OT: Chase sucks………………….fees fees fees fees fees fees

[KSMountain]

Yeah I was just starting to answer, meadanale, I’ll go ahead anyway…

The term “bounced check” is not new, and it has always had a negative connotation. There is a reason for that.

I was probably aware of the term and the implications even as a 9 year old in the 60’s. It wasn’t that hard of a thing to figure out.

As I recall, the fee has *always* been something like $10 per check, so counting inflation, $20 in 2010 ain’t bad.

Brian, how long do you think it would take folks to figure out not to do that again?

Further, your $20 on $2 purchase example is an almost worst-case scenario. Say it’s on a $70 tank of gas, or even a nice meal somewhere. There is a cost to loan that money, extra paperwork, extra network transactions, sarbannes-oxley likely, extra software, risk of never recouping the money, etc.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]Would it not be simpler to force them to decline the transactions of people who have no money in the bank?[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure every EFT purchase is preceded by a balance inquiry.

It might be that the database/network costs to do that in the kind of access time we’ve come to expect (approx 3 seconds) would be prohibitive.

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale]. That’s why today, the retailer gets their money regardless of the funds if the transaction clears…it’s the BANK that has been forced to give you a ‘loan’ for the overdraft funds.[/quote]

Not in the least. The banks can simply decline the transaction and the customer would not get to buy the product. The merchant keeps the merchandise and nobody loses.

[quote=KSMountain].

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.[/quote]

We don’t have to do any of the sort.

We can mandate that banks decline transactions when funds or credit is not available, or payment is late.

After a certain number of declined transactions, the bank would simply cancel the credit card and/or the debit card and the consumer would have to pay with cash. At that point the consumer would only have an ATM card that would only work at the ATM when funds are available.

For consumers who bounce checks, and those who are below a certain credit rating, provide them with bank accounts without check-writing privileges.

Simple enough.

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale]. That’s why today, the retailer gets their money regardless of the funds if the transaction clears…it’s the BANK that has been forced to give you a ‘loan’ for the overdraft funds.[/quote]

Not in the least. The banks can simply decline the transaction and the customer would not get to buy the product. The merchant keeps the merchandise and nobody loses.

[quote=KSMountain].

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.[/quote]

We don’t have to do any of the sort.

We can mandate that banks decline transactions when funds or credit is not available, or payment is late.

After a certain number of declined transactions, the bank would simply cancel the credit card and/or the debit card and the consumer would have to pay with cash. At that point the consumer would only have an ATM card that would only work at the ATM when funds are available.

For consumers who bounce checks, and those who are below a certain credit rating, provide them with bank accounts without check-writing privileges.

Simple enough.

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale]. That’s why today, the retailer gets their money regardless of the funds if the transaction clears…it’s the BANK that has been forced to give you a ‘loan’ for the overdraft funds.[/quote]

Not in the least. The banks can simply decline the transaction and the customer would not get to buy the product. The merchant keeps the merchandise and nobody loses.

[quote=KSMountain].

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.[/quote]

We don’t have to do any of the sort.

We can mandate that banks decline transactions when funds or credit is not available, or payment is late.

After a certain number of declined transactions, the bank would simply cancel the credit card and/or the debit card and the consumer would have to pay with cash. At that point the consumer would only have an ATM card that would only work at the ATM when funds are available.

For consumers who bounce checks, and those who are below a certain credit rating, provide them with bank accounts without check-writing privileges.

Simple enough.

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale]. That’s why today, the retailer gets their money regardless of the funds if the transaction clears…it’s the BANK that has been forced to give you a ‘loan’ for the overdraft funds.[/quote]

Not in the least. The banks can simply decline the transaction and the customer would not get to buy the product. The merchant keeps the merchandise and nobody loses.

[quote=KSMountain].

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.[/quote]

We don’t have to do any of the sort.

We can mandate that banks decline transactions when funds or credit is not available, or payment is late.

After a certain number of declined transactions, the bank would simply cancel the credit card and/or the debit card and the consumer would have to pay with cash. At that point the consumer would only have an ATM card that would only work at the ATM when funds are available.

For consumers who bounce checks, and those who are below a certain credit rating, provide them with bank accounts without check-writing privileges.

Simple enough.

[briansd1]

[quote=meadandale]. That’s why today, the retailer gets their money regardless of the funds if the transaction clears…it’s the BANK that has been forced to give you a ‘loan’ for the overdraft funds.[/quote]

Not in the least. The banks can simply decline the transaction and the customer would not get to buy the product. The merchant keeps the merchandise and nobody loses.

[quote=KSMountain].

I suppose though, we could mandate that behavior and performance, and mandate free checking to say anyone who made less than say $100k, and then pass *all* the costs on to those bastards who make more than $100k.

Or we could nationalize the banks and get the money for all this infrastructure via taxes on the “rich”.[/quote]

We don’t have to do any of the sort.

We can mandate that banks decline transactions when funds or credit is not available, or payment is late.

After a certain number of declined transactions, the bank would simply cancel the credit card and/or the debit card and the consumer would have to pay with cash. At that point the consumer would only have an ATM card that would only work at the ATM when funds are available.

For consumers who bounce checks, and those who are below a certain credit rating, provide them with bank accounts without check-writing privileges.

Simple enough.

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[KSMountain]

Is this an example of what you’re talking about brian?

http://www.firstcommunity.com/accounts/overdraft.html

Isn’t this something the customer opts-in to?

[Author]

Posts