late fee” consumers tend to carry monthly balances as well—presumably at higher rates than users that never pay late fees).
Its not just a violation of libertarian principle, its terrible economic policy.
Any person nowadays buys something, transfers money, exchanges currency, etc. So that all this doesn’t take a lot of time and doesn’t become a problem every time, it is most convenient to have a multi-currency account with the possibility of issuing a card for purchases. I recommend paydo.com. On the site you can learn more about the payment system to begin with, there you can open an account for free.