The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
An Angry [Consumer Banking] Thread
Posts
There's no reason why a bank shouldn't charge whatever it wants. If it is honest, transparent and simple, that's ok.
It is worth mentioning, though, that banks all over the world manage to provide their services and be insanely rich without charging for basic services, gouging on overdrafts and so on. I pay my bank in Japan precisely zero, which is the same amount I paid my bank in the UK and my bank in Eire.
There's nothing unique about America's banking system compared to the UK, France, Japan etc apart from (a) a lack of regulation and (b) a population disposed to accepting a deep dicking from corporations.
There's a pervasive line of thinking out there that says, "Hey, they're charging me to have access to my own money!" Which is dumb, because that's not at all what's going on. You're actually being charged for the service provided in keeping and insuring your money in a centralized location, as well as the service of being able to access that money from just about anywhere in the world. You can't do that if all your money is in a mattress at home, but that's really the only way to not pay to hold your money somewhere.
However, those services should be charged for in a clear and consistent manner, and banks should never be a predatory institution. Banks, too, have a privilege they must fight to earn, being that of using others' money to grow their own revenue.
Excellent post! This sums up my view on the subject more concisely than I was even able to. Paying a bank for a service is no more "wrong" than paying a bodega for a bag of chips, but in exchange customers do deserve to be treated with respect, and have their fees expressed in a clear and concise manner. As long as that's done, and both parties agree, then it's all good. This only breaks down when the more predatory, underhanded side of the banking industry comes out to play.
Simply charging for a debit card is not predatory or underhanded, although many people may feel that it extends beyond what they can justify as a square deal. That's why we have more than one bank in this country. Another one will be more than willing to offer you a different/better deal for using their services.
We all hate paying more money, but it happens. In every industry. Nothing wrong with bitching about it a bit, either, because hey, being forced into switching banks because you don't want to/can't afford another fee sucks. I think we all understand that. It's a pain in the ass, but at least you can do it anytime you like. Thank god banks haven't adopted contracts like cell phone providers and cable companies.
What about the fact that the banks have made tens of billions of dollars in profit with these fees over the last few years, hrmmm?
You seem to be talking like the bank has to make a choice between shitty service and more fees, when in fact the bank is choosing to make money hand over fist. They've been raping us for decades now financially, as a people, and oh no now they won't make as much in fees, those poor banks we better pay more its the only way.
Let's completely ignore that the fees were for extra butter on the toast and had fuck all to do with operating expenses.
Precisely.
If BofA were being honest, they would say "With the lower debit-card fees, we can no longer maintain our profits at a level that makes our shareholders likely to be nice to us, the managers and board. Therefore, we are imposing a fee to make up that lost revenue. We don't actually want to discourage you from using your debit card or anything, because it still generates us SOME money, and besides, we like the overdraft fee thing." Consumers might not like it, but they can switch (as they appear to be doing). What is pissing people off is the pretense that the poor hungry bank just has no choice but to impose these fees, lest they operate at a loss.
Banks pretending that they are charging customers for services when they're really not js pretty scandalous.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I honestly don't know why more people don't use local banking institutions, though. ATMs are ubiquitous when you absolutely need them, and mom-and-pop banks are typically very competitive with things like fees and services. I use both a community bank and a local credit union, and my service has been impeccable. Also, when my wife or I walk in, we're immediately greeted with, "Hello, Mr./Mrs. Atomic Ross." When we need to transfer money, I can do it over the phone with a real person who speaks in a dusty Texan accent.
The one megabank we ever used was Wachovia, and that was a disaster from start to finish which in our short tenure with them we managed to get two tellers fired and a manager removed.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Which is another that people are kind of daft about. They'll pick a shitty uber-bank like BoA or Wells Fargo because of little perks like free ATM withdrawals or free checkbooks, but agree to fees and penalties that would make a loanshark blush. I recall the actual loanshark that slammed BoA's penalty practice, saying, "When people owed me money, I might break their legs or their hands or bust 'em in the eye, but I didn't take their homes or throw their families on the street."
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.