So if they start charging for debit card use, but not checks that I write, why can’t I just write more checks? It costs them more to process checks , so how is that good for the bank?
Presumably, banks will also start charging for checks if enough people start writing them. Since everyone under the age of 90 has (hopefully) given up on paper checks, that seems unlikely.
It’s 2011. Who the hell uses checks anymore? I strongly suspect that most people would rather either change banks or just pay the $5 rather than carry around a checkbook and have to bookkeeping all the time.
Clearly, you have not been in a suburban supermarket lately. In my experience, middle-aged housewives use nothing but checks.
It’s not.
No bigger.
It was you who placed the blame for the financial crisis on consumers who said spent more than them made and followed with a childish boo Hoo. I just responded. If the threat was derailed, it was by you.
What I’m wondering is how much money they made from such creative accounting?
I remember years back, Michael Moore had that TV show. One of his segments was about overdraft fees and shenanigans attached thereto. I remember at one point he posed the question “How much money did you make last year from this stuff?”
And nobody would tell him. Now, a lot of banking information is public, has to be. But not this, apparently.
Such figures would inform our conversation. But I’d be willing to bet that information is still wit held.
So, anyway, why not nationalize the debit card system? Shouldn’t be that hard to come up with a formula for splitting the convenience cost between consumer and merchant. Let the banks issue the cards for a modest but reliable profit, all books in the open. Everyone can look at the numbers and if there is an imbalance, it can be adjusted.
Standard would be a debit card that refuses if the balance isn’t adequate. If a customer wants a cushion, he can negotiate terms with the bank. There will be no overdraft fees because no overdrafts.
Problem solved. You’re welcome.
Yes, by the time I married I was out of those dire straits.
Yes. And that is because, among other reasons, that raises an Eighth Amendment issue. When one player is the state, we can complain about unfairness of fees charged. When both players are private entities, and have agreed in advance that certain actions will generate certain fees, he does not have a legitimate gripe who commits the act and incurs the fees.
I’m fairly certain Bank of America’s customers did not agree to allow the bank to reorder their transactions to maximize the number of overdraft fees it could levy.
Serious question for you about this statement. I see the checking and savings accounts akin to a retailer having a building. The building itself doesn’t make the retailer any money, but having merchandise to sell and a place to sell it does. In the case of banking, banks need money to loan in order to make money. The banks are essentially borrowing the money to loan to other people. They need my money, so I don’t know if I’d call it a loss leader. The more they “borrow” from me, the more they can lend elsewhere. How is that a loss leader?
For everyone claiming that credit unions are the answer, I have to say I’ve had the opposite experience. I’m with BofA because they offered me things the credit union was charging me for. At first the CU decided to take away the cash back on the credit card. Then they started charging me a fee on my savings account. Then they wanted to start charging me for the credit card. All that is free (plus I get cash back on the credit card) with BofA. I sent a letter to the credit union letting them know that charging me for a credit card was absurd, but they responded that what they were charging was the going rate for things in the area. I took my money and never looked back.
I am fairly certain that Bank of America had a statement in it’s materials that said something like, “We can process debits from a single 24 hour period in any order we like.”
Why do you think otherwise?
Are you arguing that there should be no such thing as an unconscionable contract?
Anybody in my town who wants to pay their water bill but doesn’t want to pay in person with cash. ETA: I just found out they have direct payment now, but it’s automatic which isn’t necessarily convenient for a bill with a variable amount. You also have to include a voided paper check with the form, which you must write out and send by snail mail.
The city also only started trying to accept income tax payments electronically this year. The site didn’t work correctly, though (it was, purely accidentally I’m sure :rolleyes:, undercounting the credit for taxes paid to other municipalities).
Checks are also the only easy way to make a recorded payment to another person, or to a very small business or organization that still isn’t set up for any kind of electronic payment.
Or, you know, the bank could reject the debit card if there isn’t enough cash in the account. As I recall, that was touted as one of the benefits of a debit card vs. a credit card - you couldn’t spend money you didn’t have. Then the banks apparently decided to offer a feature (often without the customer knowing) of accepting the debit and charging the overdraft fee.
Also - I’d love to see the accounting where the average debit card is costing the bank money. I’m pretty convinced that they’re probably putting fixed costs against that operation that probably aren’t really assignable there (that’s why accountants get the big bucks).
On the other hand - they’re perfectly free to charge what they want, and people will decide if the card is worth it to them.
I’m curious as to whether I can actually bank with them without the card - they have me swipe it anytime I talk to a teller. Presumably, I could instead offer my driver’s license as proof of ID (and status as a customer). But they’ve raised my minimum balance, so I’m probably going to find a new bank anyway, so won’t be able to find out.
Soome are talking of forcing banks to make free loans - I don’t see how that is. All I see is objection to juggling the books to overcharge. All over charges are exorbitant now. People should get one late or missed payment a year, with the only penalty double interest. It doesn’t hurt the bank if a payment is late (I can see they wouldn’t want to encourage it). If I only made payment alternate months, the bank’s profit would increase, without any penalties at all.
Now, in all fairness, you shouldn’t be using a debit card at POS anyway. You need a credit card that gets you some good rewards - otherwise you’re leaving money on the table. I know that some people can’t get them because of bad credit (and if that’s the case, then the new deal does suck, sorry) - but I feel like a lot of people use cash or debit even if they could be earning free flights, cash back, hotel points, or whatever, just ‘because’ - maybe this will help prod them towards being smart about being on the other side of the ‘abuse.’ I’ll tell you, it felt it good taking a round trip flight to Peru for free, and flying business class back from Paris for free (Champage and chicken stuffed with foie gras makes for a decent in-flight meal), and getting free upgrades at the Hilton in Iceland this year. And my cruise in December will be courtesy of Capital One 
eta: OK, a couple of the cards have high annual fees - between $50 and $175. But they waive them for the first year. And then you cancel them (although there’s one that I like so much that I might keep it, maybe)
I’m fairly certain they didn’t, since they have denied reordering debit transactions when defending the… six(?) class action suits over the issue.
Let’s assume they did. Is that a legitimate business practice? Is it dishonest? Is it a term of the contract that should be enforced against customers?
Or is it more likely that it’s nine words out of 24,000 you theoretically accept when you open a Bank of America checking account but that BofA and everyone else knows you didn’t read and more than likely wouldn’t understand if you did?
Put another way, if their service agreement included a provision allowing them to take $1,000 from your account whenever they felt like it, would you feel you had a legitimate gripe when they did so? Or would you shrug and say, “well, it’s in the contract”?
Some discussion of “its all there in the contract.” It has been noted that the contracts have become much longer - and the point is to confuse the customer. NPR had a prof. from Harvard Law, telling how a class of third year law students couldn’t come to a conclusion on how much interest would be charged on a new credit card. Deliberate obfuscation! [I used to be struck by how indignant the banks would be if a depositor attempted to use the “float” when times were tough–but they gave themselves the right to use it. There is no float now for depositors, but banks still protect theirs, in some circumstances.]