More bad news for bank customers: Debit card fees

[red states rule]

Thanks to Obama's "Wall Street Reform' bill, people are being told they will have to pay a fee to keep and use their debit card

Of course, the liberal media is overlooking this pesky detail. When the government interfered and caped the fees charged to merchants by the bank - the bank is going to look somewhere else to make up that money

and it is the consumer who gets the bill

More hope and change for the working folks





Bank of America will start charging debit-card users $5 a month to pay for purchases. The move comes as the cards increasingly replace cash and as banks look for ways to offset the loss of revenue from a new rule that will limit how much they can collect from merchants.
Paying to use a debit card was unheard of before this year and is still a novel concept for many consumers. But several banks have recently introduced or started testing debit card fees. That's in addition to the spate of other unwelcome changes checking account customers have seen in the past year. Bank of America will begin charging the fee early next
year.

Bank of America's announcement carries added weight because it is the largest U.S. bank by deposits.

The fee will apply to basic accounts, which are marketed toward those with modest balances, and will be in addition to any existing monthly service fees. For example, one such account charges a $12 monthly fee unless customers meet certain conditions, such as maintaining a minimum average balance of $1,500.

Customers will only be charged the fee if they use their debit cards for purchases in any given month, said Anne Pace, a Bank of America spokeswoman. Those who only use their cards at ATMs won't have to pay.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BANK_OF_AMERICA_DEBIT_FEE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-29-21-22-40

[logroller]

Thanks to Obama's "Wall Street Reform' bill, people are being told they will have to pay a fee to keep and use their debit card

Of course, the liberal media is overlooking this pesky detail. When the government interfered and caped the fees charged to merchants by the bank - the bank is going to look somewhere else to make up that money

and it is the consumer who gets the bill

More hope and change for the working folks

Wait, so banks want to get paid for the services they provide to their customers-- the gall! :rolleyes:

Doesn't hold a candle to the courtesy pay fees IMO.

[red states rule]

Wait, so banks want to get paid for the services they provide to their customers-- the gall! :rolleyes:

Doesn't hold a candle to the courtesy pay fees IMO.

Bottom line, this is another bust for Obama and the Dems. As with Obamacare, we were told the cost of health ins would go DOWN but the cost is going UP

It is amazing how liberals will never learn how the free market works. When you increase the cost of doing business, the business will always find a way to offest the increase.

and it usually is the workers or the cusotmers who will pay the difference

[logroller]

Bottom line, this is another bust for Obama and the Dems. As with Obamacare, we were told the cost of health ins would go DOWN but the cost is going UP

It is amazing how liberals will never learn how the free market works. When you increase the cost of doing business, the business will always find a way to offest the increase.

and it usually is the workers or the cusotmers who will pay the difference

What do merchant vs service fees have to do with healthcare? Sounds to me like all that changed is now the person actually using the service is now made to pay for it-- that is free-market.
Don't want to pay the fees---there's always the old-fashioned government provided debit system
2506

[fj1200]

What do merchant vs service fees have to do with healthcare? Sounds to me like all that changed is now the person actually using the service is now made to pay for it-- that is free-market.
Don't want to pay the fees---there's always the old-fashioned government provided debit system

The previous method was also the "free-market," it's just that a government regulation has changed who is going to pay under the government's new definition of free.

[chloe]

I'll just write checks;)

[Gunny]

Wait, so banks want to get paid for the services they provide to their customers-- the gall! :rolleyes:

Doesn't hold a candle to the courtesy pay fees IMO.

I've got a problem with paying the fee. The bank already holds my money and collects interest on it. I also have an issue with Obama finding yet another way into our pockets. This clown just doesn't get it. He's determined to send us down the toilet like Europe. What's the point of existing in a cookie-cutter world designed to pamper those that cannot do for themselves if you don't get to LIVE?

[chloe]

I've got a problem with paying the fee. The bank already holds my money and collects interest on it. I also have an issue with Obama finding yet another way into our pockets. This clown just doesn't get it. He's determined to send us down the toilet like Europe. What's the point of existing in a cookie-cutter world designed to pamper those that cannot do for themselves if you don't get to LIVE?


Exactly those banks got enough of our taxpayor money with the bailout:laugh2:

[logroller]

I've got a problem with paying the fee. The bank already holds my money and collects interest on it. I also have an issue with Obama finding yet another way into our pockets. This clown just doesn't get it. He's determined to send us down the toilet like Europe. What's the point of existing in a cookie-cutter world designed to pamper those that cannot do for themselves if you don't get to LIVE?


hence why they don't charge you a fee when your avg balance remains above a certain level. Obama's not getting into our pockets here folks, the banks are! Does government receive the fee, NO. And its not the merchant who chooses to USE the card, they just accept it as a form of payment. I seem to remember a lot of people railing against corp taxes because they just pass those costs onto consumers, so wouldn't the merchant paying all of the transaction costs just cause him to raise prices-- causing inflation of prices for everybody regardless of their form of payment. Me thinks you just want to blame Obama for everything he does. This one makes sense.

[Gunny]

hence why they don't charge you a fee when your avg balance remains above a certain level. Obama's not getting into our pockets here folks, the banks are! Does government receive the fee, NO. And its not the merchant who chooses to USE the card, they just accept it as a form of payment. I seem to remember a lot of people railing against corp taxes because they just pass those costs onto consumers, so wouldn't the merchant paying all of the transaction costs just cause him to raise prices-- causing inflation of prices for everybody regardless of their form of payment. Me thinks you just want to blame Obama for everything he does. This one makes sense.

Regardless. One of the reasons I use the bank I do is because I don't have to pay dumb fees. If that changes, so will my bank.

[logroller]

Regardless. One of the reasons I use the bank I do is because I don't have to pay dumb fees. If that changes, so will my bank.

So paying for a service you use is dumb eh? Sounds a little liberal there Gunny-- maybe we should merge this thread with Bird Brained Hypocrisy.:poke:

[Gunny]

So paying for a service you use is dumb eh? Sounds a little liberal there Gunny-- maybe we should merge this thread with Bird Brained Hypocrisy.:poke:

Nothing liberal about it. Paying for a service I did not have to pay for means they broke the original deal that allows them to hold and use my money. I don't charge them a fee for that. Changing the rules at halftime doesn't cut it with me.

[logroller]

Nothing liberal about it. Paying for a service I did not have to pay for means they broke the original deal that allows them to hold and use my money. I don't charge them a fee for that. Changing the rules at halftime doesn't cut it with me.

You are mistaken,if you have money in the bank for them to hold and use, then you don't pay a fee-- that didn't change! Now if you don't keep money in there for them to use and don't a pay a fee, that makes you a free-rider on the debit train-- and somebody else's $ is being used to pay for your transaction cost. You think somebody else should pay for your convenience? I don't.

[red states rule]

Folks you can send a Thank You card to Dick Durbin for this





If we had a "Dim Bulb of the Year" award, we would give it to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. How better to honor someone who so ostentatiously proposes a policy with obvious unintended consequences, then gets angry when they predictably come to pass?
During the debate over the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, when Democrats controlled Congress, Durbin insisted on including an amendment that had nothing to do with Dodd-Frank's stated aims of stable banks and consumer protections. The Durbin amendment granted regulators the authority to establish price controls on what banks could charge merchants that accepted their customers' debit cards as payment. The resulting regulations, which took effect Oct. 1, limit what banks can charge merchants to no more than 24 cents per debit card transaction.

Critics pointed out that banks, facing $6 billion annual losses from this change, would shift the costs of debit cards from merchants to bank customers. Sure enough, Bank of America and several of its largest competitors -- including Wells Fargo, PNC, HSBC, SunTrust, TDBank, and Chase -- will be imposing various new fees on their customers to make up for Durbin's folly.
But Bank of America drew Durbin's particular ire because its management directly blamed Durbin by name for the new $5 per month charge it is leveling at customers who make purchases with their debit cards. "Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers," Durbin said in a petulant statement released this week. This might almost pass the laugh test, if not for the fact that every bank is adjusting to Durbin's dumb law in nearly the same way.

It's not that Durbin couldn't have seen this coming. Visa, among others, blasted the Durbin amendment at the time, saying that the Senate "adopted [it] with no debate or review of facts." The company warned that the law would "shift [retailers'] cost for accepting debit cards onto the backs of consumers."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/10/durbin-fees-are-coming-thanks-progressives

[logroller]

Folks you can send a Thank You card to Dick Durbin for this

Haven't I heard you say corp taxes just get passed onto the customers? How is this different; other than its a private company imposing a fee, not government imposing a tax?

What do you think retailers did before-- eat it? Nope. They passed it off to the customers too; all of them, by raising the price. If you don't want to pay five bucks-- pay cash or use a check or keep your balance high enough the bank doesn't charge you. Hell, don't use a bank if you're that pissed off about the bailouts still. But this law serves to increase transparency of market transactions. The difference now is,

NEW WAY --the individual is now paying for the transaction costs they themselves generate;
--as opposed to --
OLD WAY ---everybody paying for it, on every transaction, regardless of their payment method.

What's so hard to accept about this?--you generate a cost, you pay for it! Pretty straight forward market activity.

[fj1200]

You are mistaken,if you have money in the bank for them to hold and use, then you don't pay a fee-- that didn't change! Now if you don't keep money in there for them to use and don't a pay a fee, that makes you a free-rider on the debit train-- and somebody else's $ is being used to pay for your transaction cost. You think somebody else should pay for your convenience? I don't.


Haven't I heard you say corp taxes just get passed onto the customers? How is this different; other than its a private company imposing a fee, not government imposing a tax?

What do you think retailers did before-- eat it? Nope. They passed it off to the customers too; all of them, by raising the price. If you don't want to pay five bucks-- pay cash or use a check or keep your balance high enough the bank doesn't charge you. Hell, don't use a bank if you're that pissed off about the bailouts still. But this law serves to increase transparency of market transactions. The difference now is,

NEW WAY --the individual is now paying for the transaction costs they themselves generate;
--as opposed to --
OLD WAY ---everybody paying for it, on every transaction, regardless of their payment method.

What's so hard to accept about this?--you generate a cost, you pay for it! Pretty straight forward market activity.

I think what you've hit on is behavioral economics. People will do extreme things to avoid paying a seen fee (5$) even though they may ultimately be better off with paying lower prices (at the retailer or bank) and now may have to start toting cash around. You are, however, not looking at the retailer side and the advantages that they receive by participating in the debit card program. They receive their money instantly without the risk of holding cash and the inconvenience (going to the bank) and risk (of bad checks) of receiving payment via check. If banks stop offering debit card convenience to retailers because their revenues are limited then they may exit the market; Is that good for the consumer?

You may be exactly right on a theoretical basis but I think where consumers are not going to investigate all seen/unseen costs of their banking/retail transactions, the benefits will be thin and the intrusion needless.

[Gunny]

You are mistaken,if you have money in the bank for them to hold and use, then you don't pay a fee-- that didn't change! Now if you don't keep money in there for them to use and don't a pay a fee, that makes you a free-rider on the debit train-- and somebody else's $ is being used to pay for your transaction cost. You think somebody else should pay for your convenience? I don't.

You're talking in circles trying to be right. The selling point to attract customers to my bank WAS no transaction fees. If that's gone, my incentive to stay with them is also gone. It's THAT simple. THEY offered the deal. Not me. So let's quit trying to make this into I'm trying to make someone else pay my service fees. According to the deal the bank made with me, I don't have any service fees to pay. How does someone else have to pay for something currently nonexistent?

[logroller]

You're talking in circles trying to be right. OK no more circles-- I am right.
The selling point to attract customers to my bank WAS no transaction fees. Did you get a sub-prime ARM too--pretty attractive.
If that's gone, my incentive to stay with them is also gone. It's THAT simple. THEY offered the deal. Not me. You were fooled, or contently ignorant. If you keep your balance high or don't use your debit card -- you still won't have any transaction fees. It's THAT simple.

So let's quit trying to make this into I'm trying to make someone else pay my service fees. because that's exactly what it was, and its annoying when the free-ride comes to an end!
According to the deal the bank made with me, I don't have any service fees to pay. How does someone else have to pay for something currently nonexistent? There was ALWAYS a fee for a card transaction-- YOU just didn't pay for it, the merchant did. The merchant then increased the price to cover it; so you paid for it anyway. You ever noticed when they offer a different price on gas for cash or credit. Why do you think that is?

[Zona]

Note to all. If you are a member of NFCU (Navy federal credit union) all 7/11's offer no fee transactions on their atm's. I love that. I just got back from a quick trip from San Diego and had to use an atm at some bank. $3.00 charge plus an automatic $1.00 deduction. So it cost me 24 bucks to use $20.00 because I could not find a 7/11 quickly.

Damn.

[ConHog]

This is why I use cash. I'm not paying someone else for the privilege of spending MY money.

[red states rule]

Now Dick Durbin (who once comapred our troops to Naiz's and Pol Pot) is angry with BOA for trying to recover the money HIS bill cost them




Holding up a plastic debit card on the Senate floor this afternoon, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., had some advice for Bank of America customers angry about the new $5 monthly fee: leave.


“Bank of America customers, vote with your feet, get the heck out of that bank,” Durbin said on the Senate floor. “Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage.”

Durbin said consumers are rightfully outraged about last week’s announcement.
“It is hard to believe that a bank would impose such a fee on loyal customers who simply are trying to access their own money on deposit at Bank of America,” he said. “Especially when Bank of America for years has been encouraging their customers to use debit cards as much as possible.”

Most basic checking accounts at Bank of America will see a 40 percent jump in monthly costs and the bank says the debit fee will be waived for customers who upgrade to “premium” accounts that require higher minimum balances.

The Dodd-Frank financial law this month lowers “interchange fees” that banks can charge retailers for debit transactions. Fees for retailers will shrink from 44 cents to a cap of 24 cents, which has led some debit card issuers to seek other ways to make up that lost revenue. Some people have blamed Durbin for his amendment, which capped the so-called swipe fees that banks can charge retailers.

“I am honored to be connected with this effort,” Durbin said today. “What we are doing is fair to try to strike some balance in an industry that has shown little or no balance. And one of the worst offenders in this is Bank of America, the largest bank in the United States.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/durbin-to-bank-of-america-customers-get-the-heck-out-of-that-bank/