Quantcast
Politics

Bad Idea: Congress Blocks Checking Overdraft Fees

Banks can afford to offer free checking accounts with no minimum balance, to responsible people, only because they can charge overdraft fees to irresponsible people.  But Congress has now prohibited many overdraft fees, which will result in many banks eliminating free checking, and also require responsible people to subsidize irresponsible people.  This is chronicled in a Wall Street Journal news story entitled “End Is Seen to Free Checking.”

As the Journal notes,  “Bank of America Corp. and other banks are preparing new fees on basic banking services as they try to replace revenue lost to regulatory rules, in a push that is expected to spell an end to free checking accounts for many Americans. Free checking accounts, which have been widely available for more than a decade, have been a boon to middle-class consumers and attracted low-income customers to the banking system for the first time. Customers will likely be required to pay new monthly maintenance fees on the most basic accounts that don’t generate a lot of activity. To avoid a fee, customers will have to maintain certain account balances or frequently use other banking services, such as credit and debit cards, automated teller machines and online accounts. ‘If you put $1,000 in a checking account and don’t do anything with it, it will be hard to get that for free,’” thanks to the new rules.

This is becoming a pattern for Congress, passing laws forcing responsible people to subsidize irresponsible people.  It did the same thing with the bailouts, and with the CARD Act of 2009, which effectively forced responsible credit cardholders to subsidize irresponsible credit cardholders.  That credit card law, which limited what banks could charge irresponsible credit holders,  led to the return of annual fees on some credit cards, and wiped out many cash-back and rewards programs.

The elimination of free checking thanks to Congress’s unwise restrictions on overdraft fees will harm low-income people by driving them back to check-cashing stores that charge them money to cash every check. “The offers of free checking without any minimum balance requirements attracted a new wave of low-income customers, who previously went to check-cashing stores.”


Get More:

Comments

User Removed's picture

Abusing the system

Banks have been going virtually unregulated for decades. Everything has become predatory to the point of gross violations of anti trust laws , usury, and outright corruption.

I think it's fair to charge a reasonable fee for bouncing a check. On the other hand , I don't think it's fair to process the same bounced check three times in rapid succession for triple fees, or to wait over a week to notify a customer there's a problem.

It's been years since the last time I goofed on my checking account, but I continue to resent how some of those goofs were handled by the bank. In the course of a lifetime, even careful and responsible people make a mistake. For example, forgetting to record a check. If a customer is notified right away, the mistake may be corrected right away. The last time I had a problem, it was over a week before I received a letter from the bank of a NSF check. The scam seems to be to wait as long as possible to notify a customer so as to maximize the error for maximum gain.

That aside, my biggest beef with banks is the arbitration clauses and prohibitions against class actions. Not only is there a derth of oversight at the regulatory level, there is no mechanism for redress in the courts. In the same vein, banks write their contracts in such a way as it is not a contract at all. Banks may change the agreement at will, and nothing that was binding yesterday is binding tomorrow. The deal you originally agreed to is only binding on you, not the bank. If the bank decides it doesn't want to honor the argreement, the bank changes it and you're stuck with whatever extortionate scam the bank wants to stick you with.

People are getting mad, but they're not nearly as mad as they ought to be. We no longer live in a democracy . We live in a corporate dictatorship.

SolarSanitizer's picture

I agree.

"I think it's fair to charge a reasonable fee for bouncing a check. On the other hand , I don't think it's fair to process the same bounced check three times in rapid succession for triple fees, or to wait over a week to notify a customer there's a problem."

This has happened to me. The bank blamed it on the business that the check was written to. The business blamed it on the bank. I paid the fees. In triplicate. At the same time, I converted my account to a check-less one. Card only.

Never had that problem again. Now when I make a mistake, I am only charged once, but the charge has been slowly increasing over the years.

I agree that people who make errors should pay for those errors. I think it is good common sense to think that way. I oppose this action by Congress and wonder how it benefits the banks . Of course the banks will profit from this, but don't yet know how.

The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.

ecuadmail's picture

They'll

raise rates. Cause a fuss with their consumers and get the government to repeal it. (Hopefully) then they'll keep the rates the same anyway so they make money from over drafts AND the fees. Very sneaky :D

rkm's picture

I cant stand.....

companies that charge you to be their customer. Something is not right with that picture. I myself am currently in the process of eliminating this way of doing business in my life. I am not going to pay some business for me to be their customer. If I have to, I have no problems in not even having a bank. I may have to do without some things but, I am no longer playing this game.

ecuadmail's picture

I agree

I hate McDonalds charging me to eat at their restaurant. How dare they!

Just a little joke RKM. I can see your point when it comes to banks . But not businesses in general. It seems a might odd.

rkm's picture

And...

I rank that up there with employers that charge their employees to park.

ecuadmail's picture

Haha

awesome. I hope never to have that experience.

SolarSanitizer's picture

One or the other.

Perhaps I am confused here, but in this example, BofA is considering charging customers for one of the services the bank offers.

This pisses you off? Please explain your position. Either you are being completely unreasonable or I am confused. Which is it and why?

The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.

bhall's picture

Bank of America

is a sad example of a corporation with America in it's name, they have been raping the public for years. It is starting to get around now though that BOA is borderline criminal.

Close x
Don't Miss Out! |
Like us on Facebook?