More Big Brother intrusion into Business

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/ba...cle_da752b8c-f2d2-11e0-9841-001cc4c03286.htmlHe said the new bank fees are an unintended consequence of government price-fixing and noted that neither of South Dakota's senators voted for the change when it was offered as an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.

"I took their votes to mean that they didn't think it was appropriate for the government to get into the business of setting the prices where businesses were perfectly capable of doing so," Everson said. Everson said banks don't like to charge more fees and realize fees anger their customers.

Read more: Bank fee changes affect few West River banks
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Banks are out of control and have been for a long time. Remember when the first ATMs came into being? Bank strongly encouraged people to use them, because each ATM transaction was a fraction of the cost of using a teller. Once they got people into the habit of using the ATMs, then ATMs suddenly became a major cost burden on the banks, requiring them to charge ATM fees. They encouraged people to use their debit cards instead of cash, knowing they could charge the merchants for each transaction and rake in what amounts to free money. Congress has now put a limit on that free money, so the banks are gonna make up that money somehow. Notice that it used to be called a "debit card", but now most banks have returned to calling it an "ATM card", and are charging a monthly fee if you use your ATM card for non-ATM transactions (as a debit card for purchases). Most banks have put in place limits on the number of checks you can write per month, to head off people moving back to checks instead of debit card usage. All the while the banks are engaged in a campaign to make people think the banks are the victims here.

Everson said the swipe fees, collected and paid by retailers, covered the costs to the banks of offering debit card services.
"There's nothing free about that," he said. "Banks have used the interchange fee income to subsidize the costs that they have."
The costs of offering debit card services is much closer to the cost to a cell phone company of offering text messaging, which is it costs them virtually nothing (fractions of a penny per transaction), and far, far less than a transaction make with a paper check (about 8 cents per, on the average).


"I took their votes to mean that they didn't think it was appropriate for the government to get into the business of setting the prices where businesses were perfectly capable of doing so," Everson said.
Oh, puhleeze. The banks have been allowed to become out of control precisely due to lobbying efforts by the banks to get Congress to allow the charging of outrageous fees. Now it's going the other way and the banks are crying foul. Boo hoo.

Everson said banks don't like to charge more fees and realize fees anger their customers.
So we're supposed to feel sorry for the banks because they are forced to charge more fees? That banks are somehow entitled to make huge profits in order to keep the financial system running smoothly, in spite of bad investment and loan decisions? Is that what this guy is saying? Horse hockey. Banks don't care what customers think.

Banks have long opposed Dodd-Frank, warning that if the debit card fees were lowered, the difference would have to come from somewhere else. There's just no way around that, sorry folks, not out fault. The Dodd-Frank amendment limits the fees that banks can charge merchants when a consumer swipes their debit card to 24 cents, from 44 cents. What that means is, if someone swipes their debit card 25 times in a month, the bank loses about $5 it would have otherwise made before Dodd-Frank. Since it's unthinkable for a bank to be less profitable, most banks are charging between $3 and $5 a month to make up that difference. But the reality is, most banks fees are not recovering costs, they are going directly onto the bottom line, to investors and to the top executives in bonuses.

Most fees are more or less justified by the banks with the, "I think I should have it, therefore you should give it to me" mentality, and it's precisely why the check fees, ATM and debit card fees, electronic check fees, and a host of other fees were invented. It doesn't cost a bank 24 cents, much less 44 cents per debit card transaction. It's more like 1 cent. The rest is pure profit, because they want it, and people will pay it. They know that the $5 a month fee is something that that most people will pay without complaining, a few people will complain about it to the bank, and even fewer still will go to a different bank because if it. For every person who goes from Bank A to Bank B, someone from Bank B goes to Bank A. They don't care. Yet we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they are a victim in all this. Sheah, right. <snort>
 

clcooper

Expert Expediter
kind of sounds like the gas tax scam a few years ago in New York . but they are a business and they should be able to do what ever they want to make themselfs money . their profit is more important .

just like making the atm so easy to use . when most people got used to it the started to charge . just like food . make it so easy to just go to the store and buy it . instead of growing it themselfs . why would people need to have land more then 1/2 acre.


it is not ok for the bank to so called lose $5 a month but it is ok for the people to give $5 a month .
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
This seems to be an appropriate question for the original poster:

Topical news articles posted without comment are either SPAM or trolling, so cough it up. Whatcha think, dood? What's interesting? What's not? What do you agree with, or disagree with, and why?
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
We just opened an account at a credit union last month as we get ready to ditch Bank of America.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

You will love the credit union.They are much better then banks.I have been using credit unions for over 15 years now.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I disagree with the charges.....

Nothing in the rules that state I must give a reason.....Dude...

What charges? I simply reiterated a statement made by one of your brethren.

What's with the "Dude" remark?

images
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I disagree with the service charges....Better?

No, because that's not what you meant, but if that makes you feel better, fine.

Here's a good saying to live by, "Say what you mean, mean what you say."

Dude?....since you called me a DOOD...;)

Did you not see the statement was quoted? Meaning, I am not the one who originally said it.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
No, because that's not what you meant, but if that makes you feel better, fine.

Here's a good saying to live by, "Say what you mean, mean what you say."



Did you not see the statement was quoted? Meaning, I am not the one who originally said it.

Of course that is what I meant...gee whiz....

an honest mistake I missed the quote thingee...

Oh I went back and read....NO where in this thread is that said...bringing in outside stuff?
 
Last edited:

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I disagree with the service charges....Better?

If you would've mentioned that in your opening post and taken the advice of one of your brethren, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'll quote it again.

Topical news articles posted without comment are either SPAM or trolling, so cough it up. Whatcha think, dood? What's interesting? What's not? What do you agree with, or disagree with, and why?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
If you would've mentioned that in your opening post and taken the advice of one of your brethren, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'll quote it again.
No point in quoting it again, especially since it was brought into this thread from the outside specifically to use as ammunition for a confrontation. You confronted, he answered, and that wasn't good enough for you, you had to tell him want he really meant. What is your problem? Why must you persist in confronting the individual, rather than adding something of substance to a conversation - you know, staying on-topic? We wouldn't be having this conversation at all if you knew how to stay on topic. So far, you've added zero to this topic. Nothing.
 
Top