by free2beme 29 Replies latest jw friends
"This is a perfect example of the dangers of price controls and the inefficiency of government intervention in the free market," said Chaffetz in a statement. "The Durbin Amendment is an affront to consumers and the banking industry. These legislatively enacted price controls have compelled banks to charge consumers higher (and in some cases new) fees to make up for lost revenue."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., UT)
Most people are lucky to have 1000 or less.
But it adds up, doesn't it, dear F2BM (again, peace to you!)? I mean, 100 pennies still make a dollar, don't they (I could be wrong, given the state of the dollar these days)?
Banks do not want these accounts, as these are the ones losing money.
Yet, these are the ones that make the banks the most money ON fees, aren't they? I mean, how many of the more... ummmm... hefty accounts result in NSF, overdraft, monthly, money order/cashier check, check cashing, and other fees? And the fees on levied primarily on people who usually can't afford them.
So, okay, they only have a pittance in the bank. If our society didn't REQUIRE bank accounts most of these probably wouldn't have ANYTHING in them... but feel perfectly fine using a mayonaise jar... shoebox... or the mattress. But... you GOTTA have a bank account, don't you... if for nothing else, in order to cash the check your employer pays you with (or do "direct deposit", which many employers are now requiring!)... or your unemployment/disability/tax return/other refund/loan... or any other check. Otherwise, you pay those check cashing places (IF they will cash it!)... who apparently charge fees so high some folks want THEM shut down. Any price break (i.e., no fees) comes when you have a certain "minimum" remaining in your account at all times (you know, when you can better afford fees?).
Reading all the articles on the banks, it is a common thread. You make us primary, put amounts in your accounts that mean something and no fees. Otherwise, 'Good-bye, let someone else take the loss on you.' <no tears>.
Yes. And so WHY in the world should all of those folks out there who work hard, vote, live decent lives, raise their kids well, don't commit crimes, etc., but who don't have/make a lot of money CARE about making the banks rich(er)? Why should THEY shed any tears if the government drops a hammer on the banks... and prohibits them from charging yet another fee to access whatever little pittance they DO have?? Banks don't care about THEM. So, tell me, again, WHY they should care about banks??
So many small balance accounts think they are of value, they're not. Which banks are making REAL CLEAR.
And so, why is it wrong for the goverment to make it REAL CLEAR that the "little" people, although they may contribute a little individually... add up to a LOT jointly?
Ah, well... doesn't matter. Or does it?
Peace!
SA, on her own...
I don't know about the States (though it sounds the same), but my account costs anywhere between 20-30 dollars a month, just in fees to have the account. If I am one of how many people?, then that adds up to quite a substantial amount across the country(s). Oh, and if the bank messes up (which happens), then you have to REALLY fight to get them to pay for what their mess up costs you in NSF or whatever fees. Their NSF fees. They would never pay for someone else's even if it was their mess up.
Just thought I'd throw that in too.
Peace,
Tammy
Yet, these are the ones that make the banks the most money ON fees, aren't they? I mean, how many of the more... ummmm... hefty accounts result in NSF, overdraft, monthly, money order/cashier check, check cashing, and other fees? And the fees on levied primarily on people who usually can't afford them.
Seriously, ask your bank. They will gladly tell you, unless you keep a consistant balance that stays over a certian amount, like 10000 or more, for over 90 days. They are not lending your money to anyone, as you spent it. I know those small accounts want to think they matter, but once Congress passed that law they were just dead weight and the sooner they leave these banks, the happier they will be. LOL!!!! Do you not think the bank you change too, is making money off you and getting richer??? LOL. Banks are a for profit business!!!! If you don't want the place you bank with to make a profit, go to a credit union. Although, even they are feeling challenged right now. As they are trying to figure out how to make up for loss of income and still give all the bells and whistles they offer.
I have to mention, on the 'add up to a LOT jointy?' comment you made. YES! That is what it should be like, but Congress changed that and told the banks to stop making money off them. Senator Durbin hates large banks and took a personal feeling on something to push his views on the rest of the country. He then got the media to make it sound like it was the right choice, with stories that tell only a one sided view. Now people just get more and more ignorant about this and have no clue.
Here is a novel idea: Free enterprise. So what if the big banks charge an arm, a leg, and a mint for every transaction and pay zero interest. Get the damn government out of our way, and watch how quickly someone is going to get pxxxed just enough to start their own bank. Enough people do that, and watch how quickly the fees disappear and interest becomes more fair. And how quickly those foreclosures caused by banks mishandling that last payment disappear.
As a side effect, watch how quickly those pay raises start actually happening. People could simply quit their job, and within a couple of days have their own business up and running. Those knowing what they are doing will find themselves getting big quickly, and pretty soon unemployment would plummet. Those on welfare (because they have no choice due to poor wages and no jobs, not because they are too damn lazy to get off the couch) would be able to start their own businesses, helping drive down taxes because they are no longer collecting welfare and they are now contributing something. And, those whose bosses keep making too many rules designed to stifle thinking would also find themselves starting businesses, possibly out-competing the control-freaks running their former companies. All the while, competent businesses would start treating employees better.
Another side effect is better product. I would like nothing more than to see Microsoft forced to actually repair programs when they freeze and they get a crash report--under threat that some company is going to start up out of someplace like Papua New Guinea and put them out of business if they don't. Or, what about GM actually going out of business because someone operating out of a garage in Ellsworth, Maine, creates a car getting 500 MPG and still out-performing all other cars (more reliably, to boot--and safer). Or, having "Clear"Channel finding some competition from someone in Antrim, NH that is sick of the crap that passes for "music"--and losing. Or the big drug companies going bust because someone in a small town in Texas finds a cure (and markets it) for every disease they are "treating(??)". Or, Exxon-Mobil collapsing because someone in Nome, Alaska markets a device that creates unlimited free energy.
Under these conditions, "greed" would be rewarded by having someone else getting all your business. Start putting out crap, treating your employees like scumbags, and trying to corner the market to gouge people, and pretty soon someone else in a small town you never heard of is putting you out of business. And everyone (except the Rothschilds, who are really running the world--and who should really be the topic of these protests) would benefit.
We'll manage somehow, just as we manage through everything else life throws at us.
Maybe I will move my funds to another account or maybe I will consider using credit cards with a very low limit (say $500) that was I cannot get in too much trouble. Perhaps maybe I can just simply take out $20.00 worth of "spending money" at payday that will last me until next payday. This was how I use to do things in the past when there were no debit cards. Keep the rest in the bank and pay bills with checks and if I have to buy money orders (which I do for rent) find some way around it (withdrawing cash if all else fails).
We'll learn the system, we'll beat the system, and we'll cope.
"If we want to be socialism, be it. However, we are not SUPPOSED to be a socialism society."
I think you don’t understand the difference between Capitalism/Socialism v. Democracy/Undemocratic.
We can be whatever financial system we want to be, so long as we vote for it (or our elected leaders vote for it.) All of Western Europe is socialist by most American standards yet they are still democratic. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, but there is no directive that we must maintain pure/nearly pure capitalistic society.
As for the banks, in a free society we can move our money to smaller institutions if we want to. Moving to a credit union might be a great idea for many and the media has the right to mention that. You also have the ability to not move your money if you don’t want to.
You know, using a credit card with rewards for everything and then paying it off at the end of the month, is a really good idea. However, most Americans have screwed up credit these days and could not could not get a credit card if their life depended on it.
They are not lending your money to anyone, as you spent it.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is only partly true, dear F2BM (peace to you!)? If I recall from my economics, marketing, and finance classes, their "assets" include "deposits"... even if those are down by the bank's close of the month (which is usually BEFORE the issuance of customer statements, yes). However, since their "liabilities" has to at least equal their "deposits" (because they have to cover THAT money if there's a "run" on the bank)... it's really the interest from such deposits... and FEES on the accounts... that is the "real" number of their "assets" (their profits), yes? Although, again, they USE the "deposits" to show "assets"... and so value/worth, so that THEY can borrow funds (from the Fed) TO lend (because they do this, too, so that they don't have to literally touch your money).
So, their "credit worth" is, as with mortgage banking/lenders, etc., based somewhat on "phantom" numbers... yes? Which is another reason for all of the problems recently: they can (and do... and did) "inflate" those numbers to show MORE deposits than they actually have... and thus, more "worth" than they actually were/are?
I know those small accounts want to think they matter, but once Congress passed that law they were just dead weight and the sooner they leave these banks, the happier they will be. LOL!!!!
I don't know if that's true - again, it adds up. I learned something that most may not know and that is (1) banks aren't in the business of lending money; they're in the business of MAKING money (which is WHY they lend - interest); and (2) it is banks that literally make money, not the fed (which can print it, yes, but that only dilutes its value - banks, however, literally MAKE money... by using YOUR money: you deposit $500... they loan that $500 to someone else, with interest... and then they get the interest, which is all profit. All without ever touching a dime of their own money. However, they have quite a few high end salaries to pay... and so need to make money otherwise, as well... and that's where fees come in. They don't charge fees on more padded accounts... because they know the owners WILL shop around for better deals. And they NEED those account owners. So, true, while they don't need the small account owners for money to loan... they DO need them for fees. Money... is money. Doesn't matter where it comes from, so long as it comes. And a bank's sole purpose... is to make money. So, I am not sure that they consider small accounts unnecessary. My finance education says that's not true.
Do you not think the bank you change too, is making money off you and getting richer??? LOL. Banks are a for profit business!!!!
Yes! But it sounds like YOU'RE saying that they pick and choose their mode of profit. I am not so sure...
If you don't want the place you bank with to make a profit, go to a credit union.
I absolutely and vehemently AGREE! However, I don't think that the freedom I have to go to a credit union precludes me from thinking perhaps the government... SOMEONE... should temper their business practices somewhat. Sure, all of the small account holders could leave en masse - that would send a message. But the likelihood of that occurring is slim to none. People just aren't that educated. Many, if not most, blue collar workers FLOCK to the larger banks (BofA, Wells Fargo, Chase, etc.), simply because of the "herd" mentality: if everyone ELSE is doing it, well, then... Such banks KNOW this... and take advantage of it (as does religion, etc.). If banks would temper THEMSELVES (which is likely to happen when pigs fly)... nothing else would be needed.
C'mon... what is a government FOR if not to say, "Hey, wait a minute, uh-uh, you're going just a tad too far, there, and so on behalf of the PEOPLE you're harming by doing so, we're saying CUT IT OUT!"?
Although, even they are feeling challenged right now. As they are trying to figure out how to make up for loss of income and still give all the bells and whistles they offer.
Yes, but those who ultimate makes the decisions can at least get the POV of their members, even call for a VOTE regarding raising fees, etc., if they think doing so is beneficial (and they probably would want to, if they want to be re-elected to their positions). Credit union members have SOME input (by voting for officers/directors, if nothing else). With a bank, however, there is no depositor input (save closing your account)... and officers, directors, and shareholders reap all of the benefits.
The problem for ME, dear F2BM, is that BANKS have made us dependent upon them. That was the goal from day one. So, okay, we are dependent upon them. To have them then nickle and dime us to death is, to me, reprehensible. Make your profit on interest. Make it on fees for me not covering my checks, etc. Even charge me a monthly maintenance fee. But making a system so that we MUST use a card to access our funds... and then charging us AND the merchant EACH TIME for doing so is, IMHO, beyond usury.
Personally, I think the government should let them do it... and let it come back in their faces. Because it will. I think, though, that the government is being proactive - I think it sees what would occur down the road when the PEOPLE finally became TOTALLY fed up... and reacted. I don't think that would be pretty, but actually very dangerous.
Ennywho... que sera, sera; what will be, will be. And, as dear GN (peace to you!) stated... we will cope.
Again, peace to you... and thanks for the great discussion!
A slave of Christ,
SA
I think the quote I put in this thread from the Congressman says it like it is and is very true. I will tell ya though, banks love the 1% people. As they are about 90% of their deposit balances. Small accounts are made money on through fees, and since most of those are gone now. Well, they will soon find themselves in Credit Unions. I have a hard time understanding, why Durbin would give CU's a one year delay on this law though. If it was not for the fact that he has set on the senate floor saying he hates banks. Weird man! Wierd world! and broken government.
