this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
766 points (98.7% liked)

News

23663 readers
4703 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The cost to overdraw a bank account could drop to as little as $3 under a proposal announced by the White House, the latest effort by the Biden administration to combat fees it says pose an unnecessary burden on American consumers, particularly those living paycheck to paycheck.

The change could potentially eliminate billions of dollars in fee revenue for the nation’s biggest banks, which were gearing up for a battle even before Wednesday’s announcement. Exactly how much revenue depends on which version of the new regulation is adopted.

Banks charge a customer an overdraft fee if their bank account balance falls below zero. Overdraft started as a courtesy offered to some customers when paper checks used to take days to clear, but proliferated thanks to the growing popularity of debit cards.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 96 points 11 months ago (40 children)

I still don't get how folks don't love this president. All these things are great for typical folks like me.

[–] Brokkr 71 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well the repubs stopped him from doing all the things that would have made him amazing, so he obviously totally sucks.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Because it’s all tiny changes that don’t effectively help people. No big structural changes cause the billionaires managed to put a stop to that with their agents in the Senate. And so the average citizen is left to blame the person they see as the cause of it all, cause he’s the big boss obviously.

Citation: gestures at everything

[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago

The things he has done do effectively help people, but since he doesn't constantly brag about it people don't notice.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

yeah still. I have never had so many beneficial things come out of a presidential term in my life.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (8 children)

Trump got us “free cash” and virus test kits. Bush got us “free cash”.

Obama got us crappy healthcare. Which he stole from Republcain Mitt Romney cause Obamacare is literally Republicans dream healthcare system.

Nobody remembers the starting circumstances of the Democratic presidents brought in to clean up Republican messes.

From my interactions with co-workers, it can be that simple. And also the trans trans trans are coming to steal your kids and wife. Diabolical

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

yeah in particular obama was just getting the economy going at the end of his term by slowly raising interest rates and it was trump that railed for lower interest rates to overheat the economy just before covid and is the main reason rates had to be raised at break neck pace under biden. Democrats are burdened with stabilizing the situations that republicans have intentionally destabilized. Like right now they will only allow 2 month budget extensions keeping us on the edge of shutdown constantly. That is no way to run a government.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I would argue that the insulin thing was not tiny at all. Biden has been a good President.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The IRA is a big structural change that puts us on a path where we might actually escape global armageddon. It doesn't get us there, but it puts us on the path and buys us just a little bit of time. And its entire philosophical approach builds constituencies massively, which means the longer it exists, the more it will go into a virtuous cycle. So long as Trump doesn't get in next cycle and dismantle it from within, it will be incredibly sticky.

It's almost certainly the most important bill passed in any of our lifetimes. Not just climate-wise, but legislation-wise. It's very technical and kind of boring, which makes it not as exciting, but it's still absolutely huge.

I don't give a fuck if people hate Biden for whatever reasons they have. But at least this one piece of major progress, somehow passed through an uncontrolled congress, must not be denied. If we deny it, that's probably it for our civilization. If we let the achievement be ignored, climate policy will probably be over and the ecosystem will be allowed to die. Any other issue is petty next to total collapse of the global climate and if passing this bill was ALL he could achieve -- even ignoring some of the other stuff like filling departments with the most diverse crowd ever in American history -- it would still have been a good term for a president. Better-liked presidents have achieved less.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Leading this with - I will vote, and I will vote for democrats if it’s what’s needed.

But the reason I view the (objectively good) things that he’s doing with a grain of salt is that it feels like he’s only doing them because of an impending election.

Why - when the democrats had control of all 3 branches of government in 2020 and 2021 did they not do anything that mattered?
They could have unpacked the courts by expanding them. They could have ensured abortion rights. They could have fixed the voting rights act (or implemented something that addresses gerrymandering, racial or otherwise). They could have overturned Medicare Part D. They could have fixed the compromises made when the ACA was written. They could have fixed the Citizens United decision. They could have amended the TCJA so that the tax cuts for the wealthy sunset alongside with the tax cuts for the poor (or even flipped it, so the tax cuts for the poor are made permanent, and the tax cuts for the wealthy sunset, unlike how it was written)!
They could have done so very, very much. But instead they wrung their hands about Manchin and Sinema, claiming that’s why they were a ‘do-nothing’ congress, and waited to lose the house so they could claim gridlock and return to merely being an alternative to republicans.

But even the core of that justification is dumb. They could have supported candidates prior to 2020 that weren’t just republicans running on the democrat ballot.

The issue I think people have with Biden is not that he himself is a bad guy (although he did contribute majorly to the prison-industrial system in the U.S., and championed preventing student loan discharge through bankruptcy when he was a senator).
It’s that he’s the figurehead of a political party that is more interested in gaming the system than they are in leading the people it is supposed to represent. The only real difference between democrats and republicans in that regard is that republicans deliver on their (often wildly unpopular) policies, and their base respects them for it, even if it means they will die homeless in a polluted gutter.
The Democratic Party, and by extension, Joe Biden, do not lead, and thusly do not earn respect. Their moves are only the smallest incremental moves, and that does not work at a time when the world and society is redefining itself several times within each generation.

Man. Sorry. My soapbox is tall today.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)
[–] [email protected] 78 points 11 months ago (25 children)

Overdraft fees should just be illegal. Bank knows how much money is in there. Don't allow withdraw if it's insufficient.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] nutsack 64 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

overdraft fees only affect people who don't have a lot of money. I remember being ruined by them as a college student several times. they should be illegal. let them figure out how to get the operating revenue from people with more capital.

[–] chiliedogg 53 points 11 months ago (8 children)

I dropped Wells Fargo after they re-ordered my pending payments to maximize overdraft fees.

I'd actually overdrawn like 25 bucks after making a couple 3-5 dollar purchases followed by $50 purchase. They moved the big payment up front so each of those little payments incured a 30 dollar fee.

Fuck them.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

This, never do business with Wells Fargo.

[–] dejected_warp_core 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I had that happen too with BoA, a long time ago. My initial reaction was "how in the fuck is this legal?!"

Then I nearly blacked out as a torrent of un-forgotten media, of all the jokes, comedic hate, and disparaging sentiment towards banks, flooded back to my minds eye.

Sadly, my only answer to this problem was "make more money", which really isn't an answer at all. Later, I switched to a credit union, which I would have done earlier had I known that was an option.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Ultraviolet 53 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

It's actually worse than just debits before credits. It's debits in reverse order of amount, then credits. So if you get your paycheck deposited in the morning, stop for gas, pick up a coffee, go shopping, go home and pay your utility bills and rent, they can order it so the rent goes through first, then the bills, shopping, gas and coffee all trigger separate overdrafts, then the paycheck is added last, stealing hundreds of dollars from you when you didn't spend a cent you didn't have.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure banks already got smacked for this and structuring transactions to maximize fees is illegal now.

[–] Evrala 14 points 11 months ago

I got a few dollars from 5/3 bank cause of a class action for exactly this.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, yes, but counterpoint from my conservative relatives "Why were you simply not more responsible? I never have this problem."

[–] RagingRobot 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Probably because they have enough money in their account to always have padding. People who live pay check to pay check don't have that luxury.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 53 points 11 months ago (14 children)

Why are overdraft fees even allowed?

If the account doesn't have the funds, don't allow the withdrawal.

If someone needs to borrow money, they will use a credit card.

[–] fidodo 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't know if all banks allow it but you can turn overdrafts off and get that exact behavior. It's hard to believe but overdraft protection was originally advertised as a feature.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (3 children)

My credit union isn't great, but one time I was $600 short on my tuition payment and they let the transaction through and gave me a call later that day and asked when I expected to pay it back. I told them two weeks and they said "okay". I'm not even sure I was charged anything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Etterra 9 points 11 months ago

How will the executives and top shareholders afford their private jets if you start taking away their cruelly excessive fees?

For real though, overdraft fees are fucking evil. "Since you are now out of money, you will have to pay back even more of the money you don't have" is just evil.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 11 months ago (5 children)

This is good. What would be even better would be severely slashing APR on incurred credit card debt. Interest should be reasonable amounts that allow people to realistically pay back credit debt without barely being able to keep up with some financial mistakes.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago

Tie credit card rates to savings interest. Let them fight it out.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pjwestin 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is an awesome proposal that 99% of Americans can get behind and I can't wait for our oligarchs to kill this legislation before it ever gets introduced to congress.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cold_Brew_Enema 31 points 11 months ago (3 children)

How about no overdraft fees? You know what we should do to people who have no money? Charge them more money.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is my issue with the whole "charging poor people for not having money" thing. The bank is a business and not a human right. However, most employers require you to have a bank account in order to be paid. Seems to me, if society needs you to have a bank account, it should be nationalized and mandated that everyone is to be given a fee-less bank account. The bank account could be administered by the government. Big banks can still exist and rich people can dump their money into those oil-investing sonsofbitches meat hooks till the cows come home.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (8 children)

I think the us used to have banking through the post office https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_savings_system

Seems like the kind of thing conservatives would hate.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Furbag 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

When I was younger, I was literally living paycheck to paycheck. This was back in the day when you were handed a physical check and had to cash it, so there was a time delay between you getting your money and having to buy things like food to not starve, or gas so you can fuel up your car and go to work so you don't lose your job. I lost count of how many times I overdrafted by just a few dollars, or even a fistful of change. One especially egregious overdraft fee was the result of being overdrafted by $0.02. At one point in time, I called the bank and asked if they could forgive the penalties for accidental overdrafts of only a few dollars or a trivial sum of money spent on necessities. They told me to take a hike, pay the fees or else have my account closed and the balance sent to collections.

I realized I was losing so much money to overdraft fees so frequently that I asked my relatives to lend me some cash to use as a buffer, and only then was I able to finally dig myself out of that hole and get stable, saving the money that would otherwise be lost to frivolous fees to build my own pool of savings. But not everybody has loving and trusting relatives like I do. Some people are all on their own. Even though my financial situation has improved dramatically to the point where I will probably never had an issue with overdrafting ever again, I still want the practice outlawed completely. I hated it so much and I felt like the world was the most unjust place ever that these slimy fucking bankers could hustle someone they know for a fact is broke by burying them in fees and stealing money right from out of their pockets when they got paid.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've been in that situation too. It's so frustrating to me that the banks are essentially robbing poor people, knowing that they're poor.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

The worst was when some banks would reorder their transactions so everything posted before your paycheck. Even though I’d make my deposit before writing checks for rent, insurance, phone bill etc, magically all those clear before the deposit then I’d be like -$700 in the red before payday again. I went to the bank (TCF, now Huntington) to plead my case but they didn’t care. I closed my account there and went to a more reputable bank. Never was a problem again. Now the practice of banks reordering transactions is illegal, I believe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Banks LOVE overdraft fees. Not just big banks. Even your local bank or credit union pays close attention to that "Fee Income" line item which overdraft fees are part of. Fee income is unique in that it doesn't require an increase in assets (by making loans) to generate. It's not technically "free" money for the bank but it's dirt cheap. It's a smaller but also not insignificant source of revenue.

The main problem with overdraft fees is that they are inherently predatory. They automatically target poor(er) people who are more prone to spending money they don't have and are unable to secure cheaper credit. The average overdraft user tends to use it repeatedly and consistently. Overdraft fees are nothing more than an extremely high interest loan. Much like payday lending, it can create a cycle that the borrower is unable to get out of. Best case scenario, the bank is aware of this but has little incentive to do anything about it. I actually worked for a bank at one time that was intentionally lenient with their overdraft policies. It was a good move for the customers but it didn't eliminate the debt cycle.

Banks are required to offer "counseling" to people who routinely overdraw their accounts but that usually is nothing more than a letter that gets mailed out to the customer and nothing more.

Some banks like to be extra shitbaggy about it and will actively structure their policies and batch processing procedures to maximize overdraft fees. Doing things like posting debits to the customers account before credits intentionally on the same day and maintaining a policy that that qualifies as an overdraft. To me, that's just evil and should be illegal.

I think there's multiple issues with overdraft "protection", one of which are excessive fees. Overdraft "protection" routinely contributes to a cycle of bad debt for people who often can't afford to pay their bills much less repay debt with incredibly high interest rates. Some banks justify it as a service that "helps" their customers. I think it's as helpful as a pack of cigarettes. Yeah, it's technically the customers choice to use it. And they shouldn't. It's a really bad deal for them. But more of the responsibility is on the banks here because they know the statistics. They know the mess that they're contributing to. Best case scenario, they turn a blind eye because $$$.

On the other side, consumers as a whole need better financial education. Many of them don't understand that they could do a lot with the money they're spending on fees and interest. Consumers also need to be better about choosing who they do business with and asking questions. Banks are required to disclose all their fees and account policies. Ask for them and ask for an explanation if you don't understand them.

Lastly, don't do business with banks, or anyone for that matter, who clearly has no interest in the well being of their customers. I'm going to pick on Wells Fargo specifically because, ...well, If you don't know what kind of company Wells Fargo is, then you have been living under a rock for a long time. Wells Fargo shouldn't even exist. Their repeated, flagrant criminal activities, violations of the law, and disregard for the well being of their customers should have seen them run out of banking entirely. And they're not the only bank like this, but they're the most egregious. Instead, they still exist because people keep doing business with them. You're a lot more likely to be treated better by a bank or credit union that views you as more than just a random number.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dhork 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

The issue isn't necessarily the amount. People shouldn't overdraw their accounts and it seems prudent for the banks to charge for giving you an impromptu quick loan.

The issue is how fees are applied. Let's say someone overdrew their account for $100. To get there, they had six miscellaneous debits totaling $75, and their rent check, which all hit their account on the same day. Rather then settle it in time order, they decide to settle the largest first, under the theory that customers want their largest checks to have the best chance of clearing in this situation. But the rent check puts them under, incurring a fee, but then when all six miscellaneous debits hit, they each incur a fee also! If the fee is $30, that's $210 just in fees! Even at $3, though, that customer is still paying $21 in fees. But if they processed the rent check last, the account would have only overdrawn once.

If used to be that if there wasnt enough money in the account, the check bounced. Maybe we should go back to that. But if people want overdraft protection, the bank should be limited to just one charge in a statement period. Then they can keep it at $30, but customers don't risk escalating fees just because of the order in which banks process charges.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] wreckedcarzz 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I've only wrote a handful of checks in my life, and I always saw straight through the "we offer to fuck you, for your benefit!" bullshit. Decline their "offer" whenever available, the only one who benefits is the bank. If I don't have enough money now, I don't want the transaction to be approved and get fucked with a $35 fee "for my benefit", and I don't want to be hit with a second fee "for my benefit" when that becomes an "extended overdraft" when - now I know this is hard to believe but - if I don't have money on day 1, I'm very likely to not have money on day 5.

Also, back when banks could more openly fuck you with a smile, BofA would process transactions in this order: debits, then credits. This would cause accounts to fall negative for minutes or even seconds as they processed the pending transactions, and BofA raked in fees. I was a very vocal pain in the ass for my local branch managers, and had that bullshit removed each time, but I had the time to go sit in a shitty crowded bank for an hour and bitch at whoever until I got my $35 back. Anyone with a 9-5 would be fucked.

Banks as a profit center can suck my ass. I've been a "member" of about 20 banks, and there are only 4 I like(d), one of which got acquired by a big bank and the fee list quadrupled while the features were slashed. Be very carefully about where you store your money - thieves are often eager to shake your hand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (7 children)

The thing I don't see anyone talking about is how you can either go in and tell your bank to no longer allow your account to go in the negative making it so your funds just stop and can't spend more negating overdraft fees. Or, like I did go in and open a credit line specifically designed to withdraw when you overdraft. This also negates the fee. It does accrue interest like any credit if you are unable to pay it back when it's due but still you don't have overdraft fees. Like overdraft fees are just lazy people tax. Not even poor people tax cause it's super easy to get them to go away. 🙄

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Heck if overdraft fee's are only 3$ I would have over drafted all day when I was younger. That's free borrowed money

Honestly banks should just block debit cards and return checks if it's short by any amount. Get rid of all that funny business all together.

[–] DrDr 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)

It's not free borrowed money but I'm sure someone with poor financial literacy may see it that way (which is like the majority of young people). If you over drafted $30 it is a 10% fee, and that's every time you run your card buying something. It's a fee you will pay with your future potential wealth.

My parents removed overdraft from my account after my sister overdrafted her card all the time in HS. It should not be on by default and it should be legally mandated that you have to sign a waiver understanding that overdraft is a shitty fee designed to keep you from ever building wealth or savings.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Reposting this from below because I think more people need to see it-

If this works, making overdraft fees $3 is fucking huge.

Some points, directly from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

• Among households that frequently incurred overdraft/NSF fees, 81% reported difficulty paying a bill at least once in the past year.

• Among consumers in households charged an overdraft fee in the past year, 43% were surprised by their most recent account overdraft, 35% thought it was possible, and only 22% expected it. Consumers who overdraft infrequently are more likely to be surprised by a fee

• While just 10% of households with over $175,000 in income were charged an overdraft or an NSF fee in the previous year, the share is three times higher (34%) among households making less than $65,000.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-issues-report-showing-many-americans-are-surprised-by-overdraft-fees/

load more comments
view more: next ›