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

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
Yes. That’s why we need strong a strong consumer protection agency to prevent banks from charging those exorbitant fees, especially to the customers who are move vulnerable and can least afford it.

I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one. Credit card or debit transactions should be declined if funds are not available without any fee to the consumer.

Fees are the same as interest and should be disclosed as such.

*

That being said, I use a credit union in combination with Ally Bank and ING Direct for banking purposes.[/quote]

First you wanted free healthcare and now you want free banking? Seriously?

Next thing you’ll be asking for free clothing, a free car and free food.

You know what’s great about the free market? If you don’t like a bank’s fees you are free to MOVE YOUR MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!

[moneymaker]

I currently bank @ 3 major banks and 1 credit union. By far the major banks are changing their terms the most, like every 2-3 months, I realize a lot of this is legal mumbo jumbo as I will leave any of them in a heart beat if they piss me off. I like US Bank the most of the big 3. I already closed a Chase credit card when they unilaterally without cause raised rates on me. Balance paid off now they aren’t making any money off me.P.S.- I did get them to change the rate back after 3 phone calls and talking to a supervisor/manager. I think it’s a crime that BofA took bailout,gets money practically free (.25%) and then turns around and has the gall to charge some people interest around 29%. I will be drinking champagne the day BofA goes bankrupt.

[moneymaker]

I currently bank @ 3 major banks and 1 credit union. By far the major banks are changing their terms the most, like every 2-3 months, I realize a lot of this is legal mumbo jumbo as I will leave any of them in a heart beat if they piss me off. I like US Bank the most of the big 3. I already closed a Chase credit card when they unilaterally without cause raised rates on me. Balance paid off now they aren’t making any money off me.P.S.- I did get them to change the rate back after 3 phone calls and talking to a supervisor/manager. I think it’s a crime that BofA took bailout,gets money practically free (.25%) and then turns around and has the gall to charge some people interest around 29%. I will be drinking champagne the day BofA goes bankrupt.

[moneymaker]

I currently bank @ 3 major banks and 1 credit union. By far the major banks are changing their terms the most, like every 2-3 months, I realize a lot of this is legal mumbo jumbo as I will leave any of them in a heart beat if they piss me off. I like US Bank the most of the big 3. I already closed a Chase credit card when they unilaterally without cause raised rates on me. Balance paid off now they aren’t making any money off me.P.S.- I did get them to change the rate back after 3 phone calls and talking to a supervisor/manager. I think it’s a crime that BofA took bailout,gets money practically free (.25%) and then turns around and has the gall to charge some people interest around 29%. I will be drinking champagne the day BofA goes bankrupt.

[moneymaker]

I currently bank @ 3 major banks and 1 credit union. By far the major banks are changing their terms the most, like every 2-3 months, I realize a lot of this is legal mumbo jumbo as I will leave any of them in a heart beat if they piss me off. I like US Bank the most of the big 3. I already closed a Chase credit card when they unilaterally without cause raised rates on me. Balance paid off now they aren’t making any money off me.P.S.- I did get them to change the rate back after 3 phone calls and talking to a supervisor/manager. I think it’s a crime that BofA took bailout,gets money practically free (.25%) and then turns around and has the gall to charge some people interest around 29%. I will be drinking champagne the day BofA goes bankrupt.

[moneymaker]

I currently bank @ 3 major banks and 1 credit union. By far the major banks are changing their terms the most, like every 2-3 months, I realize a lot of this is legal mumbo jumbo as I will leave any of them in a heart beat if they piss me off. I like US Bank the most of the big 3. I already closed a Chase credit card when they unilaterally without cause raised rates on me. Balance paid off now they aren’t making any money off me.P.S.- I did get them to change the rate back after 3 phone calls and talking to a supervisor/manager. I think it’s a crime that BofA took bailout,gets money practically free (.25%) and then turns around and has the gall to charge some people interest around 29%. I will be drinking champagne the day BofA goes bankrupt.

[briansd1]

[quote=bobby]
Then one month I noticed a $20 insufficient fund fee – because my checking didn’t have enough money for the transfer so Chase

1. Transfer the money from savings to checking to cover step 2.
2. Transfer the exact same amount from checking to savings.
3. Charged me $20 for insufficient funds.

I called the Chase and the operative was too stupid to see the irony. I had to speak to her supervisor to stop reverse the charges.[/quote]

This is an example of egregious charges by the banks.

Banks should not be able to charge fees for electronic transfers from checking to savings especially within the same bank.

I don’t think that bank should provide all free services… but egregious charges such as charging $20 overdraft for processing a $5 insufficient-fund transaction is simply wrong.

Simply decline the transaction.

Remember that banks don’t pay interest on checking accounts so they are already getting free use of our money. Even if the banks provided “free” checking, they’d already be making a handsome profit.

From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/

[briansd1]

[quote=bobby]
Then one month I noticed a $20 insufficient fund fee – because my checking didn’t have enough money for the transfer so Chase

1. Transfer the money from savings to checking to cover step 2.
2. Transfer the exact same amount from checking to savings.
3. Charged me $20 for insufficient funds.

I called the Chase and the operative was too stupid to see the irony. I had to speak to her supervisor to stop reverse the charges.[/quote]

This is an example of egregious charges by the banks.

Banks should not be able to charge fees for electronic transfers from checking to savings especially within the same bank.

I don’t think that bank should provide all free services… but egregious charges such as charging $20 overdraft for processing a $5 insufficient-fund transaction is simply wrong.

Simply decline the transaction.

Remember that banks don’t pay interest on checking accounts so they are already getting free use of our money. Even if the banks provided “free” checking, they’d already be making a handsome profit.

From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/

[briansd1]

[quote=bobby]
Then one month I noticed a $20 insufficient fund fee – because my checking didn’t have enough money for the transfer so Chase

1. Transfer the money from savings to checking to cover step 2.
2. Transfer the exact same amount from checking to savings.
3. Charged me $20 for insufficient funds.

I called the Chase and the operative was too stupid to see the irony. I had to speak to her supervisor to stop reverse the charges.[/quote]

This is an example of egregious charges by the banks.

Banks should not be able to charge fees for electronic transfers from checking to savings especially within the same bank.

I don’t think that bank should provide all free services… but egregious charges such as charging $20 overdraft for processing a $5 insufficient-fund transaction is simply wrong.

Simply decline the transaction.

Remember that banks don’t pay interest on checking accounts so they are already getting free use of our money. Even if the banks provided “free” checking, they’d already be making a handsome profit.

From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/

[briansd1]

[quote=bobby]
Then one month I noticed a $20 insufficient fund fee – because my checking didn’t have enough money for the transfer so Chase

1. Transfer the money from savings to checking to cover step 2.
2. Transfer the exact same amount from checking to savings.
3. Charged me $20 for insufficient funds.

I called the Chase and the operative was too stupid to see the irony. I had to speak to her supervisor to stop reverse the charges.[/quote]

This is an example of egregious charges by the banks.

Banks should not be able to charge fees for electronic transfers from checking to savings especially within the same bank.

I don’t think that bank should provide all free services… but egregious charges such as charging $20 overdraft for processing a $5 insufficient-fund transaction is simply wrong.

Simply decline the transaction.

Remember that banks don’t pay interest on checking accounts so they are already getting free use of our money. Even if the banks provided “free” checking, they’d already be making a handsome profit.

From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/

[briansd1]

[quote=bobby]
Then one month I noticed a $20 insufficient fund fee – because my checking didn’t have enough money for the transfer so Chase

1. Transfer the money from savings to checking to cover step 2.
2. Transfer the exact same amount from checking to savings.
3. Charged me $20 for insufficient funds.

I called the Chase and the operative was too stupid to see the irony. I had to speak to her supervisor to stop reverse the charges.[/quote]

This is an example of egregious charges by the banks.

Banks should not be able to charge fees for electronic transfers from checking to savings especially within the same bank.

I don’t think that bank should provide all free services… but egregious charges such as charging $20 overdraft for processing a $5 insufficient-fund transaction is simply wrong.

Simply decline the transaction.

Remember that banks don’t pay interest on checking accounts so they are already getting free use of our money. Even if the banks provided “free” checking, they’d already be making a handsome profit.

From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]
I think that a pain vanilla, no fee, bank account should be like universal lifeline telephone. Everyone should be able open up one.[/quote]
Sure. Free banking is obviously a basic human right. If the banks (for no reason other than their sheer spitefulness and greed) won’t provide that for free, I guess the government will have to step in.

Is ATM access included in this vanilla account you envision? What about check (and bad check) processing? How about online access? What about face to face or telephone-based customer service? Who pays the salaries, facilities, equipment, and energy costs that are required to provide those services? The bank (and their shareholders) should just eat those costs?

There’s no such thing as something for nothing. What you’re really proposing is to give some folks an artificial free ride at the expense of some other folks.

I agree it would be nice if folks had a simple option available to them so they weren’t tempted to go to the check cashing and payday loan rapists. But I don’t agree it should be free.

Should banks be required to provide a minimum basic account at some nominal rate? Well at first blush that seems reasonable, but which banks? All banks? What rate? Who sets that? Is it the same in all states? What services are provided? In what languages must the customer service be provided? Is there a performance requirement for the servers behind the online banking? Who should be eligible?

I like flu’s approach better. Those guys pissed him off, so he left. The marketplace at work.

[Author]

Posts