Bank Bashing Senators Want To Eliminate Most ATMs

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Idiots (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/14/news/companies/atm_fees/index.htm?hpt=T1).

[Newtons Bit]

From the article:
"Banks shouldn't be able to turn accessing your own money into a profit center," said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for the Consumer Federation of America.

Then those people need to go to the less convenient bank branch locations and withdrawal their money there. ATM's aren't about "having access to your own money" it's about convenience. And convenience has a price.

[tyr_13]

I can use my bank's ATMs for free.

[LightinDarkness]

Politicians really are just like sharks in the ocean. When they sense blood, they go right to and feed. Banks are a popular target for populist hysteria because everyone loves hating on the "evil" bankers. Now that the politicians have found their target, they won't stop until the populist hysteria directs them to new blood or until the target is dead.

The bank is providing a service through ATMs. If I as a consumer value fee-free ATMs, then I will choose a bank that offers them. If I am not a consumer that values them, and I don't, because I use a credit or debit card for everything, then I want my bank to charge fees for ATMs. That way they can provide other services I value for free.

[Unabogie]

According the the article, it costs the banks just $0.36 cents for each transaction, yet the average cost to consumers is $3.50. Am I supposed to feel sorry that they only make 1000% profit per transaction now, and that limiting this in any way will cause them to close them all down? And it's Tom Harkin who's engaging in demagoguery and hyperbole?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

According the the article, it costs the banks just $0.36 cents for each transaction, yet the average cost to consumers is $3.50. Am I supposed to feel sorry that they only make 1000% profit per transaction now, and that limiting this in any way will cause them to close them all down? And it's Tom Harkin who's engaging in demagoguery and hyperbole?

The Harkin amendment estimates that it only costs banks somewhere in the neighborhood of 36 cents to carry out an ATM transaction - far less than what consumers typically pay.

Remember, this is the "estimate" of the bank basher. Hardly an unbiased view. Does it take into account the purchase price and yearly maintenance? I somehow doubt it.

If you want free ATM transactions, I have a simple solution - buy your own ATM machine and stock it with money. The rest of us are willing to pay for convenience.

[LightinDarkness]

According the the article, it costs the banks just $0.36 cents for each transaction, yet the average cost to consumers is $3.50. Am I supposed to feel sorry that they only make 1000% profit per transaction now, and that limiting this in any way will cause them to close them all down? And it's Tom Harkin who's engaging in demagoguery and hyperbole?

Are you surprised businesses exist for a profit? Or would you like for the government to dictate when you've made enough profit? How much money do you make per year? I bet you make to much. Time to contact Congress to take you down.

No one forces you to use an ATM. Or any bank. There are hundreds of banks out there, and all of them compete for your business. Don't go to the one that charges $3.50 if you want to pay less.

[Unabogie]

Remember, this is the "estimate" of the bank basher. Hardly an unbiased view. Does it take into account the purchase price and yearly maintenance? I somehow doubt it.

Do you evidence of this, or are you just assuming it's a lie based on your personal desire for this to be so?

If you want free ATM transactions, I have a simple solution - buy your own ATM machine and stock it with money. The rest of us are willing to pay for convenience.

No, the rest of us are not. Bank fees are not popular, in case you need to be reminded of this, hence evil bank bashers pandering, yada yada yada.

The fact is that you can't function in America without a bank account. You can't cash a paycheck without paying outrageous fees, you can pay bills without a checkbook etc. Like it or not, a bank account is a part of our society. Banks have been abusing their role in this system by charging crazy overdraft fees, minimum balance charges, and ATM charges. It's expensive to be poor in this country.

[ShadowSot]

Ditto, but any "convenience" ATMs have a surcharge. Partially kicking back to the location that's renting it, partially kicking back to the bank, from what I understand.
Sort of like a cola machine, or snacks machine.

I can use my bank's ATMs for free.

[Professor Yaffle]

Most cash machines in the UK are free to use. There are a few pay to use ones, mainly inside shops etc.

[LightinDarkness]

Do you evidence of this, or are you just assuming it's a lie based on your personal desire for this to be so?


No, the rest of us are not. Bank fees are not popular, in case you need to be reminded of this, hence evil bank bashers pandering, yada yada yada.

The fact is that you can't function in America without a bank account. You can't cash a paycheck without paying outrageous fees, you can pay bills without a checkbook etc. Like it or not, a bank account is a part of our society. Banks have been abusing their role in this system by charging crazy overdraft fees, minimum balance charges, and ATM charges. It's expensive to be poor in this country.

I see, so now whenever something isn't popular we should use government to carry out the popular will. I am so happy you weren't around during slavery.

The fact is that many banks offer free ATMs or will refund ATM fees, and nothing forces you to to withdraw money from any ATM that charges fees. You have been abusing populist hysteria and popular hatred against banks to regulate something that you don't have to take a part of.

I never knew that banks only charged poor people with overdraft fees, minimum balance charges, and ATM charges. Can you point to a bank who does this? Or was that just your populist hatred against people with more money than you talking?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The fact is that you can't function in America without a bank account.

Nobody is talking about functioning without a bank account, we're talking about ATMs. One can still have a bank account without using ATMs. I very rarely use them, and I function just fine. Incidentally, my bank refunds ATM fees that other banks charge. It is one of the reasons I gave them my business.

I think it is a little lame for a bank to charge its own customers, but the solution is still pretty simple and works right now -- switch to a different bank.

I have no problem with a bank charging you to use an ATM if you aren't their customer.

[Unabogie]

I see, so now whenever something isn't popular we should use government to carry out the popular will. I am so happy you weren't around during slavery.

Sigh, no I was responding to the idea that "the rest of us" were perfectly happy to pay fees. This is obviously untrue. Try to keep up.

The fact is that many banks offer free ATMs or will refund ATM fees, and nothing forces you to to withdraw money from any ATM that charges fees. You have been abusing populist hysteria and popular hatred against banks to regulate something that you don't have to take a part of.

I know. I have an account like this. I love it. The fact is that not everybody can get an account like this, since they usually have requirements. My bank, for instance, requires a minimum balance (which I, as a guy with a decent job, have no trouble meeting). This isn't for me. I actually care about this thing called "other people".

I never knew that banks only charged poor people with overdraft fees, minimum balance charges, and ATM charges. Can you point to a bank who does this? Or was that just your populist hatred against people with more money than you talking?

Really? You're going with this? They don't charge these fees to people with money because...wait for it...we never get our accounts down to zero. I haven't had an overdraft since my early twenties when I was a scumbag musician. Now that I am an "adult" and have a steady income, these are not my problems. Once again, it's that pesky empathy clouding my head with "populism". However, if I were someone with a grand total of $10 in my account and I accidentally spent $11, getting slapped with a $35 charge would be pretty upsetting. For some reason, I have this ability to imagine myself in this position and make a moral judgment about whether I think the banks raking in billions in profit deserve my sympathy.

[Unabogie]

I have no problem with a bank charging you to use an ATM if you aren't their customer.

And I have no problem with there being a cap on how much that fee can be.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Do you evidence of this, or are you just assuming it's a lie based on your personal desire for this to be so?

Do you have evidence it is correct? (Hint: the answer is no)

No, the rest of us are not. Bank fees are not popular, in case you need to be reminded of this, hence evil bank bashers pandering, yada yada yada.

The fact is that you can't function in America without a bank account. You can't cash a paycheck without paying outrageous fees, you can pay bills without a checkbook etc. Like it or not, a bank account is a part of our society. Banks have been abusing their role in this system by charging crazy overdraft fees, minimum balance charges, and ATM charges. It's expensive to be poor in this country.

Bank accounts are free. No one is forcing you to use the ATMs. You are free to drive or walk to the nearest branch of your bank to take get money. Or you can use one of the ATMs your bank provides for free. Like I said, the rest of us like having the convenience of using the nearest ATM, and if it belongs to a bank of which we are not a customer, then we don't mind paying a fee for that convenience.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

However, if I were someone with a grand total of $10 in my account and I accidentally spent $11, getting slapped with a $35 charge would be pretty upsetting.

If I had $10 in my account, I wouldn't spend $11.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

And I have no problem with there being a cap on how much that fee can be.

Me neither. And right now the cap is whatever the market will tolerate, and I think it is working just fine.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And I have no problem with there being a cap on how much that fee can be.

Should there be a cap on how much money you make? I'm guessing you're going to say no.

[eeyore1954]

Plain and simple ATM's are a convenience if people think they are charging too much go to one with a smaller fee or go to your bank. If the fees are too high the bank charging the high fee will make less money and lower thier fees.

[dtugg]

This is ridiculous. If you don't want to pay ATM fees and don't have use a bank that refunds them, use ATMs from your own bank. If an ATM that charges you a fee is more convenient, you you can choose to pay the fee if you think it is worth the convenience. It's really that simple.

[Thunder]

it is free to get your money out of your bank.

your money is not in a different bank, so they charge you for the service.

restaurants, diners, pizza shops, pharmacies, have ATM machines so you can get your money. they charge for this service.

if you like the charge, don't use the service.

[Dorian Gray]

Should there be a cap on how much money you make? I'm guessing you're going to say no.
Whoa, there. People generally EARN their money by starting at entry level, then proving they can handle more responsibility and thus getting a promotion or a raise, OR by proving their loyalty and at the very least increasing their experience and knowledge. (Please note, I'm saying "people", not "CEOs" or "Rock stars".)

Whereas a bank just charges fees without any of that.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Whoa, there. People generally EARN their money by starting at entry level, then proving they can handle more responsibility and thus getting a promotion or a raise, OR by proving their loyalty and at the very least increasing their experience and knowledge. (Please note, I'm saying "people", not "CEOs" or "Rock stars".)

Whereas a bank just charges fees without any of that.

That's not a fair characterization. The equivalent for the bank would be everything they do to set up their ATM service: purchase the equipment, negotiate the placement of the equipment at convenient locations, contract with other banks so that you can use one bank's machine to withdraw from another bank, keep the ATMs operating, stocked with cash, etc.

The comparison between personal income and business fees isn't perfect, but it sure isn't accurate to imply that the banks aren't "earning" their ATM fees.

[dtugg]

Whoa, there. People generally EARN their money by starting at entry level, then proving they can handle more responsibility and thus getting a promotion or a raise, OR by proving their loyalty and at the very least increasing their experience and knowledge. (Please note, I'm saying "people", not "CEOs" or "Rock stars".)

Whereas a bank just charges fees without any of that.

What about people who own their own businesses? Should they have a limit on the fees they charge for their services?

[theprestige]

According the the article, it costs the banks just $0.36 cents for each transaction, yet the average cost to consumers is $3.50.
Even if the article's estimate is correct, remember that banks customarily charge customers nothing, which means that they must then charge non-customers more than the minimum.

[Thunder]

Setting a maximum fee on ATM charges will simply force many ATMs to dissappear and many banks to not let non-customers get cash.

[Beat]

I never knew that banks only charged poor people with overdraft fees, minimum balance charges, and ATM charges. Can you point to a bank who does this? Or was that just your populist hatred against people with more money than you talking? Wells Fargo. I bank with them and they drained my account until it was negative solely because I did not have at least $100. There.

[Ysidro]

Gah, my thoughts are a jumble here. I've written and erased different ways banks screw poor folks over so many times I've forgotten what my point is. Anyone else want to give it a stab or shall we all just have a laugh at those poor folks?

Points I kept trying to make: mimimum account balances, lack of compitition in poor neighborhoods, and penalties much greater than the violation + rules that make it more likely to violate them in the first place.

But every time I try to explain those points I keep getting sidetracked with annoyance. I'm glad some people here have never ever made a mistake and overdrafted, I'm glad they've never been so poor they couldn't get an account at the only bank in walking distance, and I'm glad they can spend time on the internet poo-pooing the dirty lower classes.

[corplinx]

Government wasn't created in the US to ban freedom when it annoys you. Quite the contrary actually.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

But every time I try to explain those points I keep getting sidetracked with annoyance. I'm glad some people here have never ever made a mistake and overdrafted, I'm glad they've never been so poor they couldn't get an account at the only bank in walking distance, and I'm glad they can spend time on the internet poo-pooing the dirty lower classes.

Because clearly, if anyone of us had ever been in any of those positions, it must be that we would agree with you on this issue. And clearly, anyone who disagrees with you is "poo-pooing the dirty lower classes."

:rolleyes:

I don't recall seeing anyone on this thread "have a laugh at those poor folks." That's a strawman, and I suspect you know that it is.

[tyr_13]

What do potentially corrupt overdraft practices used by some banks have to do with ATM fees?

[thaiboxerken]

We should feel pity for the banks, after all, if they mess up and do a poor job they don't ask the government for help.

As long as banks rely on the government as their insurance against failure, I see no problem with the government imposing more regulations on them.

[The_Animus]

Should there be a cap on how much money you make?

Yes.

Banks provide safe storage and access for our money and it is only fair that they get something in return. Like maybe being able to invest a portion of that money in order to make gains...

Banks use other people's money to make themselves money. Obviously there's no reason people would do this unless they get something in return. This is why banks offer various free services such as maintaining an account, allowing free access (sometimes) to their ATM's and paying a tiny amount of interest on savings accounts.

We essentially loan banks vast sums of money and ask for little in return. However, if we want constant access to our own money (use of ATM's) they charge us for it and should we overdraft and use $1 of the banks money for even 10 seconds they charge us a $35 fee. It's insulting.

[dtugg]

Yes.

Banks provide safe storage and access for our money and it is only fair that they get something in return. Like maybe being able to invest a portion of that money in order to make gains...

Banks use other people's money to make themselves money. Obviously there's no reason people would do this unless they get something in return. This is why banks offer various free services such as maintaining an account, allowing free access (sometimes) to their ATM's and paying a tiny amount of interest on savings accounts.

We essentially loan banks vast sums of money and ask for little in return. However, if we want constant access to our own money (use of ATM's) they charge us for it and should we overdraft and use $1 of the banks money for even 10 seconds they charge us a $35 fee. It's insulting.

Actually, banks give you free access to your money 24/7 via their ATMs. It's banks with whom you are not a customer that charge for ATM use. Why would/should they do it for free? They would get nothing in return for their service.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Whoa, there. People generally EARN their money by starting at entry level, then proving they can handle more responsibility and thus getting a promotion or a raise, OR by proving their loyalty and at the very least increasing their experience and knowledge. (Please note, I'm saying "people", not "CEOs" or "Rock stars".)

Whereas a bank just charges fees without any of that.

So banks don't earn their money? Really?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wells Fargo. I bank with them and they drained my account until it was negative solely because I did not have at least $100. There.

And they didn't even tell you they were going to do this? Oh wait, I bet they did and you chose not to pay attention.

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, banks give you free access to your money 24/7 via their ATMs. It's banks with whom you are not a customer that charge for ATM use. Why would/should they do it for free? They would get nothing in return for their service.

Except for loyalty. This is why I bank with USAA, they re-imburse fees if I have to use other bank's ATMS. ;)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Points I kept trying to make: minimum account balances, lack of compitition in poor neighborhoods, and penalties much greater than the violation + rules that make it more likely to violate them in the first place.

So poor people can't find banks that offer free checking with no minimum balance? I wonder how I found mine? And I keep getting offers in the mail. Maybe the poor don't get junk mail?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We should feel pity for the banks, after all, if they mess up and do a poor job they don't ask the government for help.

As long as banks rely on the government as their insurance against failure, I see no problem with the government imposing more regulations on them.

Are you claiming no banks have failed?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We essentially loan banks vast sums of money and ask for little in return. However, if we want constant access to our own money (use of ATM's) they charge us for it and should we overdraft and use $1 of the banks money for even 10 seconds they charge us a $35 fee. It's insulting.

Solution: Don't "loan" them your money.

Is it me? Can people really not figure this out? Am I that much smarter than others?

[corplinx]

Before ATMs, when you ran out of money and the banks weren't open, you were just outta luck.

Its legislation for whiners.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Except for loyalty. This is why I bank with USAA, they re-imburse fees if I have to use other bank's ATMS. ;)

I think he was talking about the bank whose ATM you used, not your bank.

I use USAA as well and am quite loyal to them for that and many other reasons. But they don't have nationwide branch offices or their own ATMs, so they'd be at a big competitive disadvantage if they didn't reimburse fees.

[KoihimeNakamura]

....
I'm so glad you all are so enlightened as to demonize the opposition. That surely is critical thinking in action. (As for example, that's not even the subject of the article, but..)


Now, on to the point.
1. Not all accounts have minimum balances,but a lot do. My current one does have one (min 5 in savings, but I don't consider that a huge problem)

2. A lot of ATM's are not bank branded, and will charge an fee on top of any your bank charges.

3. Also, re convinence, what happens when all you have is an ATM card and no debit card?

I don't mean to say we shoudl elminiate fees. I do say capping them may not be a bad thing (also, I love how people tie capping them to making money uh...)

And finally, blaming the victim, go go go.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

3. Also, re convinence, what happens when all you have is an ATM card and no debit card?

Is this possible? My ATM card is my debit card.

And finally, blaming the victim, go go go.

The only victim in this scenario is consumers. And banks, but I suspect they'll find other ways to make up the lost profits.

[Ysidro]

Because clearly, if anyone of us had ever been in any of those positions, it must be that we would agree with you on this issue. And clearly, anyone who disagrees with you is "poo-pooing the dirty lower classes."

:rolleyes:

I don't recall seeing anyone on this thread "have a laugh at those poor folks." That's a strawman, and I suspect you know that it is.

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. "Those who have been there would agree completely and also I am the handsomest and bestest." Please to be putting more words in my mouth.

Also, you must have Scrut on ignore. But to be fair, he has a laugh at everyone and I just assume his whole existence is to troll the universe.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. "Those who have been there would agree completely and also I am the handsomest and bestest." Please to be putting more words in my mouth.

Also, you must have Scrut on ignore. But to be fair, he has a laugh at everyone and I just assume his whole existence is to troll the universe.

I only laugh at fools.

[Ysidro]

I only laugh at fools.

I don't disagree with this statement. :D

[KoihimeNakamura]

CS: Yes, my debit card exploded and I had to get an instant issue card from my bank. Which.. is ATM onl.

[shuize]

Is it me? Can people really not figure this out? Am I that much smarter than others?


I never realized what financial idiots people were until I became a landlord. I now realize, however, the answer to your question is "NO, people are THAT ***** stupid."

[Walter Ego]

I can use my bank's ATMs for free.

My bank doesn't charge AMT fees at their machines or debit card fees. Most merchants who take debit cards will give "cash back" on sales in amounts of $10 to $60 (the cash amount added to the debit purchase). If I know I'll need some cash later, I just get some cash back at the grocery store or wherever I'm shopping.

Where consumers get stung is using another banks ATMs or a privately owned ATM. Using a machine which might charge you a fee is kinda dumb especially if you're at a business that will take your debit card for what you want to buy.

(Take some cash for the tip at a restaurant of course.)

[a_unique_person]

Remember, this is the "estimate" of the bank basher. Hardly an unbiased view. Does it take into account the purchase price and yearly maintenance? I somehow doubt it.

If you want free ATM transactions, I have a simple solution - buy your own ATM machine and stock it with money. The rest of us are willing to pay for convenience.

This bank http://www.theage.com.au/business/nab-says-refund-not-related-to-class-action-20100515-v5jg.html

has suddenly decided it doesn't actually deserve all those fees it was charging after all. Even though they defended them for years.

[rjwould]

Most retailers depend on spontaneous purchasing from browsing patrons. I'd imagine that public officials receive complaints from merchants that ATM fees hinder spontaneous selling for those who don't take credit/debit cards. For example, while visiting New Orleans recently we decided to get lunch at a small restaurant (there were five of us) and the restaurant excepted only cash. I had to walk a couple of blocks to an ATM to withdraw the needed cash and was faced with a $5.00 fee. I payed it of course because its not that much of a big deal for me, but I could see people whose finances may be tight deciding against the lunch due to the charge, thus the fee preventing the restaurant from making a sale (and a fairly descent one at that).

Public officials are usually merely responding to their constituents needs and complaints, that doesn't make them idiots, it makes them politicians. They aren't necessarily bank bashers either.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This bank http://www.theage.com.au/business/nab-says-refund-not-related-to-class-action-20100515-v5jg.html

has suddenly decided it doesn't actually deserve all those fees it was charging after all. Even though they defended them for years.

Good for them.

[Uncle Otto]

I bank with Fifth Third. I use their ATM/Debit card once in a great while. I use cash very little these days. I use a credit card for all but very small purchases, because it's a cash-back card on anything I buy---1%, which isn't much, but it's vastly superior to what they pay on my checking account right now.

I've used the card only once at an ATM out of state, and of course got nicked a fee---I think I took out $80 and the fee was $2. That works out to 2 1/2 %. I don't think that's unreasonable, especially since Fifth Third didn't charge me anything for the transaction. (I get two free non-5/3 ATM transactions a month) I was in the middle of nowhere in southern Georgia, and I used one of those machines they have in a gas station. Normally I use only my bank's ATM.

Fifth Third also has an arrangement with the Publix supermarket chain. I can use the ATM at any of their stores with no fee charged. If you live in the SE U.S. you can see what a convenience that can be if you need it. But as others have pointed out, once in a while I'll also get cash back at the checkout register. No need to step outside and use the ATM unless I want more than $50.

Earlier in the thread someone said it's impossible to get along without a bank account. I know someone who does just that. He is retired, has no bank account, and simply cashes his pension check at the bank that issues it. He pays all his bills with either cash or money orders. He has no credit cards and doesn't want one. So it is possible. Pain in the neck----yes. But he gets along just fine. But I can see that for most people, these days, doing what he does is just not practical.

Oh and he's suing the bank where he cashes his pension checks. They started charging him a fee just to cash their own check. Traditionally, most banks have never done that. But these days banks are targeting fees to make up for lost revenues on all the lousy mortgages they wrote. I don't think it will go anywhere, because there's no banking regulation in place that says they can't charge such a fee to a non-customer.

If I ever decide to drop Fifth Third for any reason, I'm going to look for a credit union.

As to banks charging too much for ATM transactions, I am hot and cold on that. I can see that banks and others who operate these machines need to make a reasonable profit. The hitch is what constitutes "reasonable"?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Most retailers depend on spontaneous purchasing from browsing patrons. I'd imagine that public officials receive complaints from merchants that ATM fees hinder spontaneous selling for those who don't take credit/debit cards. For example, while visiting New Orleans recently we decided to get lunch at a small restaurant (there were five of us) and the restaurant excepted only cash. I had to walk a couple of blocks to an ATM to withdraw the needed cash and was faced with a $5.00 fee. I payed it of course because its not that much of a big deal for me, but I could see people whose finances may be tight deciding against the lunch due to the charge, thus the fee preventing the restaurant from making a sale (and a fairly descent one at that).

I really doubt that restaurant called their congressman as a result. I think I can count on 1 hand the number of businesses I've been in the last 10 years that didn't take credit cards.

Public officials are usually merely responding to their constituents needs and complaints, that doesn't make them idiots, it makes them politicians. They aren't necessarily bank bashers either.

They're responding to whiners.

[ShadowSot]

When I was a kid, I used to get paid in business checks by AmStaff.
I needed to have a valid ID, but I was able to cash my checks at AmSouth banks without a charge, despite not having an account with them.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. "Those who have been there would agree completely and also I am the handsomest and bestest." Please to be putting more words in my mouth.


Ah, silly me. I foolishly thought that your ramblings about how terrible it is to be poor actually had a point related to this thread.

[rjwould]

I really doubt that restaurant called their congressman as a result. I think I can count on 1 hand the number of businesses I've been in the last 10 years that didn't take credit cards.I think you may have missed the point



... whiners."Bank Bashing Senators Want To Eliminate Most ATMs"...."idiots".

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I never realized what financial idiots people were until I became a landlord. I now realize, however, the answer to your question is "NO, people are THAT ***** stupid."

LOL! I was a landlord many years ago. My all time favorite excuse for not paying the rent - I had tenants who were always late. They would blame it on the mail - "I mailed it 2 weeks ago!" - so eventually I told them to stop mailing a check and I would come and pick it up on the 1st. One month, I got busy, and didn't get by the apartment until about the 4th or 5th. They didn't have the check. When I asked why, they replied (I'm not making this up) - "Well, you didn't come by on the 1st, and we weren't sure when you were coming, so we spent it on something else".

[WildCat]

Instead of going to the ATM and paying a fee when you're away from your own bank's ATMs go to, say, a drug store instead. Buy a $0.50 candy bar and pay with your debit card. Then use it to get cash back.

Now you've only paid 50 cents to get the money, and you have a candy bar besides!

[Mason]

I never knew that banks only charged poor people with overdraft fees, minimum balance charges, and ATM charges. Can you point to a bank who does this? Or was that just your populist hatred against people with more money than you talking? Wells Fargo. I bank with them and they drained my account until it was negative solely because I did not have at least $100. There.

Did they call you and ask "Do you have a hundred dollars? No? Just checking. Oh, no reason, we just want to make sure you're poor." Because you sound like you're talking about a minimum balance fee, not a poverty fee.

If so, if it was indeed a minimum balance fee, did they charge you the minimum balance fee because you are poor, or did they charge you the minimum balance fee because you did not maintain the minimum balance?

Like, for example, if you had a billion dollars hidden under your mattress, but didn't maintain the minimum balance in this bank, would they have waived the fee because you weren't actually poor?

[WildCat]

Many years ago, my bank got me confused with my father somehow and waived my minimum balance because I was a senior citizen, even though I was in my 20s. I haven't ever bothered informing them of the error. ;)

AARP started sending me stuff, and they still do to this day. If I live to be 80 they'll think I was 130.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

For example, while visiting New Orleans recently we decided to get lunch at a small restaurant (there were five of us) and the restaurant excepted only cash.

So the solution to the restaurant CHOOSING only to accept cash, is to REQUIRE the customer's bank to provide a source of cash nearby for a fee below what they consider reasonable?

Odd.

[rjwould]

So the solution to the restaurant CHOOSING only to accept cash, is to REQUIRE the customer's bank to provide a source of cash nearby for a fee below what they consider reasonable?

Odd.I don't know whether or not its the best solution or if there even needs to be a solution. I was simply pointing out that politicians respond to needs of constituents, and this is one remedy to probable complaints Senators have heard. Like I said, it doesn't make them "bank bashing Senators" or "idiots". This is their job, like it or not.

[Cain]

I see, so now whenever something isn't popular we should use government to carry out the popular will. I am so happy you weren't around during slavery.

Lunacy. Comments such as this make me feel like a moron for browsing these forums.

I do not think this legislation is worth the effort. Unless poor people are somehow getting victimized -- as in the case of other controversial banking practices -- I do not see the big deal.

High fees are a tax on impulsive, reckless spending, which means they CAN take advantage of people under trying circumstances, but so what? The problem is people buy too much crap, give into their animal spirits.

[Dunstan]

I'm reminded of Al Franken's book Why Not Me? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Not_Me%3F) which tells the story of how Franken won a dark horse campaign for the presidency on a platform of eliminating ATM fees. It was meant as satire.

[KoihimeNakamura]

WildCat: That seriously depends on the cash back limit. Some places only give 10.00 back and if you need more..

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't know whether or not its the best solution or if there even needs to be a solution. I was simply pointing out that politicians respond to needs of constituents, and this is one remedy to probable complaints Senators have heard. Like I said, it doesn't make them "bank bashing Senators" or "idiots". This is their job, like it or not.

The problem is, it's the whiners who get all the attention. I'm perfectly happy with ATM availability and fees (or lack thereof). But I'm not going to call anyone to tell them about it. I simply don't have time. What makes the sponsors of this bill idiots is that when the whiners call, they listen to them, instead of telling them they are idiots.

For the record, this bill has no chance whatsoever of passing.

[rjwould]

The problem is, it's the whiners who get all the attention. I'm perfectly happy with ATM availability and fees (or lack thereof). But I'm not going to call anyone to tell them about it. I simply don't have time. What makes the sponsors of this bill idiots is that when the whiners call, they listen to them, instead of telling them they are idiots.

For the record, this bill has no chance whatsoever of passing.So, when people do things differently than you would, they're idiots.

I'd say the reason officials don't tell their constituents they're idiots is because it sounds immature and that sort of childish name calling type language is most likely below them.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So, when people do things differently than you would, they're idiots.

Nope. Nice try though.

I'd say the reason officials don't tell their constituents they're idiots is because it sounds immature and that sort of childish name calling type language is most likely below them.

Idiots exist, no? So calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling, it's descriptive.

[rjwould]

Nope. Nice try though.



Idiots exist, no? So calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling, it's descriptive.No, idiots don't exist, thats merely some sort of identity crisis with those that label others as such. Its a form of whining, and its also a bullying tactic.

Its like a kid coming to momma complaining, "That idiot Johnny made me mad again."

What competent parents might tell their child is to maintain a more level head and their dignity.

[Dunstan]

No, idiots don't exist, thats merely some sort of identity crisis with those that label others as such. Its a form of whining, and its also a bullying tactic.

Ah, so you're against name-calling and bullying.

Its like a kid coming to momma complaining, "That idiot Johnny made me mad again."

What competent parents might tell their child is to maintain a more level head and their dignity.

But you have no problem comparing people who disagree with you to children and saying they lack dignity.

[rjwould]

Ah, so you're against name-calling and bullying.



But you have no problem comparing people who disagree with you to children and saying they lack dignity.I was simply pointing out that the behavior is immature. You're comfortable defending it?

[Dunstan]

I was simply pointing out that the behavior is immature. You're comfortable defending it?

I'm comfortable pointing out hypocrisy.

[rjwould]

I'm comfortable pointing out hypocrisy.Funny, thats what I'm doing too. You're stretching of course, but I'll leave it there. I'm sure TCS will man up. G'day!

[Dunstan]

Funny, thats what I'm doing too.

How so? I don't recall either TCS or me complaining about other people's "tone" or the use of blunt but accurate terms like "idiot," except to point out the hypocrisy of those who only complain when others do it.

You're stretching of course, but I'll leave it there. I'm sure TCS will man up. G'day!

Ah yes, "man up." Another fine, mature argument.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Funny, thats what I'm doing too. You're stretching of course, but I'll leave it there. I'm sure TCS will man up. G'day!

I agree - you're being a hypocrite.

[Ron Webb]

Actually, banks give you free access to your money 24/7 via their ATMs. It's banks with whom you are not a customer that charge for ATM use. Why would/should they do it for free? They would get nothing in return for their service.

Our bank waives the ATM fees if you maintain a minimum $1000 balance. To put it bluntly, if you can't maintain a four-figure bank balance, they really don't want your business anyway.

I wouldn't object to ATM fees so much if they weren't simultaneously closing branches, reducing staff and generally discouraging face-to-face transactions. Not to mention routinely posting record profits.

And they didn't even tell you they were going to do this? Oh wait, I bet they did and you chose not to pay attention.

I remember a contract lawyer admitting that even he doesn't read the fine print on bank services. The fact is that the banks don't want you to read it, so they make it as difficult as possible. It's not in their interest for you to understand their policies.

[fuelair]

Sigh, no I was responding to the idea that "the rest of us" were perfectly happy to pay fees. This is obviously untrue. Try to keep up.



I know. I have an account like this. I love it. The fact is that not everybody can get an account like this, since they usually have requirements. My bank, for instance, requires a minimum balance (which I, as a guy with a decent job, have no trouble meeting). This isn't for me. I actually care about this thing called "other people".



Really? You're going with this? They don't charge these fees to people with money because...wait for it...we never get our accounts down to zero. I haven't had an overdraft since my early twenties when I was a scumbag musician. Now that I am an "adult" and have a steady income, these are not my problems. Once again, it's that pesky empathy clouding my head with "populism". However, if I were someone with a grand total of $10 in my account and I accidentally spent $11, getting slapped with a $35 charge would be pretty upsetting. For some reason, I have this ability to imagine myself in this position and make a moral judgment about whether I think the banks raking in billions in profit deserve my sympathy.

Empathy can make us so silly. Yet, I still feel better for having it.:)

[fuelair]

So poor people can't find banks that offer free checking with no minimum balance? I wonder how I found mine? And I keep getting offers in the mail. Maybe the poor don't get junk mail?

Possibly some areas are red-lined and do not get those solicitations. Oh, wait, that is illegal, so banks would never do that!!. Oops, I was wrong, the banks have to offer the same services to all, but they are not required to solicit everyone letting them know about those services - that they can control!! My bad!!:)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Possibly some areas are red-lined and do not get those solicitations. Oh, wait, that is illegal, so banks would never do that!!. Oops, I was wrong, the banks have to offer the same services to all, but they are not required to solicit everyone letting them know about those services - that they can control!! My bad!!:)

Sounds like good business to me! :)

[The Painter]

Should there be a cap on how much money you make? I'm guessing you're going to say no.

Obama disagrees with you

Obama: 'You've made enough money' (http://theweek.com/article/index/202479/Obama_Youve_made_enough_money)

[Ron Webb]

According to industry figures, it costs between $9,000 to $50,000 to purchase an ATM. Banks and other operators then have to pay an additional $12,000 to $15,000 annually to keep the machine running.
Not bad for a machine that works 24 hours a day, doesn't take vacations or holidays or sick leave, doesn't complain about working conditions, etc.

Compare that to the cost of actually employing a bank teller. If this is really about defraying costs, why aren't the ATMs free, and the bank tellers $3.50 per transaction?

[Ron Webb]

Obama disagrees with you

Obama: 'You've made enough money' (http://theweek.com/article/index/202479/Obama_Youve_made_enough_money)

Naw, that quote is not out of context (http://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/obama-at-a-certain-point-youve-made-enough-money-transcript/) at all! :rolleyes:

[Unabogie]

Naw, that quote is not out of context (http://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/obama-at-a-certain-point-youve-made-enough-money-transcript/) at all! :rolleyes:

It's amazing isn't it? Here's the actual quote with context.

We had a system where some on Wall Street could take these risks without fear of failure, because they keep the profits when it was working, and as soon as it went south, they expected you to cover their losses. So it was one of those heads, they tail — tails, you lose.


So they failed to consider that behind every dollar that they traded, all that leverage they were generating, acting like it was Monopoly money, there were real families out who were trying to finance a home, or pay for their child’s college, or open a business, or save for retirement. So what’s working fine for them wasn’t working for ordinary Americans. And we’ve learned that clearly. It doesn’t work out fine for the country. It’s got to change. (Applause.)


Now, what we’re doing — I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. (Laughter.) But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We don’t want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy.


I’ve said this before. I’ve said this on Wall Street just last week. I believe in the power of the free market. And I believe in a strong financial system. And when it’s working right, financial institutions, they help make possible families buying homes, and businesses growing, and new ideas taking flight. An entrepreneur may have a great idea, but he may need to borrow some money to make it happen. It would be hard for a lot of us to buy a house — our first house, at least, if we weren’t able to take out a mortgage.


So there’s nothing wrong with a financial system that helps the economy expand. And there are a lot of good people in the financial industry who are doing things the right way. And it’s in our interest when those firms are strong and when they’re healthy.


Damn socialists and their support for capitalism!

[Ron Webb]

Notice how carefully that video clip from The Painter was edited, to chop off the laughter following Obama's remark. :)

[Ysidro]

Ah, silly me. I foolishly thought that your ramblings about how terrible it is to be poor actually had a point related to this thread.

Well now you know better. This is Politics!

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Well now you know better. This is Politics!

Hmm. Point taken. Carry on, carry on.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Obama disagrees with you

Obama: 'You've made enough money' (http://theweek.com/article/index/202479/Obama_Youve_made_enough_money)

You forgot to mention the sentence that came after: "But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service."

ATMs in hundreds of thousands of locations, many of them free, the rest with very low fees, are, by any intelligent definition, a good service.

So Obama actually agrees with me.

Gee, that kind of blew up in your face, didn't it?

[Meadmaker]

Is this possible? My ATM card is my debit card.



The only victim in this scenario is consumers. And banks, but I suspect they'll find other ways to make up the lost profits.

For what it's worth, that no minimum balance, no fee, no strings attached, checking account is likely to be a thing of the past in the near future, due to another aspect of this pending legislation. Right now, banks make a very nice sum of money when someone uses his debit card at a point of sale transaction. The pending legislation has factors that might eliminate that nice sum of money. The reason they give you that account for free is they are hoping to make money on those transactions when you use their free debit card.

That particular aspect of legislation isn't typical anti-business legislation, either. Right now, merchants are constrained in their ability to pass "swipe fees" on to consumers. The new legislation gives them more options. In other words, it is more free market oriented. The result will be that the merchant is less likely to get stuck for the cost of the "free" checking account, which means the banks won't offer it.

On the subject of this thread specifically, this legislation seems a bit misguided and unnecessary. Most people have access to free ATMs if they want it, but there might be a convenience factor involved trying to get to a free ATM.

[David Wong]

Instead of going to the ATM and paying a fee when you're away from your own bank's ATMs go to, say, a drug store instead. Buy a $0.50 candy bar and pay with your debit card. Then use it to get cash back.

Now you've only paid 50 cents to get the money, and you have a candy bar besides!

No, you've paid $1.50. Your bank (or at least, every bank I've ever used) charges $1 every time you use a debit card as a debit card. They don't notify you at any point in the transaction, you have to spot it on your statement later (in my youth I went into overdraft because nobody told me this was happening).

[Meadmaker]

No, you've paid $1.50. Your bank (or at least, every bank I've ever used) charges $1 every time you use a debit card as a debit card.

I pay nothing for point of sale transactions, and I think that's the norm these days. The merchant pays.

[Darth Rotor]

It appears that some people weren't alive, nor using a checking account, when you were charged a few dollars a month just to have a checking account at a bank.

Interest bearing checking accounts are a rather new idea, likewise checking accounts with no monthly fee. Common since about the mid 1980's. One of the reasons I stopped using banks, and began using my credit union, was the non charge for checking accounts, at the time, and my checking account accrued a modest interest rate (less than my savings account, of course).

Another reason was better interest rates on loans.

My credit union does not charge me ATM fees, and will refund up to 10 dollars per month of fees from other banks when I used my ATM card.

The trick to avoid or reduce fees is to plan ahead you cash needs and uses, just as it was when we were cashing checks back in the stone age of the 80's.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, you've paid $1.50. Your bank (or at least, every bank I've ever used) charges $1 every time you use a debit card as a debit card. They don't notify you at any point in the transaction, you have to spot it on your statement later (in my youth I went into overdraft because nobody told me this was happening).

No, they did tell you this would happen. You either chose not to listen or forgot they had told you.

[eeyore1954]

No, you've paid $1.50. Your bank (or at least, every bank I've ever used) charges $1 every time you use a debit card as a debit card. They don't notify you at any point in the transaction, you have to spot it on your statement later (in my youth I went into overdraft because nobody told me this was happening).
Any bank I have dealt with does not do this.

[Cleon]

This legislation wouldn't bother the big banks all that much, IMO. Your Bank of America, Wachovia, Mellon, PNC, whatever ATMs won't be going anywhere. Like most people noted, if you use your bank's ATM you don't get charged anyway.

I have no sympathy for the fees charged by those institutions; in those cases I honestly think the ATM fees are more "because we can" fees than artifacts of the cost of operating ATMs. 15-20 years ago, you might get zinged 50 cents by your bank for using an out-of-network ATM to pay for the transaction. Today, you not only get charged by your bank, but also the bank that owns the ATM. The customer is charged twice for the same transaction.

No, what this legislation would affect is not the bank-owned ATMs, but the "convenience" ATMs; the ones you see in gas stations, bars, and so on. They're not owned by actual banks, or if they are, the "bank" in question exists largely on paper. Not only is the company operating these machines sustained by those fees, but part of them also go to the business that the ATMs are placed in. These ATMs would likely disappear, resulting not only in a loss of convenience for customers, but also a loss of revenue for small business owners.

My verdict: the idea isn't completely without merit, but ultimately it would do more harm than good.

[eeyore1954]

For what it's worth, that no minimum balance, no fee, no strings attached, checking account is likely to be a thing of the past in the near future, due to another aspect of this pending legislation. Right now, banks make a very nice sum of money when someone uses his debit card at a point of sale transaction.


Thats why you pay less if you use cash at gas stations (at least where I live). The merchant has to pay a % fee based upon the total transaction.

[Cleon]

Thats why you pay less if you use cash at gas stations (at least where I live). The merchant has to pay a % fee based upon the total transaction.

Wow, where do you live? I haven't seen a gas station charge different prices for cash vs. credit in many years. Most of the ones I've seen really try to discourage using cash, largely because pay-at-the-pump card readers result in fewer man-hours dealing with customers. (Drive-offs used to be a problem, but I've seen few stations nowadays that don't require cash customers to pre-pay.) I've even seen some chains (QT, Exxon) offer a free reloadable cash card that customers can use to pay at the pump. With debit/credit cards, customers get out more quickly, fewer staff are needed, and everyone wins.

[Darth Rotor]

Wow, where do you live? I haven't seen a gas station charge different prices for cash vs. credit in many years. Most of the ones I've seen really try to discourage using cash, largely because pay-at-the-pump card readers result in fewer man-hours dealing with customers. (Drive-offs used to be a problem, but I've seen few stations nowadays that don't require cash customers to pre-pay.) I've even seen some chains (QT, Exxon) offer a free reloadable cash card that customers can use to pay at the pump. With debit/credit cards, customers get out more quickly, fewer staff are needed, and everyone wins.

A bit over a year ago, Valero gas station near where I lived offered a 3 cents per gallon discount if you used the pre paid gas card. Have not looked into it of late, since the first two cards didn't work in all of the pumps. My guess is that the cards themselves were, cheaply made, or my son spilled Pepsi on his, or something.

Will check to see if Valero still offers this.

With debit/credit cards, customers get out more quickly, fewer staff are needed, and everyone wins
Usually, yes.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wow, where do you live? I haven't seen a gas station charge different prices for cash vs. credit in many years.

I live in St. Louis, and I bet it's been 20 years since I've seen that.

[CORed]

No, you've paid $1.50. Your bank (or at least, every bank I've ever used) charges $1 every time you use a debit card as a debit card. They don't notify you at any point in the transaction, you have to spot it on your statement later (in my youth I went into overdraft because nobody told me this was happening).

I have never been charged a fee for using a debit card.

[fuelair]

Not bad for a machine that works 24 hours a day, doesn't take vacations or holidays or sick leave, doesn't complain about working conditions, etc.

Compare that to the cost of actually employing a bank teller. If this is really about defraying costs, why aren't the ATMs free, and the bank tellers $3.50 per transaction?

Actually, one bank of my acquaintance in Nashville, long ago, actually did exactly that - if the transaction did not require a teller to accomplish you were charged IIRC $1.50 or so to use the teller but the ATM was free for the same transaction - and I believe it was exactly that thinking that they used to justify it.:)

[eeyore1954]

Wow, where do you live? I haven't seen a gas station charge different prices for cash vs. credit in many years. Most of the ones I've seen really try to discourage using cash, largely because pay-at-the-pump card readers result in fewer man-hours dealing with customers. (Drive-offs used to be a problem, but I've seen few stations nowadays that don't require cash customers to pre-pay.) I've even seen some chains (QT, Exxon) offer a free reloadable cash card that customers can use to pay at the pump. With debit/credit cards, customers get out more quickly, fewer staff are needed, and everyone wins.

In Long Island NY mostly all of the less expensive options offer a cash discount. If you use their own card usually it is the same as cash.

This became more important when the price of gas was approaching $5.00 because the percentage charged to the station owners is based upon the dollar amount of the transaction not the number of gallons.

[Meadmaker]

I live in St. Louis, and I bet it's been 20 years since I've seen that.

Here in Detroit, almost all of them started charging extra for credit in 2008 when gas prices spiked, and most of them continue to do so today.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Here in Detroit, almost all of them started charging extra for credit in 2008 when gas prices spiked, and most of them continue to do so today.

That might have happened here too. I have no idea. I just stick my card in the pump and the price is the price.

[JenseitsDavon]

I personally have no problem with ATM fees. I use an ATM on average of twice yearly, and only if I forgot to plan ahead.

(The following is complete hearsay, but I judge it to be probable if not extremely likely, given what I know of the area and how many tourists it attracts)

There's a shop in downtown Seattle - specifically, in Pike Place Market, a huge tourist attraction/place to get great fresh food - that pays the entirety of its rent off the fees it charges from the ATM inside. I find this to be a brilliant use of supply and demand.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There's a shop in downtown Seattle - specifically, in Pike Place Market, a huge tourist attraction/place to get great fresh food - that pays the entirety of its rent off the fees it charges from the ATM inside. I find this to be a brilliant use of supply and demand.

If true, more power to them!

[Almo]

If you want free ATM transactions, I have a simple solution - buy your own ATM machine and stock it with money. The rest of us are willing to pay for convenience.

That's like saying electric companies that charge 20 cents per killowatt hour are ok and that if you don't like it you can start your own electric company.

I think 50 cents is too low, but an average of $3 is too high. I'd regulate it lower, but not so low as 50 cents.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's like saying electric companies that charge 20 cents per killowatt hour are ok and that if you don't like it you can start your own electric company.

Nope. Electric companies are a regulated monopoly for a reason. Try a different analogy.

[The_Animus]

Solution: Don't "loan" them your money.

Is it me? Can people really not figure this out? Am I that much smarter than others?

No. Various other very important aspects of society require you to have a bank account because cash is not an acceptable form of payment.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No. Various other very important aspects of society require you to have a bank account because cash is not an acceptable form of payment.

Then I would suggest not doing business with companies who don't accept cash.

Or get one of the many free checking accounts which are available.

[daenku32]

I typically use my own bank's ATM. But when I do have to use out-of-network ATM I make sure to withdraw couple hundred dollars, just to make the fee portion relatively smaller to the amount I'm withdrawing. I'm not paying $3-4 just to get $20.

[Uncle Otto]

No. Various other very important aspects of society require you to have a bank account because cash is not an acceptable form of payment.


As I mentioned earlier---there are other options. Money orders come to mind, and traveler's checks. Neither of which require anyone to have a bank account. It's more inconvenient of course, but it is done by some people. Even better are pre-paid credit/debit cards, although technically it's still an account of sorts.

[The_Animus]

Then I would suggest not doing business with companies who don't accept cash.

Or get one of the many free checking accounts which are available.

My statement also applied to government in addition to some companies.

And getting a free checking account would retract your previous suggestion of just not loaning them money at all.