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.
Banking at the Post Office
Feral
ＭＥＭＥＴＩＣＨＡＲＩＺＡＲＤinterior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
ＭＥＭＥＴＩＣＨＡＲＩＺＡＲＤinterior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/coming-to-a-post-office-n_b_4709485.html
(written by Senator Elizabeth Warren)
The links supporting the proposal are in the article. I could reiterate them, but let's just say I agree with the whole thing. Lack of access to banking resources is a huge problem in for the poor in the US. The post office already has much of the infrastructure necessary. It would be a win for the people serviced and a win for the government.
(written by Senator Elizabeth Warren)
The poor pay more.
According to a report put out this week by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Postal Service, about 68 million Americans -- more than a quarter of all households -- have no checking or savings account and are underserved by the banking system. Collectively, these households spent about $89 billion in 2012 on interest and fees for non-bank financial services like payday loans and check cashing, which works out to an average of $2,412 per household. That means the average underserved household spends roughly 10 percent of its annual income on interest and fees -- about the same amount they spend on food.
Think about that: about 10 percent of a family's income just to manage getting checks cashed, bills paid, and, sometimes, a short-term loan to tide them over. That's more than a full month's income just to try to navigate the basics.
The poor pay more, and that's one of the reasons people get trapped at the bottom of the economic ladder.
But it doesn't have to be this way. In the same remarkable report this week, the OIG explored the possibility of the USPS offering basic banking services -- bill paying, check cashing, small loans -- to its customers. With post offices and postal workers already on the ground, USPS could partner with banks to make a critical difference for millions of Americans who don't have basic banking services because there are almost no banks or bank branches in their neighborhoods.
...
If the Postal Service offered basic banking services -- nothing fancy, just basic bill paying, check cashing and small dollar loans -- then it could provide affordable financial services for underserved families, and, at the same time, shore up its own financial footing. (The postal services in many other countries, it turns out, have taken steps in this direction and seen their earnings increase dramatically.)
The links supporting the proposal are in the article. I could reiterate them, but let's just say I agree with the whole thing. Lack of access to banking resources is a huge problem in for the poor in the US. The post office already has much of the infrastructure necessary. It would be a win for the people serviced and a win for the government.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+21
Posts
Despite the fact that the business is grimy as fuck, they would still have to charge pretty high fees to break even.
PO based checking accounts, on the other hand is the sort of thing I could get behind.
That's a good point. from the New Republic article
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116374/postal-service-banking-how-usps-can-save-itself-and-help-poor
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It makes sense. Everybody needs some sort of banking services and the mail also needs to go everywhere. Postal money orders are a thing, so they already handle cash transfer and payments
Some currently existing examples:
Deutsche Postbank, split off from Deutsche Bundespost
PostFinance, the financial arm of Swiss Post
La Banque Postale, created to add a banking division to La Poste
And there's the big one - Japan Post Bank, one of the largest depository banks in the world.
That said check-cashing/pay day loans are a shit business to be in, and they'd still probably need to charge fees because the deposit levels just wouldn't be there to make it self sustaining.
Oh there's probably a bunch more, I just listed the ones I'm familiar with
But but profits!
I know we had this discussed somewhere, but that's not going to happen. A person who's banking behavior is come in and 'deposit $500', and then drain the account completely(or more) over the following 2 weeks; repeat. Is a money loser. Even if the person coming in only costs the bank 10c a trip(This is about 35 seconds of a tellers time @ $10/hr) , they'd need to make 10% on every dollar deposited, and that's with a pretty generous $250 average balance. With say something more like $50, they'd need to make 42%.
And that's based on 'just comes in to cash a check and leaves'. Start accounting for the costs of the branches etc, or spend 10 minutes arguing with a teller about why a check bounced and that's going through the roof.
The articles say that the income from fees/interest in pay day loans and check cashing was $89 billion in 2012, and suggest that the USPS offering those same services at a 90% discount would solve the USPS's funding issues and give a huge boost to the poor that are using those services.
Obviously it would be better if those services were never used/needed in the first place, but since that is not a realistic option in the near future, having the USPS offer a much more legitimate option to people at a significantly more affordable rate is clearly a net good for everyone involved.
Well, it's not much of a good to the current pay day lenders or check cashing operations, but honestly those people should be put out of business anyway for their part in keeping the poorest Americans so poor.
Also, if people are going into overdraft, they're doing transactions with a card, not withdrawing physical cash, and there are fees on those transactions the bank gets too
exactly.
like not spending 3 whole days arguing with me about the fact that my old auto insurance company made a deduction they shouldn't have which caused 7 overdrafts (actually, it caused 1 overdraft which caused 2, etc. etc.).
They (my old insurance company) returned the money and admitted fault, but the bank refused to dismiss the fines, until 2 days later. I probably spent an hour at the local branch and a good 2 or 3 hours on the phone.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
No, socialized takeover of banking! Gotta make is sound scary
mc/visa logo debit cards.
KA-CHING
THANKS OBAMA
"income from fees/interest" sounds like "revenue", not "profit". The interest and fees with these services aren't just high because "fuck the poor". They're high in large part because the default rate and fraud are astronomically high.
They're pooling their collective money, keeping what they're required to in reserve, and investing the fuck out of it in loans and other services.
So even if they gave someone a 3% interest rate on their savings account, they'd still be making hand over fist.
Mortgages are the only thing where it'd maybe, maybe work out in the person's favor.
I hate them I hate them I hate them and if I could I'd just keep all of my money in a great big safe in my house.
This.
I got hit with an overdraft fee, at my credit union who I have been a loyal member of since age TWELVE with a junior savings account (I'm now 31, do the math).
The reason? I moved money from savings to checking to cover some upcoming bills, ended up getting a check from my rents, moved money BACK to savings and had an automatic bill pay come out that overdrafted. I couldnt make it to the bank the day of the overdraft to deposit the check from my parents, and they wouldnt let me move money BACK to checking from savings.....
Why you ask?
PATRIOT ACT. Shit you not. To try to catch money launderers it limits the number of times you can move your own digital ones and zeroes between accounts. 35$ overdraft fee.....when I had the money right there.
I signed up for simple and now have all my spending money on that, only have the credit union account still open till I get done with my current book of checks.
https://www.simple.com/
With today's interest rates it's honestly not all that different aside from the security and credibility going through a bank gives you.
Yeah no one thinks that.
There's still marginal cost to run an account(hell even the terms we are using are pointing that out 'check cashing' not 'direct deposit receiving'. And an expected rate of return for every dollar in that account. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out that at some point the former will exceed the latter. There's a reason that all the online only banks offer better rates.
This compounds even more when you start looking branch by branch. I had to stop by a downtown branch of my bank several times doing mortgage stuff, and this isn't in a super bad part of town. They had a security guard in the lobby, and full plexiglass between the tellers/offices and the lobby. Aren't any of those in suburbia. Where the average account balance is much higher than in the city.
i dont necessarily have a problem with it, as long as the ...uspob has to play by the same rules re: capital allocations and on-hand reserves as private depository banks
i'd also think you'd have to place strict limits on the investment side, since the uspo is a pseudo-government entity
ie, they'd only be able to invest funds in government bonds of some sort or whatever. that would provide minimal risk (and return) which shouldnt matter as the primary goal here (as i understand) is to provide some base level of check cashing services.
i'd be curious how big the check cashing/pay day loan industry is? how many people are employed? i mean, the government could (?) effectively put the industry out of business with such a move, which regardless of the lol nationalization hurr durr posts, politicians tend to (read: should) be focused on creating jobs, not destroying them.
Politicians should be focused on making the government better, providing better services to people
So... just to be that guy... the section D transfer limits have a much better reason for existing than just "terrists!".
The reserve requirements are lower on savings accounts, they're the highest on checking accounts. In order to keep banks from just deciding that all their accounts are savings (and therefore not keeping enough in reserve), there have to be some rules defining what can be done with what.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
One, most post offices are in "bank deserts", where there is only one bank at most. So yes, making post offices banks would go a long way in helping that issue.
Two, there are some serious questions about how we judge creditworthiness in the US.
ok
could be structured like social security - all investments go directly to purchasing national debt in the form of US bonds
Most of the fixed costs are already covered by the fact that the Post Office has (and needs to have) staffed brick & mortar locations. They aren't always widely available, but in the areas that will benefit the most banks aren't that widely available anyway so there should be a net gain. I mean, payday loan and check cashing places seem to have no problem covering their leases and staffing costs while still making a tidy profit, and having some of those costs defrayed certainly can't hurt.
I assume that some of the fraud issues that private check cashing companies / payday loans deal with will go away simply because the Post Office has investigative & enforcement power that the private places don't - and anyone with half a brain knows you don't fuck with the Post Office if you don't want to go to Federal Prison.
The Post Office already handles decent amounts of money, as do plenty of other businesses while remaining profitable, so the extra security concerns don't seem to be that big of a deal.
And when it comes to jobs, some people will probably be put out of business, but payday loan and check cashing places aren't ones to cry over. They are parasites on impoverished communities. On the other hand, the Post Office will necessarily need to increase staffing to accommodate the extra business...so if it helps the communities by acting in their benefit without the big profit motive, and the Post Office also hires people from those communities, it's an all around good.
I really don't see anyone who loses, aside from Big Sky lending...and fuck those guys.
I don't know where this will go with the current political climate, but I like to think it's possible.
payday loans/check cashing places (typically the same place) employ people at minimum wage part time, they employ no more people than they have to (I mean they have obviously accountants and businessmen and shit at the upper end), but they're run like franchise fast food places. Their business model is entirely being predatory to the poor
eliminating that would coss some job losses for sure, but on the other hand the post office might need to hire more people/expand offices to compensate, and those are better jobs
having had that particular sword of Damocles hanging over me (an outstanding payday loan that just keeps growing) I'm fine with burning the whole industry down
this is probably the way you would have to do it, but with low returns the only real question is will the uspo lose money on it
maybe? i dunno. it will be tough to cover the costs with that. you start getting to the problem of the uspo being a sort of government entity sort of and that's a whole other can of worms