4 ms·

Congress has a shameful record of completely failing to regulate the check cashing industry. Even when they went after predatory credit card practices during th

Congress has a shameful record of completely failing to regulate the check cashing industry. Even when they went after predatory credit card practices during the Obama admin, check cashers were somehow spared. It's reminiscent of how despite massively overwhelming public support, there never seem to be enough votes to reduce prescription drug prices. It would seem some lobbies are just too powerful to be overcome by compassion, sense or even mass public support. In light of those difficulties, this seems like an excellent back door solution to bury a corrosive industry that preys on the poor.

1-more 5y ago
I've often thought about just setting up a table in front of a check cashing store and offering to cash checks for free with my mobile banking app. I HATE how expensive it is to be poor. Yeah I'd end up ripped off at some point but whatever.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I've often thought about just setting up a table in front of a check cashing store and offering to cash checks for free with my mobile banking app can you deposit other people's checks?
  - sct202 5y ago
    People can endorse the check over to you on the back, but most banks won't accept it on mobile. And then if you want to deposit it in person at the bank, they may require everyone involved to be present because there is the risk of fraud. Last year someone stole a check from my mail, forged the signature and endorsed it to themselves and it got cashed successfully.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - 1-more 5y ago
    never tried with an endorsed-to-me check since that has never happened in my life. Would be fun to try. Or a huge hassle.
- generalizations 5y ago
  > Yeah I'd end up ripped off at some point but whatever. I mean, that's why cashing checks has a fee attached, to cover that risk.
  - 1-more 5y ago
    yep. Covers a bunch of other stuff too but it does cover that risk.
- kova12 5y ago
  you will get ripped off before the sun goes down. there is a reason why these places charge such crazy fees. writing a bad check is as simple as it gets and poor neighborhoods are full of desperate people.
oneplane 5y ago
You'd think that at the end of the day a corporate lobby should always lose when pitted against the people.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  "Should" in the moral sense, absolutely! "Should" in the logical or probabilistic sense - "Would" - is more a question of power than of fairness or moral rightness. An evil despot should always lose against a righteous hero, but that doesn't mean they always do.
- michaelt 5y ago
  Not at all. Imagine regulations create an industry that pays 1000 people $100,000 a year, by charging 10,000,000 people $10 per year. Who do you think will campaign harder - the supporters or the opponents of those regulations?
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    It's like the sugar tariff in the US. Just a complete garbage policy that imposes a small individual cost on everyone who buys sugar but benefits like 4 companies with massive profits who lavishly lobby to keep the price floor in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Sugar_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Sugar_Program
    - orangepurple 5y ago
      The sugar tariff is indirectly responsible for the deaths of many Americans because high fructose corn syrup is used in lieu of regular sugar in many foods and beverages instead. Fructose is extremely damaging to the body because the liver can barely metabolize it and most of the excess goes to liponeogenesis which ultimately manifests itself in tremendous buildup of visceral fat, with all the implications that carries. Meanwhile glucose is typically mostly stored alongside muscles as glycogen, and the human body can store far more glucose effectively than fructose.
diogenescynic 5y ago
The number one priority of all voters should be getting money out of politics. We've legalized bribery, so politicians represent donors, not voters. We've got it backwards. Nothing significant can be accomplished until you stop letting politicians take bribes.
- kadoban 5y ago
  It should definitely be up there. Stopping politicians from being able to pick their voters should also be a priority.
awillen 5y ago
I replied to another comment further down but will say it here again - the stereotype of check cashing as a predatory industry is wrong, and it comes largely from people who have never used a check cashing service and conflate it with payday lending, which is a totally different (and extremely predatory) service. For most poor people, checking cashing businesses are both cheaper and more transparent than any other way of getting their checks cashed. This has been studied - they would pay more (and in much less transparent fashion via a series of fees) if they went to actual banks. I recommend reading The Unbanking of America by Lisa Servon to get a real understanding of the industry.
- standardUser 5y ago
  I admit I'm combining payday loans and check cashing into one bucket (since it is one industry providing these different services), and although check cashing rates are much lower than payday loan rates, the average of 2-3% to simply cash a check is still egregious and to me, absolutely unacceptable.
  - awillen 5y ago
    What is the one industry you're speaking of? Financial services? If so, how can you not include banks, which charge vastly more than the 2-3% that check cashing places do after all their fees are included? Sorry that it's not acceptable to you, but in most places check cashing places are the cheapest and best option for the people they serve. Should people be able to cash checks for free? Yes, I think they should, but that's not reality right now. It would be great if check cashing places could cash them well under 2-3% of the cost of the checks, but they're often small checks. These are businesses with rent to pay - they're not making insane profits despite what you may believe. If you put them all out of business because you think they're predatory, then you make all of the people they serve meaningfully worse off. It's fine to acknowledge that there's a problem with banking but not to call check cashing predatory while they're providing the cheapest, most user-friendly solution to that problem. 2-3% is egregious, but if you want to get rid of that you need to actually fix the structural problem, not just criticize companies that are often doing the best job they can given the constraints of a bad system.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yborg 5y ago
The head of the DNC during the Obama years was one of the top recipients of payday loan company lobbying checks and specifically saw to it that this income stream remained uninterrupted. They will certainly kill off this attempt as well. The only ones really at odds with this industry might be organized crime, since it's hard to compete with legal loan sharking.
- elicash 5y ago
  This is true. And bad! But to clarify, DNC doesn't play a legislative role in the party. It's a bigger deal that the Congresswoman is currently one of several Chief Deputy Whips in the House.
  - coredog64 5y ago
    I think this mistakes the difference between de facto and de jure. Sure, you can cross the head of the DNC all you want. As long as you’re also okay with the DNC supporting you being primaried.
    - elicash 5y ago
      DNC doesn't do candidate recruitment, either. This is mostly done by state (and local) parties. Sometimes leaders of DSCC and DCCC, or the Majority Leader, get involved, too. The DNC doesn't get involved in Congressional primaries, either. These committees and their leaders are territorial! It's just not something the DNC would have anything to do with. Leverage on these votes sits firmly with Congressional leadership, which is why I mentioned her leadership role in Congress as being the only thing relevant. They're generally speaking not going to run a primary. What's more likely is messing with committee assignments. And carrots are more common than sticks.

1-more 5y ago

I've often thought about just setting up a table in front of a check cashing store and offering to cash checks for free with my mobile banking app. I HATE how expensive it is to be poor. Yeah I'd end up ripped off at some point but whatever.

gruez 5y ago
>I've often thought about just setting up a table in front of a check cashing store and offering to cash checks for free with my mobile banking app can you deposit other people's checks?
- sct202 5y ago
  People can endorse the check over to you on the back, but most banks won't accept it on mobile. And then if you want to deposit it in person at the bank, they may require everyone involved to be present because there is the risk of fraud. Last year someone stole a check from my mail, forged the signature and endorsed it to themselves and it got cashed successfully.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 1-more 5y ago
  never tried with an endorsed-to-me check since that has never happened in my life. Would be fun to try. Or a huge hassle.
generalizations 5y ago
> Yeah I'd end up ripped off at some point but whatever. I mean, that's why cashing checks has a fee attached, to cover that risk.
- 1-more 5y ago
  yep. Covers a bunch of other stuff too but it does cover that risk.
kova12 5y ago
you will get ripped off before the sun goes down. there is a reason why these places charge such crazy fees. writing a bad check is as simple as it gets and poor neighborhoods are full of desperate people.

oneplane 5y ago

You'd think that at the end of the day a corporate lobby should always lose when pitted against the people.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago
"Should" in the moral sense, absolutely! "Should" in the logical or probabilistic sense - "Would" - is more a question of power than of fairness or moral rightness. An evil despot should always lose against a righteous hero, but that doesn't mean they always do.
michaelt 5y ago
Not at all. Imagine regulations create an industry that pays 1000 people $100,000 a year, by charging 10,000,000 people $10 per year. Who do you think will campaign harder - the supporters or the opponents of those regulations?
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  It's like the sugar tariff in the US. Just a complete garbage policy that imposes a small individual cost on everyone who buys sugar but benefits like 4 companies with massive profits who lavishly lobby to keep the price floor in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Sugar_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Sugar_Program
  - orangepurple 5y ago
    The sugar tariff is indirectly responsible for the deaths of many Americans because high fructose corn syrup is used in lieu of regular sugar in many foods and beverages instead. Fructose is extremely damaging to the body because the liver can barely metabolize it and most of the excess goes to liponeogenesis which ultimately manifests itself in tremendous buildup of visceral fat, with all the implications that carries. Meanwhile glucose is typically mostly stored alongside muscles as glycogen, and the human body can store far more glucose effectively than fructose.

diogenescynic 5y ago

The number one priority of all voters should be getting money out of politics. We've legalized bribery, so politicians represent donors, not voters. We've got it backwards. Nothing significant can be accomplished until you stop letting politicians take bribes.

kadoban 5y ago
It should definitely be up there. Stopping politicians from being able to pick their voters should also be a priority.

awillen 5y ago

I replied to another comment further down but will say it here again - the stereotype of check cashing as a predatory industry is wrong, and it comes largely from people who have never used a check cashing service and conflate it with payday lending, which is a totally different (and extremely predatory) service. For most poor people, checking cashing businesses are both cheaper and more transparent than any other way of getting their checks cashed. This has been studied - they would pay more (and in much less transparent fashion via a series of fees) if they went to actual banks. I recommend reading The Unbanking of America by Lisa Servon to get a real understanding of the industry.

standardUser 5y ago
I admit I'm combining payday loans and check cashing into one bucket (since it is one industry providing these different services), and although check cashing rates are much lower than payday loan rates, the average of 2-3% to simply cash a check is still egregious and to me, absolutely unacceptable.
- awillen 5y ago
  What is the one industry you're speaking of? Financial services? If so, how can you not include banks, which charge vastly more than the 2-3% that check cashing places do after all their fees are included? Sorry that it's not acceptable to you, but in most places check cashing places are the cheapest and best option for the people they serve. Should people be able to cash checks for free? Yes, I think they should, but that's not reality right now. It would be great if check cashing places could cash them well under 2-3% of the cost of the checks, but they're often small checks. These are businesses with rent to pay - they're not making insane profits despite what you may believe. If you put them all out of business because you think they're predatory, then you make all of the people they serve meaningfully worse off. It's fine to acknowledge that there's a problem with banking but not to call check cashing predatory while they're providing the cheapest, most user-friendly solution to that problem. 2-3% is egregious, but if you want to get rid of that you need to actually fix the structural problem, not just criticize companies that are often doing the best job they can given the constraints of a bad system.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

yborg 5y ago

The head of the DNC during the Obama years was one of the top recipients of payday loan company lobbying checks and specifically saw to it that this income stream remained uninterrupted. They will certainly kill off this attempt as well. The only ones really at odds with this industry might be organized crime, since it's hard to compete with legal loan sharking.

elicash 5y ago
This is true. And bad! But to clarify, DNC doesn't play a legislative role in the party. It's a bigger deal that the Congresswoman is currently one of several Chief Deputy Whips in the House.
- coredog64 5y ago
  I think this mistakes the difference between de facto and de jure. Sure, you can cross the head of the DNC all you want. As long as you’re also okay with the DNC supporting you being primaried.
  - elicash 5y ago
    DNC doesn't do candidate recruitment, either. This is mostly done by state (and local) parties. Sometimes leaders of DSCC and DCCC, or the Majority Leader, get involved, too. The DNC doesn't get involved in Congressional primaries, either. These committees and their leaders are territorial! It's just not something the DNC would have anything to do with. Leverage on these votes sits firmly with Congressional leadership, which is why I mentioned her leadership role in Congress as being the only thing relevant. They're generally speaking not going to run a primary. What's more likely is messing with committee assignments. And carrots are more common than sticks.