$5 to use your debit card


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

BofA to assess a $5/month fee for debit card use.

I think this is a mistake, because I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Rather, it will drive people back to checks, which cost more to process.

Thoughts?

The Exchange

I gave up on BoFa a long time ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad I bank with a credit union.


Crimson Jester wrote:
I gave up on BoFa a long time ago.

Fair enough, but they may not be the only ones to try it. Do you think it will stick?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Arrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhh I hope this does not stick.


So instead I use my credit card, which charges me no fee, and pay off my bill every month. My credit card makes the profit instead of them. Sounds like a solid plan for BofA.


bugleyman wrote:

BofA to assess a $5/month fee for debit card use.

I think this is a mistake, because I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Rather, it will drive people back to checks, which cost more to process.

Thoughts?

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

Basically this is because banks lost a lot of income after the obama credit act thing. There are other things banks are doing, like no truly free accounts, but such is the nature of the beast.

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card. If you're really worried use a credit card and pay it monthly.

There is no sense whining about something that you're not required to do. I'm not suggesting the OP is whining, but a lot of people are.

Times change. Adapt or die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smash the banks!


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

Basically this is because banks lost a lot of income after the obama credit act thing. There are other things banks are doing, like no truly free accounts, but such is the nature of the beast.

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card. If you're really worried use a credit card and pay it monthly.

There is no sense whining about something that you're not required to do. I'm not suggesting the OP is whining, but a lot of people are.

Times change. Adapt or die.

Oh, I was totally whining. :)

Personally, this will just drive me toward cash + the very occasional check. Of course, I go out of my way to avoid fees I feel are excessive. In fact, I don't think I've paid an reimbursed ATM fee in years. I just wonder how many people feel the same way, vs. how many will just grumble and pay the fee. My guess (and hope) is that this is beyond the tipping point for enough people to ultimately make it a losing proposition for banks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crimson Jester wrote:
I gave up on BoFa a long time ago.

Are you ready to give up on all banking? Bank of America deserves it's name of Bank of Evil, but dollars to donuts, the rest will follow suit, unless a real big stink is made and people vote with their dollars.


bugleyman wrote:


Oh, I was totally whining. :)

Personally, this will just drive me toward cash + the very occasional check. I just wonder how many people feel the same way, vs. how many will just grumble and pay the fee. My guess (and hope) is that this is beyond the tipping point for enough people to ultimately make it a losing proposition for banks.

Use online banking (Through the bank, not your payee) and you can pay all your bills without using checks. The bank will send physical checks to people as needed. Also saves you on postage. I have been for years and I don't remember the last time I used my checkbook.

I also use my credit card now and just pay it off whenever I think about it. Usually a few times a month. My credit card is through my bank, so it's easy to do online.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

BofA to assess a $5/month fee for debit card use.

I think this is a mistake, because I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Rather, it will drive people back to checks, which cost more to process.

Thoughts?

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

Basically this is because banks lost a lot of income after the obama credit act thing. There are other things banks are doing, like no truly free accounts, but such is the nature of the beast.

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card. If you're really worried use a credit card and pay it monthly.

There is no sense whining about something that you're not required to do. I'm not suggesting the OP is whining, but a lot of people are.

Times change. Adapt or die.

i used to work at a bank myself. I assure you, once enough people "adapt" to their banks decision on this, it will be the banks that are dying.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

BofA to assess a $5/month fee for debit card use.

I think this is a mistake, because I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Rather, it will drive people back to checks, which cost more to process.

Thoughts?

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

Basically this is because banks lost a lot of income after the obama credit act thing. There are other things banks are doing, like no truly free accounts, but such is the nature of the beast.

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card. If you're really worried use a credit card and pay it monthly.

There is no sense whining about something that you're not required to do. I'm not suggesting the OP is whining, but a lot of people are.

Times change. Adapt or die.

You're not wrong, but...

Have you considered that the whining comes from a legitimate concern? That things that we're used to getting as part of the whole package are being stripped away at the expense of the consumer?

Banks, as a whole, have a LOT of money. BofA isn't hurting for the cash, they just need the extra percent in growth YoY. If they're not increasing their profit, they're not doing it right in the eyes of investors. So things like this go on to appease the owners.

Consumers just might be perfectly aware of this, and they don't want to take another shafting to please some suits with bunches of money in the first place.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Use online banking (Through the bank, not your payee) and you can pay all your bills without using checks. The bank will send physical checks to people as needed. Also saves you on postage. I have been for years and I don't remember the last time I used my checkbook.

I also use my credit card now and just pay it off whenever I think about it. Usually a few times a month. My credit card is through my bank, so it's easy to do online.

This. I only use my debit card for atm withdrawals. There are fewer protections if the card number gets taken. I use my credit card as a debit card with a 25 day float. :) Pay it off every month.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

... boil bagels properly instead of serving me bread doughnuts?

Grand Lodge

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card.

I work at a bank, and as far as I know, we have no intention of charging a monthly fee for debit card usage. We're a smaller local bank though, so I dont know if you would have been counting us in your 'all banks' statement.

Also, how much does a box of checks cost where you work? At mine a customer can get them for less than $20/box.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Times change. Adapt or die.

I've adapted. I'm a credit union member.


Freehold DM wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Times change. Adapt or die.
i used to work at a bank myself. I assure you, once enough people "adapt" to their banks decision on this, it will be the banks that are dying.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for the banks in the long run. I'm merely saying it is. Regardless time will tell.


godsDMit wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card.

I work at a bank, and as far as I know, we have no intention of charging a monthly fee for debit card usage. We're a smaller local bank though, so I dont know if you would have been counting us in your 'all banks' statement.

Also, how much does a box of checks cost where you work? At mine a customer can get them for less than $20/box.

Small banks probably won't. I imagine it has to do with volume of check card users.

3X12=36.

2X20=40.

Granted that's the low end, but close enough. The point was that it's not a big deal.


Swivl wrote:


You're not wrong, but...

Have you considered that the whining comes from a legitimate concern? That things that we're used to getting as part of the whole package are being stripped away at the expense of the consumer?

Banks, as a whole, have a LOT of money. BofA isn't hurting for the cash, they just need the extra percent in growth YoY. If they're not increasing their profit, they're not doing it right in the eyes of investors. So things like this go on to appease the owners.

Consumers just might be perfectly aware of this, and they don't want to take another shafting to please some suits with bunches of money in the first place.

Right or wrong the masses don't make the rules. The people with money do. And of course they're going to gouge the consumer at every opportunity. It's called Capitalism and it's worked pretty well for quite some time.

If you believe the sugar coating about banks (or other large institutions) caring about you as an individual than you need to step back and re-evaluate. You use them and they use you, however the deck is stacked in favor of the larger party (banks). If they could legally make as much money by knocking you down on the street and taking it they would. The trick is to balance keeping you as a customer while simultaneously siphoning off as much money as they can.

They're not evil. They're a business and like any other business they're just trying to make money. Just because they're big and have money does not mean they're suddenly going to be a charity instead of a business.


bugleyman,

I saw the title of this thread and was sure someone, somewhere was looking to pay 5 bucks for the opportunity to use someone else's Debit Card. :D

My feeling is if they can get away with charging their customers 5 bucks a month for the use of a Debit Card, more power to them. They are a business, after all.

-- Andy

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
... boil bagels properly instead of serving me bread doughnuts?

never mind that that was a mispost.


bugleyman wrote:

BofA to assess a $5/month fee for debit card use.

I think this is a mistake, because I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Rather, it will drive people back to checks, which cost more to process.

Thoughts?

Is anyone, other than Durbin, surprised banks are looking for ways to replace the revenue lost due to Durbin's amendment?

I wonder what percentage of people will go back to checks vs switching to credit cards. I've noticed a lot of BofA credit card advertisements lately. Retailers pay a higher fee for credit card transactions then they do for debit cards, even before Dubin's cap on debit fees. Banks probably want consumers to toss the debit cards and use credit cards instead.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Times change. Adapt or die.

Or just switch to a bank that doesn't charge stupid fees. There are plenty of them. I use INGDirect, no stupid ATM fees, they don't even charge overdraft fees, and pay interest on the checking account. Lots of credit unions have reasonable policies on fees as well.

I be honest I'm amazed that banks that charge silly fees are still around... I guess people are willing to adapt to anything, including stupid bank fees they don't have to pay.

The Exchange

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

BofA to assess a $5/month fee for debit card use.

I think this is a mistake, because I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Rather, it will drive people back to checks, which cost more to process.

Thoughts?

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

Basically this is because banks lost a lot of income after the obama credit act thing. There are other things banks are doing, like no truly free accounts, but such is the nature of the beast.

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card. If you're really worried use a credit card and pay it monthly.

There is no sense whining about something that you're not required to do. I'm not suggesting the OP is whining, but a lot of people are.

Times change. Adapt or die.

Yup, this. The host for our Runelords campaign is a bank manager (not BofA), he told us awhile back that this was going to happen. Nothing to be done for it now, unless you go the smaller bank/credit union route.


Dennis Baker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Times change. Adapt or die.

Or just switch to a bank that doesn't charge stupid fees. There are plenty of them. I use INGDirect, they don't even charge overdraft fees. Lots of credit unions have reasonable policies on fees as well.

I be honest I'm amazed that banks that charge silly fees are still around... I guess people are willing to adapt to anything, including stupid bank fees they don't have to pay.

For the record I bank with USAA so I don't personally have to bother with any of this nonsense.

However, Banks are private businesses who can conduct themselves however they want (unless it's illegal).

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

For the record I bank with USAA so I don't personally have to bother with any of this nonsense.

However, Banks are private businesses who can conduct themselves however they want (unless it's illegal).

Did I suggest otherwise?

A fool and his money are soon parted and all.


Dennis Baker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

For the record I bank with USAA so I don't personally have to bother with any of this nonsense.

However, Banks are private businesses who can conduct themselves however they want (unless it's illegal).

Did I suggest otherwise?

A fool and his money are soon parted and all.

I think we're saying the same thing using different words.

I may be overly sensitive to the subject. As a big bank employee I'm just tired of hearing people talk about it like the bank just punched their baby in the face.


Mandor wrote:


Is anyone, other than Durbin, surprised banks are looking for ways to replace the revenue lost due to Durbin's amendment?

Banks, and other corporations, look for ways to make revenue when they can. They don't wait for one source to be taken away before looking for another.

Now they may use regulation as an excuse and hope not to lose customers if they say the government made us do this, but that's a different story.

Anyone remember when ATMs first came out they were going to save banks so much money because they wouldn't need so many tellers? Remember how all that savings was passed along to the customers in the form of fees to use the ATMs. Wait...

Oh well. I bank at credit union.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Dennis Baker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

For the record I bank with USAA so I don't personally have to bother with any of this nonsense.

However, Banks are private businesses who can conduct themselves however they want (unless it's illegal).

Did I suggest otherwise?

A fool and his money are soon parted and all.

I think we're saying the same thing using different words.

I may be overly sensitive to the subject. As a big bank employee I'm just tired of hearing people talk about it like the bank just punched their baby in the face.

Noone is going to like this though. You can't be upset with people for being upset when they have a good reason to. Also, you do not use said bank -there is going to be a disconnect there.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I think we're saying the same thing using different words.

I may be overly sensitive to the subject. As a big bank employee I'm just tired of hearing people talk about it like the bank just punched their baby in the face.

*shrug*

Quote:

Patient: Doctor, Doctor, Every time I drink a cup of coffee I get this stabbing pain in my eye!

Doctor: I suggest you take the spoon out!

Don't whine about the fees, stop paying them. When enough customers go to non-fee banks and credit unions banks will stop charging fees or go out of business. The cost of switching to a new bank is fairly small and it's mostly just laziness preventing people from doing it.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Dennis Baker wrote:
...it's mostly just laziness preventing people from doing it.

I'm not lazy! I just don't want to do anything!


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I may be overly sensitive to the subject. As a big bank employee I'm just tired of hearing people talk about it like the bank just punched their baby in the face.

Your bank just kicked me!


Jess Door wrote:
Dennis Baker wrote:
...it's mostly just laziness preventing people from doing it.
I'm not lazy! I just don't want to do anything!

Lol. It's true. Most people choose a bank based on nothing but convenience. I'm no exception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Noone is going to like this though. You can't be upset with people for being upset when they have a good reason to. Also, you do not use said bank -there is going to be a disconnect there.

I'm not upset that they're upset. I'm upset that I have to hear about it. I'm just a teller. You can yell at me all day long and nothing will change. It's not like I have a bat phone that rings the CEO.

**Bat ring**
"Hello"
"yes sir, Mrs. Smith doesn't like the $3 fee."
"ok, we'll get rid of it for everyone."
*hangup*

"Mrs. Smith, Thanks to your ranting at the lowest paid employee in the company the entire banking fee structure for this bank and many other will now be changed to whatever makes you most comfortable."

**end scene**

Basically I get that people are upset. I just lost my capacity to care. If you don't like the way your bank does business get a new one. Don't bother the front end employees at your bank. Regardless of what they say or do I assure you they don't have anything resembling power.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

WWTDD?

What Would Tyler Durden Do?

:D


Mr. Fox wrote:


WWTDD?

What Would Tyler Durden Do?

:D

Exactly!


Mr. Fox wrote:


WWTDD?

What Would Tyler Durden Do?

:D

Urinate in the soup?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Right or wrong the masses don't make the rules. The people with money do. And of course they're going to gouge the consumer at every opportunity. It's called Capitalism and it's worked pretty well for quite some time.

If you believe the sugar coating about banks (or other large institutions) caring about you as an individual than you need to step back and re-evaluate. You use them and they use you, however the deck is stacked in favor of the larger party (banks). If they could legally make as much money by knocking you down on the street and taking it they would. The trick is to balance keeping you as a customer while simultaneously siphoning off as much money as they can.

They're not evil. They're a business and like any other business they're just trying to make money. Just because they're big and have money does not mean they're suddenly going to be a charity instead of a business.

Except as far as the banks go after 2008/2009, they are not operating under Capitalism. Not after you, I and every one else in the US bailed out most of the major financial institutions instead of letting them fail as they would have in a true Capitalism model.

I'm not saying that move was necessarily a bad thing (total or near total economic collapse would have been worse), though it sure as hell was not an overly good thing either. I'm just saying that they are operating under a model of Capitalism is far from the truth.


I never used my debit card in the first place mainly because I am too lazy to activate it on the phone.


zylphryx wrote:


Except as far as the banks go after 2008/2009, they are not operating under Capitalism. Not after you, I and every one else in the US bailed out most of the major financial institutions instead of letting them fail as they would have in a true Capitalism model.

I'm not saying that move was necessarily a bad thing (total or near total economic collapse would have been worse), though it sure as hell was not an overly good thing either. I'm just saying that they are operating under a model of Capitalism is far from the truth.

They're still operating under Capitalism. Not a 100% pure laissez faire model, but no one's ever operated under that. It's still far more Capitalism than not.


thejeff wrote:
zylphryx wrote:


Except as far as the banks go after 2008/2009, they are not operating under Capitalism. Not after you, I and every one else in the US bailed out most of the major financial institutions instead of letting them fail as they would have in a true Capitalism model.

I'm not saying that move was necessarily a bad thing (total or near total economic collapse would have been worse), though it sure as hell was not an overly good thing either. I'm just saying that they are operating under a model of Capitalism is far from the truth.

They're still operating under Capitalism. Not a 100% pure laissez faire model, but no one's ever operated under that. It's still far more Capitalism than not.

That. Plus the bailout made me less than thrilled, but that's another topic and I am admittedly not an economist.

Scarab Sages

Swivl wrote:
Banks, as a whole, have a LOT of money. BofA isn't hurting for the cash, they just need the extra percent in growth YoY.

Yes and no. Traditionally, where do banks get their money? From loans. Most people have probably noticed that interest rates are at all time lows. I mean seriously low rates. We're doing 30 year fixed rate mortgages at less than 4% right now. But what does that mean? That means that if interest rates are lower, then banks are not making as much on their primary source of income. You can only go so low on interest rates before it really starts tapping into an institution's income.

Here's another issue going on. The government needed someone to blame for the recession and the "housing crisis" among other things. So for the past few years they've been implementing a lot of new regulations that came out and will continue to roll out over the next year or so. One of these new regulations makes it so that the financial institution cannot charge businesses any where close to what they've been charging them for credit card transactions. Every time you swipe your debit card/credit card, someone pays a fee. On debit card transactions the financial institution pays. On credit card transactions the place of business pays. This is largely why so many credit cards offer "incentives" like frequent flyer miles, money for school books, cash back and so on. This is probably going to go away soon as a result of recent legislation.

But in the case of debit card/credit card transactions -- if you used it as a credit card the financial institution made money and if you used it as a debit card the financial institution paid money -- but it would kind of balance out. Now if the place of business doesn't pay for the transaction, the financial institution ends up in "the red" overall.

If this is coming across as defending Bank of America or other financial institutions -- it's not. There are lots of things that, especially the larger financial instutions, are not doing or are doing that they should. This specific instance, however, is really a case of they are used to a specific income stream that has recently been denied to financial institutions. Think about how big this potentially is for a business like Bank of America. How many times a day do you think a credit card gets swiped at say one grocery store. Just one. Let's say that the financial institution has been used to getting $2 for each transaction. Now multiply that on a national scale. Financial institutions might have been able to make this up in the past by increasing rates. But not in this environment.

Unfortunately, things are tough. Like so many other things, the government tries to "fix" something without fully grasping the end consequences.

Scarab Sages

I'm finding I have so much to say on this but I'll try to be brief...

People think that banks are "made of money". Except that money is technically yours -- not theirs. By putting your money in a financial institution, you are authorizing them to invest your money. It's really as simple as that. There are other fees and things, but this is the primary source of income for a financial institution.

Now if it costs 4% of all the money that they have loans on just to operate and the interest rates are say 6%, well then all is good. But if interest rates drop and continue to drop and stay low for a long time -- well the cost of doing business hasn't come down all that much. But most car loans are around 2% or less right now. 15 year mortgage rates are at around 3.375% right now. Now it's suddenly costing the institution to stay going.

This is also compounded with the fact that fewer people are getting loans. They are refinancing the loans they have to lower rates, but they are not taking out any additional money like they were in the past. So not only are the interest rates on money lent out lower than they've ever been, but the amount of money lent out is shrinking.


So, isn't checking that much more inefficient for them?

It's kinda like when Wal Mart has those change machines that charge you 5 cents on the dollar. I'll go to your damn checkout line with a bunch of nickels, man...what do I care?


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Dennis Baker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

For the record I bank with USAA so I don't personally have to bother with any of this nonsense.

However, Banks are private businesses who can conduct themselves however they want (unless it's illegal).

Did I suggest otherwise?

A fool and his money are soon parted and all.

I think we're saying the same thing using different words.

I may be overly sensitive to the subject. As a big bank employee I'm just tired of hearing people talk about it like the bank just punched their baby in the face.

The banks cheated people on their mortgages and caused the whole housing crisis and caused the entire economic recession/depression and then got billions in bailout money (welfare for the rich).

The banks take advantage of tax loop-holes and offshore tax havens and avoid paying their fair share of taxes, all while our government is in a deficit "crisis".

Yes they do it legally. Because they have bought our politicians. Again, they have done that legally because our political system is one that depends on money in order to run a political campaign.

So, yes, completely legally the big banks have completely subverted our democracy AND have trashed our economy. You think there's nothing wrong with that. I say they should be broken up and states should open their own not-for-profit banks and the scumbags who brought us this economic meltdown and mortgage fraud should go to jail and you should get up off your knees and wipe your chin.

Scarab Sages

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

So, isn't checking that much more inefficient for them?

It's kinda like when Wal Mart has those change machines that charge you 5 cents on the dollar. I'll go to your damn checkout line with a bunch of nickels, man...what do I care?

"Inefficient"? Yes. But in the end, it doesn't really cost them anything. The little credit card/debit card machines provide a "service" -- so people can charge something.

The further problem with checks is that more and more institutions won't accept them because they're not as secure as card transactions. It's much more difficult to make sure a check will clear than it is to get the magic "approved" on the credit card machine.

Scarab Sages

Citizen117 wrote:
The banks cheated people on their mortgages and caused the whole housing crisis and caused the entire economic recession/depression and then got billions in bailout money (welfare for the rich).

There is a lot more to the mortgage issue than just the banks. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Also, the "billions in bailout money" wasn't as nice and clean as people think it was. It was basically a loan from the government. A lot of mortgage companies ended up getting burned from it as a result.

There were individuals who should have been held much more accountable than they were and there was a lot of money paid out because of "parachute" plans (or something like that). That I'm not denying. But the institutions themselves really didn't gain anything from this whole fiasco.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

So, isn't checking that much more inefficient for them?

It's kinda like when Wal Mart has those change machines that charge you 5 cents on the dollar. I'll go to your damn checkout line with a bunch of nickels, man...what do I care?

"Inefficient"? Yes. But in the end, it doesn't really cost them anything. The little credit card/debit card machines provide a "service" -- so people can charge something.

The further problem with checks is that more and more institutions won't accept them because they're not as secure as card transactions. It's much more difficult to make sure a check will clear than it is to get the magic "approved" on the credit card machine.

Those bastards! ;)


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

BofA to assess a $5/month fee for debit card use.

I think this is a mistake, because I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Rather, it will drive people back to checks, which cost more to process.

Thoughts?

I work at a bank. All US banks are moving toward doing this. The fee varies from bank to bank. Wells Fargo is $3 and Regions is $6 (i think someone is 6 anyway).

Basically this is because banks lost a lot of income after the obama credit act thing. There are other things banks are doing, like no truly free accounts, but such is the nature of the beast.

I'm amazed how upset people are getting over this. Buying two boxes of checks will cost you more than the yearly fee for using your debit card. If you're really worried use a credit card and pay it monthly.

There is no sense whining about something that you're not required to do. I'm not suggesting the OP is whining, but a lot of people are.

Times change. Adapt or die.

When I switched to using my BofA debit card everywhere instead of carrying cash, adapting was exactly what I was doing. They, and vendors everywhere, certainly encouraged it. That was the way the world was headed: electronic. BofA is now exploiting this situation out of greed.

We all like you, TCG, but as you say, you work for a bank. That might be putting you in a different mindset than it does those of us who support our families paycheck to paycheck in these very tough times, and are about to be skewered again by banks that are already bleeding billions out of people and are run by CEOs who are afraid they might have to sell one of their six mansions off, or maybe settle for four yachts instead of five.

In rebuttal, I offer the bit at the bottom of the article:

But Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the swipe-fee cap in an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, said the cap simply evens out the playing field for retailers because the fees Visa and MasterCard had set for banks "grossly exceed the cost of processing a debit card transaction by some 400%."

"After years of raking in excess profits off an unfair and anti-competitive interchange system, Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers," Durbin said in a statement Thursday. "It's overt, unfair and I hope their customers have the final say."

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / $5 to use your debit card All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.