3 ms·

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

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.

standardUser 5y ago
"...but in most places check cashing places are the cheapest and best option for the people they serve" Yes, this is one-hundred percent precisely the problem! Cashing a check for me costs $0.00 because I have a bank account. The unbanked do not have this luxury, yet they are in much greater need in keeping every penny than I am. The USPS offering a cheaper way to cash checks would be a vast improvement. That fixes the problem (but then again, so would legislation setting a max check cashing fee of $3.00 or something similar - moves like that were made to reign in ridiculous credit card fees and the world kept turning).
- awillen 5y ago
  Yes, that is the problem, and yes, USPS banking would solve it. I haven't disagreed with either of those things. But here, again, you're talking about the check cashing industry, and to be blunt you have no idea what you're talking about. "so would legislation setting a max check cashing fee of $3.00 or something similar" - read this page carefully: https://www.walmart.com/cp/check-cashing/632047 https://www.walmart.com/cp/check-cashing/632047. Walmart's max fee for checks up to $1000 is $4. The problem is that a lot of people are cashing small checks - even if it only costs $2, somebody cashing a $50 check is still paying 4%. But what are check cashing places supposed to do? Charge pennies to cash small checks? They have fixed costs that aren't going to be covered by amounts that small. So yes, it is a problem that people can't cash checks for free. But that's not a problem with the check cashing industry, it's a problem with the financial system as a whole. You should read the book I recommended before you keep criticizing - you're just being a keyboard warrior who's never set foot inside a check cashing business criticizing something you don't understand. Here's an actual solution for you - the government requires all banks to cash all checks under a certain size, regardless of whether someone has an account at that bank. The government is then responsible for reimbursing any money lost to fraudulent checks (and prosecuting those who pass them).
  - coredog64 5y ago
    That last bit is a possibly huge unintended consequence. Crimes that would typically be a misdemeanor suddenly turn into federal charges when the USPS is involved. Would we see an increase in federal prosecutions for passing bad checks if postal banking is widespread?
    - awillen 5y ago
      I'm not sure what the significance of the fact that they would be federal prosecutions is. You say misdemeanors would turn into federal charges, but that's not how it works - they'd still be misdemeanors, just charged by the federal government instead of the government of an individual state.

standardUser 5y ago

"...but in most places check cashing places are the cheapest and best option for the people they serve" Yes, this is one-hundred percent precisely the problem! Cashing a check for me costs $0.00 because I have a bank account. The unbanked do not have this luxury, yet they are in much greater need in keeping every penny than I am. The USPS offering a cheaper way to cash checks would be a vast improvement. That fixes the problem (but then again, so would legislation setting a max check cashing fee of $3.00 or something similar - moves like that were made to reign in ridiculous credit card fees and the world kept turning).

awillen 5y ago
Yes, that is the problem, and yes, USPS banking would solve it. I haven't disagreed with either of those things. But here, again, you're talking about the check cashing industry, and to be blunt you have no idea what you're talking about. "so would legislation setting a max check cashing fee of $3.00 or something similar" - read this page carefully: https://www.walmart.com/cp/check-cashing/632047 https://www.walmart.com/cp/check-cashing/632047. Walmart's max fee for checks up to $1000 is $4. The problem is that a lot of people are cashing small checks - even if it only costs $2, somebody cashing a $50 check is still paying 4%. But what are check cashing places supposed to do? Charge pennies to cash small checks? They have fixed costs that aren't going to be covered by amounts that small. So yes, it is a problem that people can't cash checks for free. But that's not a problem with the check cashing industry, it's a problem with the financial system as a whole. You should read the book I recommended before you keep criticizing - you're just being a keyboard warrior who's never set foot inside a check cashing business criticizing something you don't understand. Here's an actual solution for you - the government requires all banks to cash all checks under a certain size, regardless of whether someone has an account at that bank. The government is then responsible for reimbursing any money lost to fraudulent checks (and prosecuting those who pass them).
- coredog64 5y ago
  That last bit is a possibly huge unintended consequence. Crimes that would typically be a misdemeanor suddenly turn into federal charges when the USPS is involved. Would we see an increase in federal prosecutions for passing bad checks if postal banking is widespread?
  - awillen 5y ago
    I'm not sure what the significance of the fact that they would be federal prosecutions is. You say misdemeanors would turn into federal charges, but that's not how it works - they'd still be misdemeanors, just charged by the federal government instead of the government of an individual state.