4 ms·

Seems to me, what would happen is: 1) Banks would determine they need to replace the revenue from all the fees. This means either lowering interest rates, elim

Seems to me, what would happen is: 1) Banks would determine they need to replace the revenue from all the fees. This means either lowering interest rates, eliminating services, charging a monthly fee for all formerly free accounts, or hiring less people. (We're already seeing a lot of this under the Dodd-Frank legislation). 2) ...forget option 2. Initially I was going to say the small-claims courts would have a backlog of claims filed by banks against those who aren't paying the fees...but the filing fees would likely be more than a bank wanted to pay, unless someone had quite a few overdrafts. Simple thing is, a checking account is not a credit card account. If you have one, you should know enough to know how money works. Are overdraft fees annoying? Yes. We've all had to pay them. But under the current system, we all have a choice as to whether or not we pay them. The simple choice is: balance your checking account. Punishing the banks for an individual not taking responsibility for his or her own money is shortsighted at best, and unsustainable at worst.

breck 14y ago
Thanks for your comment. You bring up the exact point that the banks bring up to justify this, and I hope I can make you think about it in a different way. I would argue that people don't really have a choice about whether to overdraft. Have you ever accidentally tripped while walking? I have. In fact, I probably do it a few times a year. Do I choose to trip? No. I choose to walk, and sometimes tripping happens. Now imagine if every time I accidentally tripped, someone charged me $30. That would be pretty absurd, right? Well that's exactly what happens with overdraft charges. People who are just trying to walk--trying to hold a job and pay their bills--occasionally trip and the bank takes $30 from their account with no discussion. These people aren't choosing to trip, they are just trying to walk. The part that motivates me to speak out about this, is that the only people getting charged $30 for tripping, are those who can least afford it, or speak up for themselves. If the banks suffered when someone tripped, then the question would be more open. But it doesn't cost a bank anything to simply decline overdraft charges without charging a fee. Maybe it did a while ago. It doesn't anymore, not when balances are checked digitally.
jrogers65 14y ago
It's not a hypothetical scenario. Plenty of banks work under Sharia Law and prohibit usury. Hell, the majority of the world's population was emphatically against usury for a long time. > Are overdraft fees annoying? Yes. We've all had to pay them. But under the current system, we all have a choice as to whether or not we pay them. The simple choice is: balance your checking account. Punishing the banks for an individual not taking responsibility for his or her own money is shortsighted at best, and unsustainable at worst. This argument is rooted in a logical fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

breck 14y ago

Thanks for your comment. You bring up the exact point that the banks bring up to justify this, and I hope I can make you think about it in a different way. I would argue that people don't really have a choice about whether to overdraft. Have you ever accidentally tripped while walking? I have. In fact, I probably do it a few times a year. Do I choose to trip? No. I choose to walk, and sometimes tripping happens. Now imagine if every time I accidentally tripped, someone charged me $30. That would be pretty absurd, right? Well that's exactly what happens with overdraft charges. People who are just trying to walk--trying to hold a job and pay their bills--occasionally trip and the bank takes $30 from their account with no discussion. These people aren't choosing to trip, they are just trying to walk. The part that motivates me to speak out about this, is that the only people getting charged $30 for tripping, are those who can least afford it, or speak up for themselves. If the banks suffered when someone tripped, then the question would be more open. But it doesn't cost a bank anything to simply decline overdraft charges without charging a fee. Maybe it did a while ago. It doesn't anymore, not when balances are checked digitally.

jrogers65 14y ago

It's not a hypothetical scenario. Plenty of banks work under Sharia Law and prohibit usury. Hell, the majority of the world's population was emphatically against usury for a long time. > Are overdraft fees annoying? Yes. We've all had to pay them. But under the current system, we all have a choice as to whether or not we pay them. The simple choice is: balance your checking account. Punishing the banks for an individual not taking responsibility for his or her own money is shortsighted at best, and unsustainable at worst. This argument is rooted in a logical fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis