Jump to Navigation

Why Is Credit Card Interest So High?

Have you ever noticed that all your credit card bills seem to get mailed to South Dakota, Nevada or Delaware? More importantly, why can credit card companies ignore your state's usury law, which limits the amount of interest that can be charged on a loan, and charge whatever rate they want?

The answer lies in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling that changed the law and opened the door to the credit card industry to make use of the laws in states with weak usury laws.

At the time, a small number of states -- most notably South Dakota and Delaware – saw an opportunity to expand their job bases during a deep recession by luring credit card companies to relocate there. The Court ruling let credit card issuers "export" nationally whatever interest rate was allowed in the state in which they were headquartered. To encourage the companies to relocate, some states simply dropped their usury laws. Some of the large issuers relocated and it became “anything goes” for credit card rates.

South Dakota was the first to offer what amounted to unlimited interest rates to lure card issuers into relocating their headquarters. Sioux Falls alone employs more than 8,000 people in financial services, including credit card issuers.

For consumers across the country, the impact was a dramatic increase in the availability of credit cards. According to the American Bankers Association, 38 percent of American households had at least one credit card in 1977, the year before the Supreme Court ruling. By 1989, the percentage of families with at least one credit card was 56 percent. Today, it's about 75 percent. The increased availability came at a price – high interest rates.

It is unlikely that Congress or the President will push for a national usury law to stop predatory lending. As with homeowners who default on their mortgages, credit card users are unfortunately pretty much on their own.

Business Law Advice in New Jersey
AV Lexis-Nexis Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated for Ethical Standards and Legal AbilitySuper Lawyers

Kates Nussman Rapone Ellis & Farhi, LLP
190 Moore Street, Suite 306
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: 201-488-7211
Fax: 201-488-1210
Map and Directions

Current News & Announcements
  • Recent Successes in Court - Published Decisions.
    Precedent-setting cases were published this year in favor of clients of Kates Nussman Rapone Ellis & Farhi in the fields of land use law and tax exemptions for clinical programs housing the mentally ill. Read More...
  • New Jersey's Top-Rated Lawyers. Firm Partners Richard Rapone (Personal Injury Law), Joel Ellis (Real Estate Law - Condominium & Cooperative Associations) and Michael Farhi (Commercial Litigation and Labor & Employment Law). were named among New Jersey's Top Lawyers by Inside Jersey Magazine. This is in recognition of their AV Preeminent Peer Review rating, which identifies lawyers with the highest rating in legal ability and overall professional excellence. They were listed with other honorees in the August 2012 issue of the magazine.
  • Michael Kates, Richard Rapone, Joel Ellis and Michael Farhi Named as some of Bergen County New Jersey's Top Lawyers. Firm Partners Michael Kates, Richard Rapone, Joel Ellis & Michael Farhi were named one of Bergen County New Jersey's Top Lawyers by (201) Magazine. This is in recognition of their AV Preeminent Peer Review rating, which identifies lawyers with the highest rating in legal ability and overall professional excellence. They will be listed with other honorees in the June 2012 issue of the magazine.
  • On behalf of a state-wide organization of municipalities, planning boards and zoning boards - The New Jersey Planning Officials - the Law Firm filed a "friend of the court" motion and brief challenging the State Department of Transportation's methodology for permitting private helicopter landing sites over the objection of municipalities. The case is Township of Fairfield v. State of New Jersey Department of Transportation, now pending in the Appellate Division. In reaction to the motion and brief, as well as Fairfield Township's continued opposition, DOT has filed its own extraordinary motion, seeking leave of court to remand the case back to Department for reconsideration.