Led by Gumby, the U.S. Senate has officially voted to repeal the rule capping bank overdraft fees

[Born2BKing]

Can one of you TLRepublican confirm how this is a good thing for the working class?

 

[Pure Water]

Edit 3

Putting this at the top for anyone confused about my opinion. I’m not talking about overdraft fees or any other fee like credit card interest. I’m specifically talking about the fee to keep the account open if you don’t meet their stipulations. I should have made my statement clearer. My bad for the confusion.

On the surface I agree with this. $5 now and $5 5 years from now ain't the same. That $5 may not be adequate enough to cover the cost of business or maintain revenue.

What I think should happen instead is banks need to be clearer about fees with customers. Customers should also receive at least two free fee waivers on their accounts (I think most banks do this anyway). Customers need to be notified by phone and email that they are in danger of incurring a fee if whatever stipulations that causes the fees are violated before a fee is levied. Basically people just need to be informed.

There are no shortage of credit unions and online banks that do not have fees or have less fees than major banks that people can switch to.


Am I tripping about having this opinion or is it a valid one? I'm open to having my opinion changed on this.

Edit: Added slight opinon change below.

While there's truth in that; I guess my point is... so what?

Here what I can do. I can meet in the middle here. I personally think the fee structure and how much they charge should be evaluated every so-something years to meet inflation at the time. $5 dollars today may not be worth $5 years from now (whether higher or lower than today). They should change the maximum on this limit based on how much our money is worth. But I do not think banks should be disbarred from charging fees at all. It's their business and one that people are using. My pain point was talking about how people should be more informed on these accounts they're signing up for and the banks should be responsible for making sure the customers are getting these notifications and solutions to avoid the fees. But if fees are truly unavoidable for many people, they should move their money.

I will also say that maybe every bank should be required to one free checking account with essential functionality for said account.

Does that seem fair?

Edit 2:

I preach banks being forced to inform their customers more so than straight up ending fees because they are privately owned businesses. They (in theory) should be able to charge however much they want for services. The market should decide that. However, I understand that banks are and need to be heavily regulated just do to how essential they are in our society. So as a privately own entity but one who many people rely on, what's to be done? I for sure wasn't complaining about Biden rule, but I'm conflicted on private companies being able to make money how they want to within reason.

So maybe I don't fully agree with the rule being removed, but I do think the max fee structure should be able to be looked at and adjusted on some time period basis.

 

[Outlaw]

On the surface I agree with this. $5 now and $5 5 years from now ain't the same. That $5 may not be adequate enough to cover the cost of business or maintain revenue.

What I think should happen instead is banks need to be clearer about fees with customers. Customers should also receive at least two free fee waivers on their accounts (I think most banks do this anyway). Customers need to be notified by phone and email that they are in danger of incurring a fee if whatever stipulations that causes the fees are violated before a fee is levied. Basically people just need to be informed.

There are no shortage of credit unions and online banks that do not have fees or have less fees than major banks that people can switch to.


Am I tripping about having this opinion or is it a valid one? I'm open to having my opinion changed on this.

 

[DonB90]

On the surface I agree with this. $5 now and $5 5 years from now ain't the same. That $5 may not be adequate enough to cover the cost of business or maintain revenue.

What I think should happen instead is banks need to be clearer about fees with customers. Customers should also receive at least two free fee waivers on their accounts (I think most banks do this anyway). Customers need to be notified by phone and email that they are in danger of incurring a fee if whatever stipulations that causes the fees are violated before a fee is levied. Basically people just need to be informed.

There are no shortage of credit unions and online banks that do not have fees or have less fees than major banks that people can switch to.


Am I tripping about having this opinion or is it a valid one? I'm open to having my opinion changed on this.

Man shut the fukk up.


Respectfully

 

[Elim Garak]

On the surface I agree with this. $5 now and $5 5 years from now ain't the same. That $5 may not be adequate enough to cover the cost of business or maintain revenue.

What I think should happen instead is banks need to be clearer about fees with customers. Customers should also receive at least two free fee waivers on their accounts (I think most banks do this anyway). Customers need to be notified by phone and email that they are in danger of incurring a fee if whatever stipulations that causes the fees are violated before a fee is levied. Basically people just need to be informed.

There are no shortage of credit unions and online banks that do not have fees or have less fees than major banks that people can switch to.


Am I tripping about having this opinion or is it a valid one? I'm open to having my opinion changed on this.

 

[Bryan Danielson]

On the surface I agree with this. $5 now and $5 5 years from now ain't the same. That $5 may not be adequate enough to cover the cost of business or maintain revenue.

What I think should happen instead is banks need to be clearer about fees with customers. Customers should also receive at least two free fee waivers on their accounts (I think most banks do this anyway). Customers need to be notified by phone and email that they are in danger of incurring a fee if whatever stipulations that causes the fees are violated before a fee is levied. Basically people just need to be informed.

There are no shortage of credit unions and online banks that do not have fees or have less fees than major banks that people can switch to.


Am I tripping about having this opinion or is it a valid one? I'm open to having my opinion changed on this.

 

[beenz]

Can one of you TLRepublican confirm how this is a good thing for the working class?

I hate that c00n Tim Scott

 

[Pure Water]

Man shut the fukk up

Constructive.

 

[Pure Water]

Also, I am not a republican.

 

[tuckgod]

The only laws that matter are the ones passed by Congress then signed by the President.

 

[DonB90]

Also, I am not a republican.

You don't see anything wrong with taxing people who obviously aren't in the financial space to withstand anymore taxing.

You're a 100% Republican even if you don't know it

 

[Outlaw]

Also, I am not a republican.

You’re taking the side of banks who have billions or trillions of dollars in assets vs people who are struggling obviously because they generally wouldn’t be over drafting if they were doing well financially

 

[thelonious21]

On the surface I agree with this. $5 now and $5 5 years from now ain't the same. That $5 may not be adequate enough to cover the cost of business or maintain revenue.

What I think should happen instead is banks need to be clearer about fees with customers. Customers should also receive at least two free fee waivers on their accounts (I think most banks do this anyway). Customers need to be notified by phone and email that they are in danger of incurring a fee if whatever stipulations that causes the fees are violated before a fee is levied. Basically people just need to be informed.

There are no shortage of credit unions and online banks that do not have fees or have less fees than major banks that people can switch to.


Am I tripping about having this opinion or is it a valid one? I'm open to having my opinion changed on this.

Negged

 

[Canon]

On the surface I agree with this. $5 now and $5 5 years from now ain't the same. That $5 may not be adequate enough to cover the cost of business or maintain revenue.

What I think should happen instead is banks need to be clearer about fees with customers. Customers should also receive at least two free fee waivers on their accounts (I think most banks do this anyway). Customers need to be notified by phone and email that they are in danger of incurring a fee if whatever stipulations that causes the fees are violated before a fee is levied. Basically people just need to be informed.

There are no shortage of credit unions and online banks that do not have fees or have less fees than major banks that people can switch to.


Am I tripping about having this opinion or is it a valid one? I'm open to having my opinion changed on this.

man said think of the banks

 

[Pure Water]

You don't see anything wrong with taxing people who obviously aren't in the financial space to withstand anymore taxing.

You're a 100% Republican even if you don't know it

You're using their services. Of course they can charge a fee.

But this goes back to my point I made before. If you can't afford the fee, go into a branch or call them and see what accounts they offer that can help you avoid the fee, or move your money to a different bank. Even before the rule change, there were account that were free at credit unions and smaller regional banks. You're not forced to stay with the same bank forever.