New Rules Force Higher Prices
Ahhhh… yet another example of government acting to “help” us and screwing us all.
Starting July 1, banks must get permission from customers before they can charge a fee for covering a debit card purchase or ATM withdrawal if there aren’t sufficient funds in the account. Initially the rule only applies to new customers, existing accountholders will be included starting Aug. 15. If consumers elect to forego overdraft coverage, banks stand to lose a large chunk of their income. Revenue from fees topped $37 billion last year, estimated economist and consultant Mike Moebs.
To make up for the lost revenue, many banks are doing away with free checking, and adding monthly or quarterly maintenance fees. Consumers can often avoid these new fees, however, if they take steps like linking multiple accounts or arranging for direct deposit of their paychecks.
So let me get this straight… right now only people who overdraw their accounts pay the fees. Now, we will all have to pay more because it was somehow unfair for people to be penalized for spending more than they had.
Gotcha.
I don’t think it’s as bad as it sounds. If you don’t have enough money in your account you get rejected at the register not an interest free load.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2010 at 2142 hrs
What usually happens is you overdraw your checking and they charge you a bunch of money to simply transfer it from your savings account. No choice in the matter, they just do it. $25 or more because you were a dollar short, in some cases. It’s just another example of banks bilking you every chance they get.
At least this way people have choice. YOu conservatives like choice, right?
Posted by scott on June 30, 2010 at 2212 hrs
Yet another example of why big government is not the solution.
Posted by Jim on June 30, 2010 at 2256 hrs
This goes with the new ideology to steal from those who are responsible and rich and give to those who are irresponsible and so lost money.
Posted by Tom Lin on June 30, 2010 at 2258 hrs
I really dont know how the government gets away with things like this. Do we as citizens even know whats going on?
Posted by Hilary on June 30, 2010 at 2259 hrs
Do we as citizens even know whats going on?
Well, yes, you know almost everything that’s going on if you pay attention to the media. Do you read your paper? Watch the news? This story about fee comes from MSNBC, for example. If you’re unhappy, then you’re completely free to do something. Protest. Vote. And so on.
In any case, was it better when your friendly bank could charge you $39 for an overdraft instead of simply declining a debit-card sale if you didn’t have the money in your account?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 0702 hrs
What usually happens is you overdraw your checking and they charge you a bunch of money to simply transfer it from your savings account. No choice in the matter, they just do it. $25 or more because you were a dollar short, in some cases. It’s just another example of banks bilking you every chance they get.
At least this way people have choice. YOu conservatives like choice, right?
My bank charges $39.00 and they do NOT take the money from my savings. The overdraft charges are a huge scam on the part of the banks, but it is part of their terms of service, and it is in the contract when you open the account.
The problem I have here is that your “choice” is at the end of a gun barrel, pointed by congress, and in many cases, when banks drop the “free” checking, it will be hardest on the low end of the income scale.
On the other hand, it wasn’t too long ago that there were no “free checking” accounts…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 0720 hrs
n any case, was it better when your friendly bank could charge you $39 for an overdraft instead of simply declining a debit-card sale if you didn’t have the money in your account?
No, it was not better. Unless you were a bank. Then you could charge people exorbitant fees for a “service” they may not want. And if they complain, well, it’s their fault in the first place isn’t it? Perfect.
Banks make so much money off these kind of scams that when they’re finally told to stop, they have to “make up the lost revenue”—find some new scam.
My bank hit me on login to their web site. STOP. Before you can proceed you must choose whether you still want our fabulous overdraft protection service.
No, thanks. I might be interested. I might even pay for it. If the charges were reasonable.
Plus, banks were notorious for putting through your largest check first, so they could hit you an overdraft fee on the rest of them. Deliberately. Seen it happen.
Posted by scott on July 01, 2010 at 0819 hrs
Overdrafting your bank account means that you have issued some payment for which you did NOT have sufficient money. Either the merchant or payee will wind up being defrauded, or your bank will extend you a temporary loan to cover YOUR mistake.
If the bank decides to put a large prohibitive fee on the transaction that YOU initiated in order to keep you from having written a bad check, then I can’t see why you would complain.
To avoid all those fees, simply do not spend money that you don’t have. The overdraft was totally your fault. Perhaps you’d prefer that they charge you a penalty for misusing your account, reverse the charge so that the merchant is out the money, and then let the merchant add some sort of fine or seek civil and criminal redress for your careless errors. It’s your decision to overdraft… not the bank’s. Why is it that people always want to blame someone else for their OWN stupid errors?
The alternative proposed here allows you to continue your abuse of the banking system, but forces other people to cover the costs of that mismanagement. How appropriately liberal of the government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1015 hrs
I have a personal history with this. Last Christmas, I had tons of money in savings, which I usually just transfer over if my checking account gets low. Unbeknownst to me, my checking balance had already drifted into overdraft even though my online account showed that I had plenty of money still in it.
Which is all fine and good, because I probably should have done a better job of keeping track of my purchases. But the bank charged me for 7(!) overdraft transactions, some as small as $2, at $30 a pop. In one case, I got charged for an overdraft when the restaurant put their “hold” on a certain amount when they ran the card, which triggered one overdraft, and then another when the bill actually went through. None of the overdrafts had anything to do with checks.
My card was never declined, and the only notice I got was a 7 different letters a week after I found out online. After the fact, the bank only offered to link my accounts in the future so that they could charge me $15 to transfer enough funds over to cover the charges. They even characterized the overdraft fees as a “service” that they provide to make sure that if you’re buying groceries and don’t have enough money, you can still pay for them for a small fee. We eventually argued with enough people at the bank that they refunded all but the first overdraft charge, which was fair enough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1039 hrs
A Son of Liberty, in my own case, I haven’t had an overdraft charge since a couple as a college student. I monitor my accounts closely and always leave a buffer in my checking to make sure that if an unexpected charge, like my wife deciding to buy something at the same time I do, doesn’t empty the account. I always did this not to avoid overdraft charges, but to make sure that my utility bills went through go through (they are linked to a debit card.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1044 hrs
Perhaps you’d prefer that they charge you a penalty for misusing
No, I’d prefer that the credit card machine would go “Bing! Sorry, you have insufficient funds.” And don’t tell me that’s too hard, because the ATM machine does it just fine. I do not WANT overdraft services.
it will be hardest on the low end of the income scale.
Doubt it. What’s harder on those folks is the overdraft fees. Those are the people who live hand-to-mouth, paycheck to paycheck—the most likely people to overdraft their account occasionally. If such people didn’t have this fabulous ‘service’ they would be spared those $40 fees.
Posted by scott on July 01, 2010 at 1054 hrs
So we’re asking banks to be upfront about the fees they need to continue to operate, rather than letting them give out checking accounts like candy and get their money through shady backdoor fees and penalties? Sounds like smart reform to me, even if it means I have to pay five bucks a year for a no-service checking account.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1122 hrs
No, I’d prefer that the credit card machine would go “Bing! Sorry, you have insufficient funds.” And don’t tell me that’s too hard, because the ATM machine does it just fine. I do not WANT overdraft services.
Why not just be responsible for your own account and keep track of the balance? How is it the responsibility of the bank to design, purchase, and implement a system to do that for you? Doesn’t your bank offer the ability to check your balance? Perhaps they have online access to your accounts? I’m quite sure you are a sharp enough guy to avoid over-drafting the account with a minimum of effort on your part.
If that is the type of care that you require from your bank though, then you should expect to pay something for the service they offer rather than applying the force of law to transfer the cost to people who keep better track of what they have in the bank themselves.
There are no fees for overdrafts unless YOU decide to use that service by taking money that you don’t have on hand. If you think it too expensive, stop using it.
We eventually argued with enough people at the bank that they refunded all but the first overdraft charge, which was fair enough.
That has been my experience as well. When a mistake is made once in a great while, the banks are often very willing to lower, or even eliminate the fees on a one time basis. It’s the chronic abusers who wind up paying the fees… at least until now. Once again, the government has sanctioned bad behavior and transferred the cost to the people who are playing by the rules. Like I said, how liberal of them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1128 hrs
The banks were running an illegal loan sharking operation and making hundreds of millions off of it. Those overdraft fees put payday loan companies to shame in terms of profit earned. They knew that most of their customers were too stupid or lazy to care. So rather than come up with creative ways to provide a value and profit at the same time, they setup their systems to pull tricks:
Like the one scott mentioned (my personal “favorite”) where they run they run through the largest check first, then process the rest of the transactions, all now individual overdrafts @$30/each.And don’t hand me that crap of, “oh well, just don’t overdraft”. For people living on very tight circumstances it’s not that cut and dry. I’ve been there. You send out a check that’s due the day before your direct deposit goes in. Lo and behold the f*cking post office decides to deliver this one really fast, and the things clears the night before payday. It’s a balancing act that some people have to live with. The banks know this, and look to compound the problem with more tricks.
Free checking will not go away. Some bank will always offer it. Even Walmart is getting into money services now for the “unbanked” because there is profit to be made. The banks will have no choice but to offer services to lure those folks into getting accounts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1202 hrs
For people living on very tight circumstances it’s not that cut and dry. I’ve been there. You send out a check that’s due the day before your direct deposit goes in.
So, you get to take liberties with money that does not belong to you, and you expect others to cover that cost for you. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who want to scam the system, and then cry because they have to pay a penalty. It’s not your money, and you have no right to expect the bank to fix your screw ups for free.
Sending out checks that you knowingly have no ability to cover is tantamount to fraud.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1209 hrs
Due to new rules every thing is going to be checked for . To make up for the lost revenue, many banks are doing away with free checking, and adding monthly or quarterly maintenance fees.
Posted by jersey hairdressers on July 01, 2010 at 1213 hrs
SOL… the banks willfully joined in the dance when they started honoring the transactions in the first place. If they would have bounced the checks and rejected the debits at the point of sale, there would be no problem. They really encouraged the proliferation of overdrafts. But for years they were honoring them and never detailed in their contracts what the fees or procedures were when an overdraft would come in. Some would be honored, some wouldn’t, the order of the transactions and the fees changed arbitrarily all the time. Banking has always been a regulated industry. When they discovered ways to profit outside of the regulations, (the overdraft loophole) they took off an ran with it.
And no, sending out a check that you reasonably expect to arrive on a certain day that you know you’ll have the funds available, but then it arrives a day early, is not tantamount to fraud. It’s reasonable - and people have been doing it for the entire history check writing. I;m not saying that the day early arrival should come at no cost to the account holder. I’m saying that the banks should have (and never did until very recently) actually lay out the details of what would happen in that circumstance. They made up the rules as they went along.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1232 hrs
No, I’d prefer that the credit card machine would go “Bing! Sorry, you have insufficient funds.”
I agree with scott on this point. The only reason banks have refused to do something that is entirely reasonable is they make lots of money on OD fees.
That being said, I do have a problem with the feds getting involved. Seems to me like they usually end up doing more harm than good.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1253 hrs
SOL, we spent hours on the phone and in person with representatives of the bank. It was only after we initiated closing down our accounts that we even got a result.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1316 hrs
the banks willfully joined in the dance when they started honoring the transactions in the first place.
The banks offered a service to their account holders for a fee. That’s all it is. People did not like the negative effects of bouncing checks which ranged from fees and fines levied by merchants all the way to denial of check cashing privileges and criminal prosecution, so the banks found a way to fill that void with a short term high risk loan… for a fee. No one forces you to use that service, over-draw your account, or even to utilize a bank at all. They are a for profit business, not a charitable institution.
They really encouraged the proliferation of overdrafts.
The bank does not encourage you to spend money that you don’t have…. you make that choice yourself. Doesn’t anyone know about personal responsibility anymore? The bank is at fault for your failure to maintain a positive checking balance?? Give me a break.
I’m saying that the banks should have (and never did until very recently) actually lay out the details of what would happen in that circumstance. They made up the rules as they went along.
Clearly it’s the buyers responsibility to know what they are signing up for, though I would agree that the bank should tell you the rules and fees in an upfront and honest fashion. Most banks do that, but people don’t bother to read the fine print. They are in a hurry to sign, and then they complain afterward that they were not informed.
SOL, we spent hours on the phone and in person with representatives of the bank. It was only after we initiated closing down our accounts that we even got a result.
If you feel your bank charged you fees unfairly, report them and move to another bank. There are dozens, if not hundreds. I’ve switched banks because of fees, or poor customer service. US Bank comes to mind. It sucks, but it’s the same as any other kind of business transaction. The federal government has no business sticking their noses in unless fraud is occurring.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1350 hrs
The banks offered a service to their account holders for a fee.
My bank never asked me if I wanted that “service.” NOW they have to ask. They never did before.
Posted by scott on July 01, 2010 at 1354 hrs
So let me get this straight… right now only people who overdraw their accounts pay the fees. Now, we will all have to pay more because it was somehow unfair for people to be penalized for spending more than they had.
Right now everyone who receives overdraft protection pays the fee. In the future only people who want overdraft protection will have to pay for it. If the banks are losing money over this, it clearly indicates that most people do not want this service. Now they don’t have to get it.
I honestly don’t know what’s so hard about this. Is it just a knee-jerk reaction that anything the government does must be wrong and bad? Is it just a knee-jerk reaction that anything we might do which would help lower income people must be bad and wrong?
This isn’t about whether we’re adequately punishing the irresponsible. Rest assured you tireless moralizers: people who elect to have their overdrafts covered will in fact pay for it when they over spend. Happy now?
Posted by scott on July 01, 2010 at 1554 hrs
So, you get to take liberties with money that does not belong to you, and you expect others to cover that cost for you. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who want to scam the system, and then cry because they have to pay a penalty. It’s not your money, and you have no right to expect the bank to fix your screw ups for free.
I agree with you 100%, but a $39.00 penalty
for a $0.01 overdraft is a little extreme.Now, I am also going to try and agree with Scott.
We have the technology to make quick and accurate account balance checks at almost no cost. There is no reason, other than the fqct that the consumer banks make big bucks on overdraft fees, that we cann ot have q system as Scott describes.
I have been screwed by these things before. When I didn’t wait the full 48 hours for a large deposit to fully process before making a purchase. It sucked, and my bank dropped the charge when they saw that i had the money (it was actually 3 thirty nine dollar charges) but it still would have been nice to have been declined on the purchase to begin with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1836 hrs
My bank never asked me if I wanted that “service.” NOW they have to ask. They never did before.
I suppose that is possible. I suppose it is possible that it was there in the fine print, or that they notified you in some way that they had changed their policy. If you don’t like the service, and they won’t remove it when you ask (you did ask, right?), then head on over to any other bank you like and start an account.
My bank offers that service for a fee, and I gladly signed up and would happily pay the fee if (more likely when) I screw up. I prefer that my mistakes stay at the bank rather than possibly missing a mortgage payment or defrauding some innkeeper.
Right now everyone who receives overdraft protection pays the fee.
Wrong! Right now anyone who has that protection and uses money they don’t have will pay the fee for the bank offering them a short term, no interest, high risk loan. That’s what the fee is for. Would YOU offer a stranger $200 with no collateral, no written contract, and no clue when you’ll get the cash back… especially a stranger who has proven to be rather fast and loose with their finances? That’s what you ask the bank to do.
I’d love to read the actual text of the change. Hopefully banks will still be able to fine customers who overdraft their accounts, but then simply reverse the payment or check, thereby leaving the account holder holding the bag for their bounced check while still making them cover the costs for the bank’s effort to correct the error.
I honestly don’t know what’s so hard about this. Is it just a knee-jerk reaction that anything the government does must be wrong and bad?
It’s just another bit of interference in our lives that will have unintended consequences that will cost us money and cause problems… just like the light bulb edict, or the 2 hour airline waiting rule, or the credit card rules that caused card holders to lower credit lines, or the lead clean-up rules that will make remodeling impossibly expensive and cost jobs, or the cornohol that wrecks our motors and saps mileage, all the while saving nothing….or almost every other stupid and invasive policy government has forced upon us.
Like one of our great Presidents said, Government is not the solution to our problems…. Government IS the problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 1839 hrs
you have no right to expect the bank to fix your screw ups for free.
What if you don’t want your bank fixing your screwups in the first place? Do I have a right to that?
If you don’t like the service, and they won’t remove it when you ask (you did ask, right?), then head on over to any other bank you like and start an account.
I haven’t had an overdraft charge in many years. (Although I’ve seen the kids get them on occasion.) So I haven’t had to ask anyone anything. But just so we all know, which banks were offering to cover your overdrafts without a charge? Inquiring minds want to know. Or perhaps there were some who just refused payment on overdrafts with no charge. Know which ones those were? I don’t.
Right now everyone who receives overdraft protection pays the fee.
Wrong!
Misunderstanding. What I’m trying to say is that people who overdrafted paid the extra charge—not you and not me. What we are looking at now is that people who want overdraft protection will pay the fee if they overdraft. The rest of them now have the choice just to have the charge not go through.
That’s what you ask the bank to do.
That’s just the point. They’re not asking the bank for anything. Many people do not want the bank to give them this “loan.” And please spare us your “it’s so risky for the bank!” rigamarole. The fact is, banks make billions off these charges. It’s not a risk, it’s a revenue source. A cash cow.
The old way: you have overdraft protection whether you want it or not. If you overdraft you get socked with a penalty. These penalties are very lucrative for the bank. In fact it’s so lucrative that they would often implement policies whereby they could hit you with as many fees as possible. (Putting checks through in order of size for example.)
The new way: You get to choose whether you want overdraft protection. If you want it, you get it—and you pay a fee if you ever use it. If you don’t want it you pay nothing because your charge just doesn’t go through. The threat about doing away with free checking strikes me as a) a threat for political purposes, b) a way to make up for the ill-gotten gains they were previously enjoying or c) an indication that our “free” checking accounts were an illusion paid for on the backs of other people getting ripped off on their overdraft charges.
I think you’re so worried that someone might be being irresponsible and not penalized for it that you can’t see the plain fact: this change is definitely positive for bank customers.
Posted by scott on July 01, 2010 at 1857 hrs
you have no right to expect the bank to fix your screw ups for free.
What if you don’t want your bank fixing your screwups in the first place? Do I have a right to that?
Surely. If your bank requires that you accept the overdraft protection, then by all means, dump them if you don’t like it. No one should be forced to do business with companies that don’t meet their needs. On the other hand, don’t run to government and have them make a law so that businesses are forced to do it your way.
But just so we all know, which banks were offering to cover your overdrafts without a charge? Inquiring minds want to know. Or perhaps there were some who just refused payment on overdrafts with no charge.
Mine covers like one free overdraft a year… or something like that…. but you have to be a pretty invested customer to get the account for free. I rather doubt that any banks will cover routine checking account overdrafts for free, but perhaps a credit union might. I’m quite sure that some banks do not require overdraft protection though…. mine has never required it… I’m sure there are others. Call around.
The rest of them now have the choice just to have the charge not go through.
I rather suspect that there will still be charge for the bounced check or the refused transaction…. like there always used to be. Perhaps the ATM will just tell you to “Buzz off deadbeat” though.
an indication that our “free” checking accounts were an illusion
Were you under the impression that banks were actually charitable institutions simply trying to help out the common man? They are a business. The result of taking revenue away will be new charges and fees. Why would the banks want to offer free checking if there is nothing in it for them? Seems like a no brainer. Offer a free account and eat the costs associated with it. Recoup the costs by adding services to the account that some of the more reckless account holders will use.
If you don’t like the fees, then close the account. No one owes you free banking you know…. of course, I better not say that too loud or the Obama administration will mandate free universal banking for everyone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2010 at 2239 hrs
Call around.
So in other words you don’t know.
I rather suspect that there will still be charge for the bounced check or the refused transaction
Why should there be a charge for that at all? Does it cost the bank more to say “sorry, NSF” than it does for them to pay out your money? It does not.
Were you under the impression that banks were actually charitable institutions
I was under the impression that banks make money by lending it and collecting interest. And by offering services, like checking accounts, for a fee.
My question to you is, why do you not want me to have the choice to have overdraft “protection” or not? I do not want it. Now my bank issued me a choice.
What this really comes down to is that you’re never, ever, ever going to entertain the idea that a government regulation might actually be a good thing. I simply cannot be. There must be some twisty way in which it was good for me the old way and bad for me the new way. And you’re determined to map out some Rube fucking Goldberg explanation for it all. Good luck. I ain’t buyin’ it this time.
Posted by scott on July 01, 2010 at 2253 hrs
Celebrity Gossip, News, Pictures, Oops, Videos, Rumors of Hollywood Celebrities
For the latest Celebrity Gossip, News, Pictures, Oops, Videos, Rumors of famous Hollywood Celebrities, your best source is Celebrity Gossip OopsPosted by Celebrity Gossip on July 02, 2010 at 0821 hrs
My question to you is, why do you not want me to have the choice….
... why couldn’t you switch banks?
If the service you wanted was free overdraft service, credit unions often provide this service, linked to a savings account, for free. I believe Glacier Hills, for example… at least they used to…
You’d obviously rather be nannied by the gov’t… big surprise there. Tax and spend liberal complaining because his checking account was negative. What’s gravy for the gander is gravy for the goose (Karl Marx)....
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1307 hrs
If the service you wanted was free overdraft service,
I don’t want any overdraft service. Where would I have gone to get that?
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1335 hrs
any bank ... just don’t spend money you don’t have…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1338 hrs
You know what I mean. I want them to NSF me if I overdraft.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1340 hrs
(I assume you mean debit card transactions.)
My belief is that you have a responsibility to manage and balance your own checking account. Banks have systems to maintain and the difference between real-time acceptance of debit transactions, and dealing with negative funds costs money, at the very least in labor. Plus, banks want to highly discourage balances below zero for a number of reasons.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate bank fees. Banks are squeezing their customers hard. (insert comment about the recent bait and switch by Westbury bank as my 6% interest checking is now 3% interest checking) I’ve had an annual goal (renewed annually) for years to make more money off the bank than they make off me (checking and savings only) - with regard to bank/atm fees versus interest.
how many hours til the three day weekend?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1352 hrs
Me at the bank: I’d like to withdraw $100 please.
Teller: Ok. Here’s your $100. But since you only had $99 in your account, you now owe us $40. Have a nice day.
Me: Couldn’t you have just told me I didn’t have $100?
Teller: Well, it costs us money to tell you that. Hence the $39 charge.
Me: You’re kidding, right?
Teller: Yes, I am kidding. But that is kind of what your conservative pals are telling you on Boots & Kittens isn’t it?
Me: Yeah, it kind of is. Can I have $100?
Teller: No.
Posted by scott on July 02, 2010 at 1404 hrs
nice strawman. Balance your checkbook you effing rube…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1406 hrs
So let me get this straight… right now only people who overdraw their accounts pay the fees. Now, we will all have to pay more because it was somehow unfair for people to be penalized for spending more than they had.
You can also look at it from a different perspective: previously, we got free checking because the banks were charging exorbitant NSF fees. Now with this legislation, we all have to pay our fair share as the majority of NSF fees will disappear. The problem primarily revolves around the use of debit cards, not checks written. Banks have advertised the convenience of using a debit card and not having to carry cash or checkbook. But the convenience has been all for the banks. If you use a credit card and you are over your limit, your card is declined. If you write a check with insufficient funds, the bank has the right to honor or return the check and charge you an NSF fee. But with debit cards, the charges are automatically honored and an NSF fee is tacked onto it.
Now, most people will check their balance prior to writing a check for a sizable amount, such as for their rent, mortgage, or a major purpose. If they knowingly write a check against insufficient funds, it is indeed fraud. But most people seem to get in trouble with fees for those small daily transactions where they use the debit card (out of convenience, as touted by their financial institution) and merrily use it at several businesses such as Starbucks, Burger King or at the gas pump. YET, if you go to an ATM to withdraw cash on an account that is overdrawn, that is the ONLY time a consumer will get notification of an NSF charge. The ONLY time. In other words, the banks will protect their deposits but allow merchants to potentially be at risk. I think this is a good piece of legislation and long overdue. The banks are only looking out for themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2010 at 1700 hrs
Scott: I’d like to open a checking account with an ATM card.
Teller: Certainly. Here is the account holder agreement. It’s long.
Scott: Do you have mandatory NSF charges if I spend more money with my ATM card than I have? It’s too much trouble for me to be bothered with knowing my balance.
Teller: Yes, that is our policy. We automatically cover the withdrawal, and then we charge a fee.
Scott: But I don’t want that service. Remove it!
Teller: Sorry sir, but that is our bank’s policy. Perhaps you’d like to try one of the other 9 banks on this block.
Scott: No, that won’t be necessary. I’ll just call up my friendly and helpful Democrat Representatives and demand that they make a law forcing you to tailor your business practices to suit my needs. Why should I be inconvenienced by having to shop around.
Teller: But that’s not fair. You CHOSE to do business with us. You are not an owner of this business, why should you have a right to tell us what products and services we offer and for what price?
Scott: Well, that’s what my President says… businesses are all preying on people like me. We’ll see who is FORCED to comply with whose wishes. I’m a Democrat…. it’s what we do. By the way, those aren’t incandescent bulbs you are using, are they? I’m going to have to report this!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2010 at 0159 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 05:21 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).