Bank of America to charge $5 debit card fee

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I............. The only place I ever had a problem was in Egypt... but after 5 or so machines I found one that worked...

I think they are extra cautious due to risk of pyramid schemes.

[GregLee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover I think they are extra cautious due to risk of pyramid schemes.

Or they fear that the banks of the Nile will have insufficient liquidity.

[Alan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover I think they are extra cautious due to risk of pyramid schemes.

I was just on my way to bed - nice to have a good chuckle first.

[Nemo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover I think they are extra cautious due to risk of pyramid schemes.

+1

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregLee Or they fear that the banks of the Nile will have insufficient liquidity.

Even worse would be, in response to a request for a withdrawal of funds, denile.

[chinaco]

I saw a debate over the changes for swipe fees. There was a bank spokesman mouthpiece lobbyest pitchman arguing that the regulation was interference.

He insisted that $.21 per swipe was no enough and the $5 was needed. He proceeded to talk about all of the back office costs.

The other guy in the debate said some say the cost is on $.04 maybe less and the $.021 was adequate... with a huge profit margin still available to banks (i.e., they erred in the favor of the bank on the cap).

Ok... fine either way it does not matter (IMO).... as a matter of fact... the embedded swipe fee of any sort is embedded like a tax in almost all goods and services. I think even $.21 is too much. Because people who do not use it do not benefit from it but pay for it.

Those hidden swipe fees almost act like an across the board tax whether one uses it or not. We are still getting scr3wed at $.21.

Even if one pays cash... most of the time they are paying goods and service markups for that fee (since it is a cost to the seller).

IMO - Eliminate the hidden swipe fee all together. Let them charge the fee directly back to the consumer that uses it... it will be more market friendly rather than a hidden embedded fee.

If consumers have to pay $5 month for the use... I don't see a problem with it. One only pays if they use it.


Back to his interference comment... No matter what side of the political ideology of regulation... His comments were disingenuous (IMO). If they were really interested in free and open markets, they would let consumers make the choice... they would charge on the people using it and not those who do not!!!

The banks are just p!ssed off because they were able to hide it all those years and no longer can!!! except for $.21.

[KingB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette We use our debit card all the time, as it's very convenient for both budget tracking and speed of use. Each withdrawal is tagged with the business name and amount, which makes reconciling the account data with my version in my tracking software (Quicken or iBank) easy and almost automatic. It's also faster than writing a check, and more loss-resistant than cash. With cash, there's also that "where'd the money go?" feeling when I can't readily account for the usage, and no fallback to any account tracking data. OK, I suppose this makes me sound all obsessive-compulsive, but I really do prefer to track our spending in detail. It makes budgeting easier, among other things.

I can do these same things using a credit card.
I never had a debit card.

[Nemo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingB I can do these same things using a credit card. I never had a debit card.

+1

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco ... IMO - Eliminate the hidden swipe fee all together. Let them charge the fee directly back to the consumer that uses it... it will be more market friendly rather than a hidden embedded fee. If consumers have to pay $5 month for the use... I don't see a problem with it. One only pays if they use it. Back to his interference comment... No matter what side of the political ideology of regulation... His comments were disingenuous (IMO). If they were really interested in free and open markets, they would let consumers make the choice... they would charge on the people using it and not those who do not!!! ...

If I read you right, you are basically saying that the fees should be transparent (if so, I agree).

I don't expect a business to be 'really interested in free and open markets' - they want tot make a profit, and would love to see competition eliminated (though the good/smart ones will act/talk like they welcome competition).

What bothers me is the government regulators' approach to this. Rather than pass laws to increase transparency and open the market, they micro-manage with simplistic limits on specific fees. Like squeezing a balloon, it will just push out somewhere else. Hence, the $5 fee.

I can't figure it out - are the politicians really ignorant to how this would play out (I find that hard to believe)? Is it intentional, so they can tell their constituents that they 'did something, and those bad banks reacted badly again', without really 'punishing' the banks that might be funding their campaigns? Is it all for show?

[mod edit]

-ERD50

[Beryl]

I don't use debit cards for all of the reasons previously mentioned. I also don't pay any bank fees. However, I think those on this forum are disproportionately better off than the masses. We have more money which the financial institutions want so they offer us higher interest on our money, lower interest loans, more credit, no fees, free iPods, etc. How many of us have even visited a PayDay Loan establishment? Get real. Most of us aren't affected by this change.

It is still wrong. I don't agree that this bank HAS to create new fees to raise money to off-set regulations. They can just cut back on their hefty bonuses. We (taxpayers) bailed them out and now they screw us. Yes, even the less advantaged (including those who don't know how or cannot google around for best rates and alternative financial systems) paid taxes. They are being screwed -- big time -- because they can only get debit cards and will be hurt if this fee becomes commonplace.

[M Paquette]

I've decided to opt out.

That is, I am moving my business from the 'too big to fail' gigabank with all the spiffy fees, to a regional bank about half the size of the threshold that all the 'too big to fail' restrictions come in at. I'll be banking at a place that isn't hit by some of those pesky burdensome regulations, isn't a threat to national economic security, but does pay higher interest rates, has no pesky fees for the services I want with the accounts I'll have, and even has a funny sounding name.

They have other nice traits, too. They never took bailout money, and when they originate loans, they keep them in the banks own portfolio rather than securitize them into multiple tranches for resale as collateralized debt obligations offset by appropriate derivative instruments indirectly backed by depositors (and taxpayers).

The only drawback is that the board just gave the CEO and CFO raises, which, while nothing like the gigabanks salary, are still annoyingly large.

Competition. What a concept...

[GregLee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Is it intentional, so they can tell their constituents that they 'did something, and those bad banks reacted badly again', without really 'punishing' the banks that might be funding their campaigns? Is it all for show?

It's all for show. Of course it is -- what else should it be for in a popular democracy? To decide who to vote for, we have to know what politicians have been up to, so they have to show us. Are you complaining that Durbin has not done lasting damage to the banks, since they can make up the fees in another way? Would you really prefer a system in which businesses had no more political influence than the personal votes of executives? I can't figure you out.

[Alan]

sorry folks, getting too political.....

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube