The point is not about limiting it to AGI, the point is setting limits on what data is shared so that you as the consumer always control what a requesting company sees. Don't want your data shared? No problem, you can set to deny all requests. Only want to share AGI but not your entire return, just allow that field, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your response also seems to indicate you don't work in financial services. No company is providing credit based solely on income verification (well, not that I'm aware of maybe some fintech is doing it). Most all credit providers are collating data from various sources to make their decision and it varies more than you might think on what goes into a credit decision.

Further, I don't think there's any need at all for laws for this as you suggest, rather just let the IRS offer it as a competing service with private industry. I know many companies that would sign up right away for such a service at the right price point.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but your response also seems to indicate you don't work in financial services. No company is providing credit based solely on income verification (well, not that I'm aware of maybe some fintech is doing it). Most all credit providers are collating data from various sources to make their decision and it varies more than you might think on what goes into a credit decision.

I think you misunderstood the comment. It was pointing out that if they only have AGI to go by and no other information, the interest rate on a loan will be much higher, because even with AGI data, that's not enough to know that the borrower is going to pay reliably.

> Further, I don't think there's any need at all for laws for this as you suggest...

Commenter was actually not suggesting this either. It was a sarcastic question intended to point out the folly of assuming we can just create laws to fix market forces.

People don't understand how credit scores work and you want to give them the power to allow granular permissions?

Just like Facebook gave people granular access to their privacy settings?

If the general population doesn't read EULAs and speed clicks through 99% of dialogs presented. I highly doubt people won't check the _allow all_ box once and be done with it.

Hell Apple gives my significant other the ability to ask apps not to track and they tap to ALLOW the app to track because "I don't mind ads and they'll show me better ads."

Some percentage of people making bad decisions doesn’t mean all people should be forced to make bad decisions. Yes, it’s a good thing that Facebook and apple allow those controls. Yes, it’s a shame more people don’t care about controlling their data. That doesn’t mean people who do care shouldn’t be able to control it.

What point are you trying to make, exactly?

I believe their point is that if you don't provide any piece of information, the consumer of it would just assume the worst. Or, they would average it out, so that the burden of not being accurate would affect the people that do provide it.

> You ready to get a mortgage at prime plus 5% instead of prime plus 1%?

So then homes would become more affordable, as monthly payments are the limiting factor? Sounds like a win-win, if that actually were to happen. But it seems unlikely for secured credit.

No, why would homes be more affordable? Credit would tighten up immensely starting with those who don’t have sufficient income.

The main factor for people buying houses is the monthly payment. When interest rates go down, abstract asset prices go up to compensate. When interest rates go up, abstract asset prices go down. So your scenario of interest rates going up would actually enable people to do things like make a larger downpayment (rather than suffering the PMI trap), and make it reasonable to pay off a mortgage early.

But as I said, the change in interest rates is unlikely to be that large for secured credit like a mortgage, as the main thing guaranteeing the loan is the asset itself.

> You ready to get a mortgage at prime plus 5% instead of prime plus 1%?

And for that I had to pay interest/fees on all the other crap so that I "build a credit history"

Interesting, I wonder if someone did the math on that (and that 5% is overinflated I think not even the NINA loans were that high)

What “interest and fees”?

I have a high credit score and have never paid a fee or any interest.

CC Annuity? Or even the implied CC fees the purchaser pays indirectly by increased prices

Car payment interest? Student loans?

I’ve never had a credit card with fees.

I built up a great credit score with a single, no fee card, that I paid off each month. Total cost $0.

You don’t need an interest paying loan to have a good credit score.

I don't understand the US credit score at all. What's the predictive value of you paying off a mortgage based on you just shopping with a credit card? Sure if you can't pay your normal shopping cart, probably you shouldn't really be getting a mortgage, but the predictive value besides that seems lost on me. Surely a bank could just ask your payslip info and get a more accurate feel whether or not you are creditworthy?

I don’t follow.

Shopping with a credit card literally involves managing a line of credit.

You don’t see how that relates to creditworthiness?

You also believe purely income information is a better indicator of credit worthiness? It tells you almost nothing (which is why income plus all current expenses is used).

A mortgage is about the ability to pay back hundreds of thousands over an extremely long time period. Your normal shopping is a blip, and it makes barely any difference because normal people just use their credit card the same as if it was a debit one (the only difference you pay it off at the end of the month). So it doesn't tell me anything about your ability to handle real credit. What do I care that you pay off a 100-ish bucks a month by buying food? I don't think paying off your shopping cart is very impressive, and someone telling me "I've paid off my shopping carts for over 15 years" (which is what advice US people seem to throw around to use your credit card for) isn't going to impress me, yet this is what a company uses for important stuff? And at least employment status/income tells me something, rather than nothing.

I don't think you understand how the average person handles credit card debt.

Plenty of people fail to pay even monthly credit card debt. That a massive,massive signal to how they'd handle larger amounts of credit.

> Surely a bank could just ask your payslip info and get a more accurate feel whether or not you are creditworthy?

They do that, too. You have to provide all of your income data over the past like 3 years and explain any extra income (why did your parents give you $1000 a couple years ago?). Credit score is just one more datapoint, and I think it's more about your score being "not bad" (i.e. you didn't screw a previous creditor) than it is about it being "good."