Why don't more people run up their credit cards and skip the country?
It's harder than you think.  Once card companies start seeing your debt to credit line ratios climb, they will slash your credit lines quickly. Also, cash credit lines are always much smaller, so in reality, such a scheme would require you to buy goods that can be converted to cash, which dilutes your gains and makes it more likely that you're going to get detected and busted. Think of the other problems. Where do you store your ill-gotten gains? How do you get the money out of the country? How will your actions affect your family and friends? Also, most people are basically good people -- the prospect of defrauding $100k, leaving family and friends behind and living some anonymous life in a third world country isn't an appealing one. If you are criminally inclined, building up a great credit history is not very practical -- most criminals are by nature reactive and want quick results. Because most people aren't willing to sacrifice their ability to live in the US for 100k. Remember that you can't pull this off multiple times easily.   So as a one and done kind of deal, 100k isn't a great trade for the right to live in tthe US or whatever country you have roots in, particularly once you factor in: Even if you could get it with no major hassle, $100,000 is just not that much money.  In a cheap third world country, as an expat you're looking at spending about $800-$2000/month, plus unexpected expenses. Locals live on less, but very few of us would be happy with the lifestyle of a Honduran or Thai farmer. Your 100k will last 4-10 years. This is hardly a great deal considering you're cutting off ties back home and almost becoming a fugitive. With USD going down the drain (e.g. in Thailand it went down 25% in 3 years), this period would probably be even shorter.  Of course, you could work in the new country, but if you do then you don't need 100k to start with. The initial amount may improve your security, but from that standpoint being able to go back and work in your home country is worth more. I take it the premise of the question is that we're assuming the person isn't worried about the morals. He's a criminal out for a quick buck. And I guess we're assuming that wherever you go, they wouldn't arrest you and extradite you back to the U.S. As others have noted, you can't just walk into a bank the day you graduate high school or get out of prison or whatever and get a credit line of $100,000. You have to build up to that with an income and a pattern of responsible behavior over a period of many years. I don't have the statistics handy but I'd guess most people never reach a credit limit on credit cards of $100,000. Maybe many people could get that on a home equity line of credit, but again, you'd have to build up that equity in your house first, and that would take many years. Then, while $100,000 sounds like a lot of money, how long could you really live on that? Even in a country with low cost of living, it's not like you could live in luxury for the rest of your life. If you can get that kind of credit limit, you probably are used to living on a healthy income. Sure, you could get a similar lifestyle for less in some other countries, but not for THAT much less. If you know a place where for $10,000 a year you can live a life that would cost $100,000 per year in the U.S., I'd like to know about it. Even living a relatively frugal life, I doubt the money would last more than 4 or 5 years. And then what are you going to do? If you come back to the U.S. you'd presumably be promptly arrested. You could get a job in your new country, but you could have done that without first stealing $100,000. Frankly, if you're the sort of person who can get a $100,000 credit limit, you probably can live a lot better in the U.S. by continuing to work and play by the rules than you could by stealing $100,000 and fleeing to Haiti or Eritrea. You might say, okay, $100,000 isn't really enough. What if I could get a $1 million credit limit? But if you have the income and credit rating to get a $1 million credit limit, you probably are making at least several hundred thousand per year, probably a million or more, and again, you're better off to continue to play by the rules. The only way that I see that a scam like this would really work is if you could get a credit limit way out of proportion to any income you could earn legitimately. Like somehow if you could convince the bank to give you a credit limit of $1 million even though you only make $15,000 a year. But that would be a scam in itself. That's why I think the only time you do hear of people trying something like this is when they USED to make a lot of money but have lost it. Like someone has a multi-million dollar business that goes broke, he now has nothing, so before the bank figures it out he maxes out all his credit and runs off. Quality of life, success and happiness are three factors that are self define by each individual. Most of the time all three factors go hand by hand with your ability to generate wealth and save.  Actually, a recent study showed that there were more happy families with savings than with expensive products (car, jewelry and others).   These 3 factors, will be very difficult to maintain after someone commit such action. First, because you will fear every interaction with the origin of the money.  Second, because every individual has a notion of wrong doing.  Third, for the reasons that Jaydles express. Also, most cards, will call you and stop the cards ability to give money, if they see an abusive pattern. Ether, skipping your country has some adverse psychological impact in the family and individual that most of the time 100K is not enough to motivate such change.   Thanks for reading. Geo
"Do you guys know any options that are accessible to any global citizen? Prepaid and stored value cards are anonymous. For an arbitrary reason, the really anonymous ones only allow you to load $500 but there is no regulation that dictates this amount. In the USA, these cards are exempt from being declared at border crossings. Not because they look like credit cards, but because they are exempt by the US Treasury and Customs. The cons is that there are generally fees to use them. US DOJ has done research showing that some groups take advantage of the exemption moving upwards of $50,000 a day between borders, but Congress is fine with this exemption and the burden is always on the government to determine ""illicit origin"". Stigmatizing how money is moved is only a 30 year old phenomenon, but many free nations do not really have capital controls, they only care that you pay taxes and that the integrity of their stock markets are upheld. Aside from that there are no qualms about anonymity, except from your neighbors but they dont matter for a global citizen. In theory, the UK should have more flexibility in anonymity options, such as stored value cards with higher limits." What sort of amount are we talking about here, and what countries are you travelling to?  As long as it's not cash, most countries will neither know or care how much money is in your bank account or on your credit card limit, and can't even check if they wanted to. Even if they can, there are very few countries where they would check without already suspecting you of a crime. I think you're worrying over nothing. Even if it's cash, most countries have no border control anyway, and those who do (UK, Ireland) allow up to £10,000 or so cash without even having to declare it... Just open a second bank account and don't take the card (or cut the card up). Use online banking to transfer money in smaller chunks to your main account. Alternately (or additionally) take a credit card or two with a smaller limit (enough to make sure you're comfortably able to deal with one month plus emergency money). Then set up your regular bank account to pay this credit card off in full every month. If I was really concerned, I'd open a second bank account and add a sensible amount of money to it (enough to cover costs of my stay and avoid questions about whether I can afford my stay, but not so much it would raise question). Then I'd open two credit cards with a limit of perhaps $1000-2000: one covers the costs of living wherever I'm going, the other is for emergencies or if I misjudge and go over my amount per month. Set up your bank to pay these off each month, and you're sorted Honestly, I think you're worrying over nothing. People travel inside Europe every day with millions in the bank and raise no questions. You're legally allowed to have money! "Because the value of distressed assets is close to what they are selling for.   When you lend money, you know there is a risk of default.  You gamble on that risk, and you take the responsibility if you lose because the person taking the money can't pay.  People who buy distressed debt on the idea that they can make more money off of it are only able to do that in two ways:  not giving a shit what the impacts of wringing more money out create, figuring out a legal way to make someone else pay for it through ripple blackmail effects (other people also are impacted when a country can't function.)  If you back Klarman, you may say the point is you are ""teaching"" Puerto Rico and everyone else that they shouldn't take on debt they can't afford.   But when has that ever worked?  The pensioners who are bankrupt are the ones actually getting the pain of the lesson.  Another lesson could be to investors not to lend to people who can't pay them back.  The people lending the money are the ones who now don't have it because they made a bad choice.    Seth Klarman could also learn a lesson about taking on distressed debt being a non-lucrative pastime.  Or we can all learn a lesson that taking on distressed debt is very lucrative.  A big change America implemented was getting rid of debtor's prisons.  This looks a lot like getting excited about debtor's prison to me.  EDIT:  I should note I am thinking of the Algerian version of making a ton of money off of distressed national debt.  As opposed to making a bit more money off of distressed debt because you were willing to let the collapse figure itself out.  Though I'm not so sure about that either." While the US hosts most of the world's innovative startups, its own financial and banking systems are very slow to change.  The infrastructure exists, however the ACH transfers are not wide-spread between individuals. Banks much prefer the option of bill-pay (i.e.: as you said, mailing a check, something in other countries people wouldn't even think of), than letting you do it yourself.  Why? Because they can. There's no real competition over consumers, and the consumers themselves are not educated or sophisticated. Thus, the banks are comfortable with the lack of innovation - since as long as they are all lacking innovation - consumers won't demand it because they won't even know things are possible. And it is definitely cheaper for the banks not to innovate and keep your money for a week while the bill-pay check is en route, than try and develop new things. In other countries, the regulator would step up and force banks to develop new infrastructure and widen the options, but in the US regulation is considered a bad thing, and people are easily swayed, being uneducated and uninformed, by the corporations to support politicians who act against their (people's) best interest in protecting the corporations and reducing and limiting the regulators even further. They are not as good of an option when compared to a card you open chosen based on features and rates.  Get a card with a lower rate that can be used anywhere. The US is one of the only countries which taxes its citizens on global income. You're  ignoring the high fixed costs of compliance with the US tax code, both for individuals and institutions. Compliance is so big an issue that foreign banks are turning away US customers rather than having to comply with FATCA, leaving people unable to open a bank account. Also, renunciations of citizenship are up something like 400%, and they aren't all billionaires. People with credit cards tend to have better credit than those who only have debit cards. People with better credit tend to not abuse such things as car rentals. It costs money for any company to run your credit. It doesn't cost a rental company any outflow of money to reject debit cards. So the possession of a credit card becomes a stand-in for running your credit before you rent a car. Lots of places in the US do it.  Although the way that they usually phrase it is 'prices reflect a x.x% discount for cash' since most of the credit card companies have an agreement that says you cannot charge a surcharge if someone is using a credit card.  So they get around it by giving a discount for cash.   effect is the same, but it skirts the letter of the agreement There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them.  A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much.  As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card.  But it's really an upside.  The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'.  You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country.  I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back.  But most people in the US don't use cash much either.  I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is. The U.S. bankruptcy laws no longer make it simple to discharge credit card debt, so you can't simply run up a massive tab on credit cards and then just walk away from them anymore.  That used to be the case, but that particular loophole no longer exists the way it once did. Further, you could face fraud charges if it can be proven you acted deliberately with the intent to commit fraud.   Finally, you won't be able to rack up a ton of new cards as quickly as you might think, so your ability to amass enough to make your plan worth the risk is not as great as you seem to believe. As a closing note, don't do it.  All you do is make it more expensive for the rest of us to carry credit cards.  After all, the banks aren't going to eat the losses.  They'll just pass them along in the form of higher fees and rates to the rest of us. That might happen if this incident leads to a deflationary demand for consumer credit instruments in the US to approaching Third World penetration levels. Ironic, as the consumer credit industry is spending gigadollars trying to spark the same consumer credit frenzy in those countries.  The demographics are already primed for turning away from consumer credit, as the Millennials are already increasingly predisposed against credit as they age. I've been hearing storied from Germans that this is happening in Germany, too, but at the bank level. All anecdotal, people I've met telling me their personal stories, but they follow the same pattern. Go to the bank, try to take out a few grand for a vacation or large purchase, bank tells them they can't have that much and that they just have to do with less, even if the account balance covers the withdrawal. Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash. Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.