If they are truly junk fees then the cap should be $0.
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
334 points (98.8% liked)
Economics
472 readers
288 users here now
founded 2 years ago
$0 would probably mean there's no way it sticks.
If the fee is zero, the bank will just stop giving people over deaft which is how it should work anyway.
Only time I over drafted is because of a mistake.
But people also use overdraft as payday loan and these fees target them. So bank will need some fee to enable these "loans"
Why do we need to prevent payday loans in this manner? seems like the best way to have them. just put an upper bound and a interest rate on negative balances over a month old. you know... just like how a credit card works.
Because banks don't want this viewed as payday loans and the regulations it would attract.
They are punishing bad behavior is better justification for the extraction operation.
what are credit cards if not payday loans. and you didnt touch on anything relevant to my point. no one should gives a shit what banks think. its about whats good for the community.
you were asserting that the fees are to prevent people from using them as pay day loans. but banks already have that system its a credit card. why not just have over drafts tie into the credit card system and avoid this whole set of nonsense.
Credit cards have zero interest if I pay off the balance in full each month. That is not an option for payday loans.
Yes, thats why low limit credit cards are a better model than payday loans and was my point for both payday loans and overdraft fees.
People who need pay day loans can't get from credit cards... That's kinda the entire business model here
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is how progress dies, by half assing everything and blaming it on speculation that it couldn't work if done right.
I'm 50/50 on that. I agree, but it's more complicated in action than just saying "the fee is now zero." This isn't the first time Biden has tried to get rid of overdraft fees. Courts strike it down.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
I like how they put “cracking down” in quotes.
Isn’t the CFPB one of the agencies that conservatives are trying to get rid of?
Waaay back in the 80s I had a US Bank account called "The Only Account". It was a savings and checking account joined together. The checking account always had a zero balance. When I wrote a check the bank transferred money from savings to checking and paid the check. Why didn't they just have one account, I wondered? They said it was because federal banking regulations didn't allow them to pay interest on checking accounts. So they had this nifty workaround. Fine by me! They didn't charge me anything for each check, just a small monthly account fee which I don't remember, and I never had to balance my checking account because it never had a balance, or worry about moving money into it. It was perfect!
Flash forward to the 90s when I got married and moved from Portland OR to Seattle. I walked into a US Bank to find out if I had to do anything to move my Only Account to their branch.
"Only Account"? the employee asked. "We don't have anything like that."
"Oh yes you do," I retorted. "Here's my US Bank checkbook. It says Only Account right on it."
"Ohhhh... that's US Bank of Oregon, we're US Bank of Washington." At this point she started talking to me like I was in kindergarten. "You see, we're like cousins - same family but not the same company. We have different rules."
"That's interesting," I said. "The New York Stock Exchange thinks it's ONE company called US Bank (symbol USB). I've personally owned the stock myself."
After some more mumbling I made her give me back the check I had given her for deposit and the application I had partially filled out, and I just took my money to my wife's credit union, where we've had a joint account ever since.
The point of this story is that banks don't need to create an overdraft account for you, deposit money into it as a loan when you overdraw a check, charge you interest on the loan, and charge you $15 or whatever for every time they do this. I don't know if US Bank of Oregon still has the Only Account or if they wised up to the missed profit potential and joined the "Oh I'm sorry we can't do that" crowd, but the truth is that banks CAN dispense with all the overdraft nonsense, BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING IT 40 YEARS AGO AND IT WORKED GREAT.
You’ll never guess who these fees impact the most.
~~Great another fee that will be reversed in 3 weeks. How about doing this shit four years ago?~~
I should not let my bad mood make me post reactionary nonsense without looking into it further.
No you were right, cfpb is under the executive, he could have done this day one.
Only if you ignore the fact that he tried such tactics with the EPA to curb emissions and the courts ruled they didn't have lawful rights to make those changes without them being directly voted on by Congress. Similar happened with him trying to expand student loans forgiveness with the SAVE act within the department of education. Both of those fall under the executive branch, yet neither got through. Which just goes to show this being under the executive branch does not mean they can get it past the courts unless the conservative judges that blocked those allow it.
Except the court has upheld both qualified immunity and presidential absolute immunity; meaning Biden could order the executive to ignore the court as past presidents have done.
That's not what immunity is. It would make him immune from prosecution for attempting to perform the act, but the act would still be stopped if they don't want it to occur.
Ignore the court as past presidents have done? Can you name one time this has happened, because unless you are referring to Abraham Lincoln in the 1800s who was never challenged, I don't know of any such events.
The President is not a king
Andrew Jackson for one. But no, with immunity the act can be done and there's not much anyone except Congress can do.
So your saying President: "Banks you can only charge $5" Courts: that's not constitutional JP Morgan: "fuck off president"
What is the country going to take them to court and lose?.. who already would have stated the outcome of the case before it started
Arrest the bank president, hold them indefinitely without trial. Executive is the enforcement branch, they decide what actually gets done.
The bank would sue immediately. The President would be thrown out and we would have to pay restitution out of the tax payers money.
It would be a good step at destroying the democratic party though. You decided to illegally arrest the leader of a large corporation, and hold them with no legal means. Really it can ONLY go bad. And the president would definitely be considered a dictator until he was disposed of.
Edit: The executive branch isnt to make up rules/laws, as we have seen this corrupt court stick to the idea that presidents who aren't Republicans must go through Congress to have rules approved, which they just don't need to listen to his requests, as we saw with him requesting this as a bill in 2021.
Again with what actual authority? Only Congress can remove a president. The lie you were taught that there are checks and balances is observably false. The courts only have power if the executive lets them have power, otherwise there is nothing they can do.
Their orders require enforcement.
Yes, Congress would impeach him without a second thought. Both the Republicans and Democrats would. Every member of congress thats election was funded by any corporation would vote so. The majority of the country would vote to if they had a choice. A, he's a Democrat, and B he went against the democratic Republic he is supposed to be serving.
I wasn't taught lies, you seem to be lying to yourself on how this country is run though. It sounds like you just want a dictatorship
Note: look what happened in Korea, it would be similar. Notice he didn't magically have all the power. Impeachment and arrest warrant I believe currently.
As we saw with Trump, impeach does absolutely nothing.
I believe US laws are Byzantine enough that a claim that a law was broken would be possible. A claim that a law was broken is the only thing needed to justify an arrest. It then goes to court to see if the law actually was broken.
Impeach did nothing with Trump because the Senate was held by the Republican party and chose not to have him removed. Both houses have to agree for the removal.
It's a 2/3 majority in the senate to remove. Republicans do not control 2/3rds.
Yes? What are you trying to say? The votes are public, you can look to see which Republicans voted to have him removed and which didn't for both removals. 67 votes needed as you said. He was acquitted both times by the Senate. Senstors like Mitt Romney voted for removal both times I believe.
You claimed Biden would be impeached if he allowed a bank executive to be arrested.
I said even if he was impeached it wouldn't matter. Republicans don't have the 2/3rd majority to dismiss him.
I also said the Democrats would vote to dismiss him. I doubt anyone would not vote to remove him as he would be clearly ignoring the checks and balances and if Congress allowed him to ignore the Supreme Court, it would mean he congress wouldn't have the power to balance anything either if they didn't. Aka a full on dictatorship. Even the skevy Congress members would vote to keep power and order
Trump had his minions overrun the capital in an attempt to assassinate the vice president along with key Democrats and Republicans didn't vote to convict.
Democrats absolutely would not vote to convict over a bank executive being charged with a crime and arrested.
Except it isn't a crime, no written law as Congress decided they didn't want it, so there are no charges, and the courts said it's unconstitutional... So the arrest was illegal, the detaining is illegal and I'm not sure why it's even a debate as it would never happen because the president isn't dumb enough to do that.
Also if they didn't vote to remove him the U.S. populous should forcibly remove him, for overthrowing a democracy.
It falls under the umbrella of fraud.
That there isn't a specific law about that specific practice is up to the courts to decide.
If I obtained a new product from a new store using a new method I could still get arrested under the umbrella of "stealing" even though there wasn't a specific law for my crime.
H.R.4277 - Overdraft Protection Act of 2021
He started this in 2021. Remember he had to start his 4 years trying to wrangle inflation going buck wild. The guy's not the greatest possible president but he has been working towards shit like this for all 4 years. What we should ask is why did it take so long to pass Congress... Because if the effective start date of a bill occurs during their presidency the Republicans can take credit. Kind of like how Trump changed the sentences of those 3000+ people, and then Biden got the blame by Republicans for pardoning the 1500 left as per the agreement written and signed in March 2020.
why did it take so long to pass Congress
H.R.4277 never did pass Congress; it didn't even make it to a vote in the House. This new policy is coming from the CFPB.
Also Biden did not pardon those 1500; he commuted them to time served.
load more comments
(1 replies)
As someone who has been struggling lately, I could really use this... I have to dip just to make ends meet and it's $30 for every transaction. I try to plan it so the one big bill takes the hit to minimize impact.
If you have the option, I'd recommend switching to a credit union.
My CU has a small line of credit set up for me that protects from overdraft fees if I make a mistake. Should I ever overdraft, it'll deduct from that instead, and then I'm on the hook for mere pennies instead of dollars.
My bank actually offered me something similar. I didn't take them up on it because I know it's subjected to credit approval, and I am in absolutely no position to be approved anyway. Plus, this line is great for this, but it can also be used for other things, and I honestly don't need the temptation to further my issues.
Watch it have some provision included that allows them to change how often they charge this fee or something.
thank god we won't have to go through four more years of this!!! /s
view more: next ›