Can I negotiate a credit card settlement by stopping payments?
"This would be on your credit for ~8 years.   If it goes according to your plan, it will take 6 months to a year to do the settlement by getting behind enough to let it go to collections and then settling.   The write-off will then be on your credit record for 7 years before it ""falls off"". Your cash out refinance would have to cover you for at least the next 8 years to be valuable. And you have a lot of assumptions to get there: In short, there's one way (or only a few ways) this works out well in your favor.  There are many ways that this has the chance to hurt you.    I don't like ""investments"" with those kind of odds." "At no point is it ever a good idea to ""stop making payments to show them [you] mean business"". When you signed up for the credit card account, you agreed to pay what you charged, and any applicable interested accrued on the accounts. You are legally responsible for that debt, and you can be sued, if they are so inclined. Many times, settlement agencies are employed because a risk assessment operator (or whatever they're called at your cc company) calculated that they are currently financially better off settling for a reduced balance than attempting to chase you for the full amount. As soon as the terms of your refinance hits your credit history, that changes. To reiterate and make it clear: This is a very dangerous approach to breaking credit card debt, and I would not advise that anybody proceed with it. EDIT: If you offer 50% of the balance in a lump sum payment, they decline, and you continue with non-payment, they have reason to believe that you are financially capable of making payments, and are much more likely to seek legal action." This strategy will have long lasting effects since negative items can persist for many years, making financing a home difficult, the primary source of household credit. It is also very risky.  You can play hard, but then the creditor may choose you to be the one that they make an example out of by suing you for a judgement that allows them to empty your accounts and garnish your wages. If you have no record of late payments, or they are old and/or few, your credit score will quickly shoot up if you pay down to 10% of the balance, keep the cards, and maintain that balance rate. This strategy will have them begging you to take on more credit with offers of lower interest rates.  The less credit you take on, the more they'll throw at you, and when it comes time to purchase a home, more home can be bought because your interest rates will be lower.
Ok so Arbitrage?  I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards.  Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal.  Is there a financial term that fits this better? A few years ago, I had the rare opportunity to take advantage of a credit card offer. Specifically, a 10% cash back deal on purchases at drug stores or supermarkets. The offer was limited to 90 days, so during that time, I bought 100 cash gift cards at my local CVS.  Over the next year to use them all, when they dropped to a balance under $5 or so, I signed in to my cable TV account and charged the remaining balance there. No bothering a supermarket clerk, or store owner. "Your companies are declining to lower your rates because you are describing it as being kind. When I was in a similar situation, I called each one, starting with the highest rate, and said this: For the last little while things have been tight and my balances have crept up on all my cards. Now I'm about to start a fairly dramatic paydown. I'm going to be doing highest-rate fastest, which is you. Are you able to lower my rate so that you can continue to collect it?  Some said no. Some said ""ask again when you've paid more than the minimum three months in a row."" Most said yes, and sometimes by a dramatic amount. It made a real difference to getting things under control. I agree with the other answers that $50 extra on each card is just not as fulfilling as putting all the extra to a single card. If you must still use a card (to put gas in your car, buy groceries etc) getting one card to zero will return you to not paying interest even when you use it, so you might want to start with your lowest balance and then go to highest-rate once you have one clear one you can use. (If your balances are all so high that it will take a year or more to get one to zero, then maybe not. But if one is low drive it down first.) As for the consolidation loan, for some people it's the key to saving interest and getting the debt behind them. For others it's a chance to catch their breath and run up even more debt. Most people cannot predict in advance which they will be or which others will be. Be aware that it is a risk. You can vow that you will never again cover payroll with a cash advance from the company credit card (or your personal one) but when push comes to shove, you just might anyway." This is possible.  In fact in the cases of debt settlement the collection companies typically issue a 1099 for the difference on what is owed and what is settled, making that taxable income.  So the IRS sees it as income (in the US). However, this kind of dishonesty is not conducive to building long term wealth or wealth of significant means.    As others have said this is fraud, but provided that one is truthful on the loan application, it would be impossible to prove.  How can one prove that a person has no intention of paying a loan back? Doing this once or twice may ruin your ability to receive a loan for legitimate purposes for life. According to this Q&A by a Houston law professor: The law, however, is not designed to interfere with an individual's right to stop payment on a valid check because of a dispute with someone. If he didn't deliver as promised, you do not owe the money and have the right to stop payment. Assuming that you had enough money in the bank to cover the check, stopping payment is not a crime. I found several other pages essentially saying the same thing.  All the usual disclaimers apply, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.  In particular, laws might vary by state. Basically, though, it doesn't seem there's any reason why you can't stop payment on the check just because you feel like it.  If you then provide a cashier's check for the payment, your ex-partner will not really have anything to complain about.  If you're worried about annoying him by doing this, that's a separate issue, but given the situation you describe, I don't see why you should be.  If you feel he is being a pain in the neck, feel free to be a pain in the neck right back and force him to accept the payment in the manner you decide, instead of allowing him to string you along. Note two things: obviously if you have reason to believe the guy will sue you, you should act with caution.  Also, I'm not suggesting withdrawing payment completely, only stopping the check and issuing a new payment that you don't have to wait on (e.g., cashier's check). Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash. They don't do anything you can't do yourself and they charge you money for it. And of course the only way they manage to negotiate the debt down is by not paying it for a while in the first place, have it referred to collections and then negotiating with the collectors. At that time, your credit rating (if you care about that at all) will have suffered a lot more damaged than it is from a few late payments. I would address the issue as to why you end up paying late first - it sounds to me like you're cutting the time left to pay to the bone and this turned around and bit you in the you-know-where. In case you are able to pay but not organised enough to do it on time, find a way to remind yourself to pay the bill a few days early for peace of mind. That won't do anything about the 28% interest but those might serve as an additional motivation to pay the debt off faster. Once you're back to showing regular on-time payments on your credit record, you might want to investigate transferring the balance to a cheaper card or negotiate the interest down (or both). If you genuinely can't pay after you've taken care of the essentials (food, shelter, transportation) then you don't need a third party to stop paying the credit card bill, you can do that yourself. "My sister had a similar problem and went to an actual lawyer, not a  ""credit repair agency"".  The lawyers settled her debt for a lot less than she owed, and she  also got a bonus: one of the creditors called her repeatedly, even  after her lawyers had told them not to.  The lawyers ended up getting her an extra $40,000. Combined with the  debt settlement, she actually came out ahead.  Of course, her credit score went down, but it recovered in a couple of  years." "This is most likely protecting Square's relationship with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/etc. Credit card companies typically charge their customers a much higher interest rate with no grace period on cash advances (withdrawals made from an ATM using a credit card). If you use Square to generate something that looks like a ""merchandise transaction"" but instead just hand over a wad of banknotes, you're forcing the credit card company to apply their cheaper ""purchases"" interest rate on the transaction, plus award any applicable cashback offers†, etc. Square would absolutely profit off of this, but since it would result in less revenue for the partner credit card companies, that would quickly sour the relationship and could even result in them terminating their agreements with Square altogether. † This is the kind of activity they are trying to prevent:  1. Bill yourself $5,000 for ""merchandise"", but instead give yourself cash.  2. Earn 1.5% cashback ($75).  3. Use $4,925 of the cash and a $75 statement credit to pay your credit card statement.  4. Pocket the difference.  5. Repeat. Note, the fees involved probably negate any potential gain shown in this example, but I'm sure with enough creative thinking someone would figure out a way to game the system if it wasn't expressly forbidden in the terms of service" Three things prevent you from doing this: Credit cards generally don't accept other credit cards as payment.  You could do this with a cash advance or balance transfer, but Cash advances and balance transfers usually have fees associated with them, negating any reward you might earn. Your card might have a no-fee balance transfer promotion going, but Cash advances and balance transfers generally aren't eligible for rewards. quid has expressed some of the disadvantages with this approach, but there is another. Vendors will not want to give you any goods you buy with your credit card until they are sure they will get the money. With your suggested approach buying something with a credit card now looks like: No vendor is going to stand for this for even moderate sized transactions, so in reality they will just decline your card if you have this facility enabled. If you want to ensure that you stop paying interest, the best thing to do is to not use the card for a full billing cycle.  Calculating credit card interest with precision ahead of time is difficult, as how you use the card both in terms of how much and when is critical. "Without knowing what the balances are, I associate ""uncomfortable"" with high, as in tens of thousands.   What I would do: is 1) cut up the cards and stop using them, and 2) have some balance transfer offers in hand the next time you call to negotiate with the companies.  Essentially, you will have to convince them that they will have to explain one of two things to their boss: why they lowered your rate or why you left. They can collect less interest from you or no interest from you.  It's up to them.  If they don't offer you something that's in the ballpark of your balance transfer offer, then bid them goodbye and complete the balance transfer. As far as paying them off, the top two modes of repayment are lowest balance first (aka snowball) or high interest rate first.  Both methods are similar in that you pay minimums on all but the method's focus point.  Whether it is lowest balance or highest interest rate, you pay ALL of your extra money on the lowest balance or the highest interest debt until it is gone and then you move onto the next one in the list. For what it's worth, I prefer the lowest balance method, you see progress faster." If you had a CC issuer that allowed you to do bill-pay this way, I suspect the payment would be considered a cash advance that will trigger a fee and a pretty egregious cash advance specific interest rate.  It's not normal for a credit payment portal to accept a credit card as payment. If you were able to do this as a balance transfer, again there would be fees to transfer the balance and you would not earn any rewards from the transferred balance.  I think it's important to note that cash back benefits are effectively paid by merchant fees.  You make a $100 charge, the merchant pays about $2.50 in transaction fee, you're credited with about $1 of cash back (or points or whatever).  Absent a merchant transaction and the associated fee there's no pot of money from which to apply cash back rewards. "I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: ""disposable"", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!"