Banks Hit Jobless with Fees on Unemployment Comp

[mnealtx 0]

I started out with the info here, then searched out other info supporting it.

There was also a chart that was posted by remhwa.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

As long as those banks charge everyone the same fees, I'm ok with it. If they only charge the unemployment benefit cards, I think it stinks.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DanG 1]

Those sources don't necessarily support your position that Republicans are more generous that Democrats. Even Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that religion is the primary determinant for charitable giving, not political affiliation. Another article about Brooks' book says, "Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals."
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Also, if you normalize for religious giving vs. strictly humanitarian giving (ie, giving $100k to a megachurch is not the same as giving $100k to the Red Cross) the picture becomes even murkier.

In short, the line between Republican and Democratic charitable giving is not at all well defined. I really don't think you can make the generalizations you've implied.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Maybe the local supermarket should charge me $0.50 for use of the checkout, and the gas station should charge me $1.00 for use of the pump.

Well, in a way they sort of do, but it's above-board: it's a form of overhead which, along with all the other overhead, expenses - and profit margin - goes into determining the retail price of the product.

But if Unemployment Comp recipients were required to shop only at the local Piggly-Wiggly, and all the "regular" customers just paid the regular price for groceries, but the Comp customers got charged a 50cent "fee" every time they went thru the cashier, or made an inquiry at the customer service counter, well, that would be pretty damn shitty, now wouldn't it?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Oh, please - look up statistics about charity and see who gives the most broken down by political party. I'll give you a hint - it doesn't start with a "D".

I'm wondering - and I don't have the time to look it up right now - whether that's simply because wealthier people, who have more disposable income, feel more financially secure to open their wallets for charities (especially secular charities), and more wealthy people are R's than D's?

Quote

Now - care to contribute something BESIDES hyperbole?

I donate blood regularly. I'm also happy to contribute my genetic material for future generations; but I doubt you want to have a part in that.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There was also a chart that was posted by remhwa.

not me, I don't post charts and stuff, I'm here for entertainment, not all that other crap

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Elisha 1]

OK, from reading the article, I voted: Outrageous, but agree with Vinnie about it being "fair". When I say fair, I say that as a corporate entity, B of A should be able to do what it wants here - and they ARE providing a way to access the money with a single withdraw - which is exactly what I would do.

Now, why then did I vote Outrageous? Because it is slimy, exploitative and just a stupid business decision that will cost them any reputation they may still have. I have always felt that B of A had horrible customer service and this is just another case of reinforcing it. Of course, it also rather stupid of the state to do this by giving the only option of dealing with B of A. I just chalk it up to another stupid decision by a bank, similar to selling sub-prime mortgages, except the biggest risk here is "reputation".

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

OK, from reading the article, I voted: Outrageous, but agree with Vinnie about it being "fair". When I say fair, I say that as a corporate entity, B of A should be able to do what it wants here - and they ARE providing a way to access the money with a single withdraw - which is exactly what I would do.

Now, why then did I vote Outrageous? Because it is slimy, exploitative and just a stupid business decision that will cost them any reputation they may still have. I have always felt that B of A had horrible customer service and this is just another case of reinforcing it. Of course, it also rather stupid of the state to do this by giving the only option of dealing with B of A. I just chalk it up to another stupid decision by a bank, similar to selling sub-prime mortgages, except the biggest risk here is "reputation".

"They CAN do it, but it's a stupid business decision and it'll backfire"

Wow, that's kind of a view from a free market analysis advocate position.

Now that you've exposed yourself as one of "them" expect the following:

1 - you will be lumped in with the oppressive, puppy killing, Bush loving, hater stereotyper - just like all of them

2 - you'll be accused of hating anyone with different skin than yours

3 - general crap

good luck

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

1. Clearly you don't give a shit about the unemployed, or their children, the same way Bush didn't. Won't anyone think of the children (and their pets)? Obviously it sure won't be you.
2. This is the same kind of selective price-gouging that used to be done to "the coloreds" in the pre-civil rights South. And now YOU'RE defending it. Coincidence? Yeah, right.
3. So's your old lady.

[TheAnvil 0]

Charging a fee for a service is not screwing someone over. Period. No exception. No negotiation. Fact. Deal with it.

Only democrats would complain about paying a fee for more convenient access to their government provided money. What in the HELL makes you think BoA or Wells Fargo or any other bank should absorb costs out of overhead to execute a government program? Instead of 'I think bank XYZ should absorb costs out of overhead to execute a government program because...' as an answer, all that's been presented so far is typical liberal bullshit. "The banks shouldn't charge the unemployed" or "The banks are kicking them while they're down" or "The banks can make money off $$ left in their accounts" and inane comments like that. Never ANSWERING THE FUCKING QUESTION. Because facing the facts about the absurdity of the left wing position is just too unpalatable to bear. A liberal forte, not facing facts.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Andy9o8 2]

You're just barking to get the last word in.
ROWF! ROWF! ROWF! ROWF!

[livendive 8]

I didn't say any of the stuff you mentioned. I simply stated that I think they should treat these like any other deposits/debits. If they don't charge these fees to people who are free to take their business elsewhere, they also shouldn't charge these fees to people who are stuck with them by virtue of a state contract. If these fees are necessary to cover overhead expenses, all customers, employed or not, should pay them.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Very very fair.

Hm. Let's study some classic literature:

Quote

Oliver Twist and his companions suffered the tortures of slow starvation for three months ....
He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:

"Please, sir, I want some more."

The master was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. .... "What!" said the master at length, in a faint voice.

"Please, sir," replied Oliver, "I want some more."

The master aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arms; and shrieked aloud for the beadle. .... "Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more!" ....

"For more?!" said Mr. Limbkins. "Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?"

"He did, sir," replied Bumble.

"That boy will be hung," said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. "I know that boy will be hung."

- Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens

Oliver's treatment was very, very fair.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.

This part is quite misleading, church goers often are expected to give a large proportion of thier income, and even though some may give to non-religious charities as well a huge proportion of all that money will be going to the church to buy tickets to heaven.

Then the vicar get his Mercedes Benz, and yes the bums get their soup. It is not all bad but most of those charities would be churches and many of the cases, those that give are being made to or they will not be allowed to be a part of that church.

for interests sake, after the huge (and still burning) bushfires here in australia, $100,000,000 was raised in just over a week by australians and still counting. in queensland there were devistating floods and many of the cash payouts the flood victims recieved went straight down to victoria to the fire victims.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

What the hell makes you think banks should allow free use of their equipment and services? Should unemployed get free big macs too? ATMs cost $$ to install and maintain. I have no issue with banks charging usage fees to either their own members or non-members for their use. $.50 is a rather small fee.

Unfair? Bullshit. VERY fair.

When I was a child I had a school bank account, we would deposit a minimum of 5 cents each week to get a gold star on the wall, I changed schools and lost my passbook, 4 years later I had all my money + interest. that was in the early 80's.

Anyone that is older than me will know that banks used to use your deposited money to invest and they would give you interest for it. We trust them with our money and they pay us for the privelidge.

These days it is a rip off!

A case study was done in New Zealand by a television show called 'Fair Go' a few years ago.

$100 was deposited in 5 different banks and left for a year with no deposits and no withdrawls. After 12 months only 1 bank still had any money left in it and the rest were overdrawn with large fees.

it is a rip off!

Fortunately I have spare money these days and the banks will bend over backwards to keep those with more than $10k in the bank and less fees are charged.

In this climate and as the second poster in this thread sarcasticly mentioned, the banks are the ones that dug the 6 foot hole that is the financial crisis. They have recieved billions of dollars from the taxpayer, they should at least look at helping those with very low incomes by waiving transaction fees or similar? not drive the nails in the coffin for those that lost almost everything due to the banks' greed.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Only democrats would complain about paying a fee for more convenient access to their government provided money. What in the HELL makes you think BoA or Wells Fargo or any other bank should absorb costs out of overhead to execute a government program?

What a load of ivory tower horse crap. They also make money from that same program, contributing to overhead costs and profit.

Next time you buy a new product and you have a question about it, they should charge you for the phone call, since you don't seem to have an issue with it.

[TheAnvil 0]

I disagree, Dave. The estimation paradigm used to estimate profit from regular customers versus those receiving unemployment benefits cannot be the same. COMPLETELY different ball of wax. Their overhead costs, therefore, will not be the same. Do you honestly expect the majority of those receiving unemployment benefits to leave that $$ in the account long enough for the bank to realize a profit on it? No way. They plan on that entering and exiting within the same month, with PERHAPS a 10% retention at best. Regular customers, on the other hand, leave their $$ in far longer. Totally different paradigm.

Regular customers give them far more benefit, therefore they should have preferred status. I have NO ISSUE with those folks being charged a nominal fee. They are NOT part of the overhead budgeted for people/machines and should be charged. Use a service - get charged a fee. No brainer. If they don't WANT to get charged repeat fees, GO TO THE TELLER AND WITHDRAW IT ALL, THEN PUT IT IN THE BANK OF THEIR CHOICE. Again - a no brainer. When they used to receive an unemployment check in the mail, that's EXACTLY what they would do. Now they don't have to wait for the mail. It's more convenient and they're bitching about a nominal fee for the convenience. Libs call this bank cruelty? Bullshit, balderdash, and billingsgate.

Banks are NOT providers of social programs. The State set up this new system to make it more convenient to its unemployment benefits recipients. If the recipients have an issue with it, their problem is with the State and not the bank. Again - a no brainer; unless you're a Democrat.

Oliver TWist...I believe I already mentioned apples and oranges and how it's not apropos to compare the two...

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

You didn't answer the question and alluded to an opposition to government contractors making a profit? Would you work for the government for free? If not, please explain your hypocrisy.

All ears...and if you'd care to answer the question, I'm sure we'd all be delighted to read your answer.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Do you honestly expect the majority of those receiving unemployment benefits to leave that $$ in the account long enough for the bank to realize a profit on it? No way. They plan on that entering and exiting within the same month, with PERHAPS a 10% retention at best. Regular customers, on the other hand, leave their $$ in far longer.

As a general rule, that's only the case with savings accounts, not checking accounts from which people regularly deposit income, and then use it right away to pay their regular bills as they come due.

Quote

Oliver TWist...I believe I already mentioned apples and oranges and how it's not apropos to compare the two...

Nonsense. All analogies are, by definition, imperfect. Moral bankruptcy is an absolute.

[TheAnvil 0]

Unemployed people typically use unemployment $$ to pay their bills. How long they leave any $$ in those accounts is irrelevant. I don't care. Regular customers will leave them longer, as unemployment benefits are for a finite time period.

Expecting a private entity to give away $$ in support of a government program is absolutely bankrupt from a moral standpoint.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Expecting a private entity to give away $$ in support of a government program is absolutely bankrupt from a moral standpoint.

What's crazy is that you think these banks are suffering at all in this. They bid for this business! The amount of time this money sits with them is perfectly fine - money is lent by the day. And the customers are often the most financially inept, easy to take for a ride.

You're correct in that the states are at fault for allowing this sort of customer abuse, but beyond that...not a clue.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

1. Clearly you don't give a shit about the unemployed, or their children, the same way Bush didn't. Won't anyone think of the children (and their pets)? Obviously it sure won't be you.
2. This is the same kind of selective price-gouging that used to be done to "the coloreds" in the pre-civil rights South. And now YOU'RE defending it. Coincidence? Yeah, right.
3. So's your old lady.

I'm unemployed right now and "dealing with it" (as in looking for work). I just got another rejection following an interview today. It's tough out there, but no, I'm trying to control my whining, even though I will run out of money sometime this year if I don't get something soon. And I haven't done a skydive since late October of last year (which sucks a lot). And I have a pet.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I will run out of money sometime this year if I don't get something soon. And I haven't done a skydive since late October of last year (which sucks a lot).

how aout jumping camera at your local DZ? or packing?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

1. Clearly you don't give a shit about the unemployed, or their children, the same way Bush didn't. Won't anyone think of the children (and their pets)? Obviously it sure won't be you.
2. This is the same kind of selective price-gouging that used to be done to "the coloreds" in the pre-civil rights South. And now YOU'RE defending it. Coincidence? Yeah, right.
3. So's your old lady.

I'm unemployed right now and "dealing with it" (as in looking for work). I just got another rejection following an interview today. It's tough out there, but no, I'm trying to control my whining, even though I will run out of money sometime this year if I don't get something soon. And I haven't done a skydive since late October of last year (which sucks a lot). And I have a pet.

You realize, of course, my post was a parody playing along with post #33, right?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

What the hell makes you think banks should allow free use of their equipment and services? ]

It's not free use. The banks generate interest from the money on the deposit. That should be enough. The problem lies in that the bank's priorities are in serving their executives and shareholders. Interest rates are low so the traditional method of revenue wasn't deemed profitable enough. They quickly found out that they can make more money through fees. They can make even more money if those fees cause delinquency. The bank's idea of a good customer is one that is living from paycheck to paycheck and is struggling to keep their account in the black. Late fees, overdraft fees, etc., are now the bank's primary sources of revenue. Back in the early days of the ATM you couldn't over draw your account. You would get a message that stated that you had insufficient funds. Now you can overdraw your account, and you will get hit with a sizeable fee. This desire to profit from failure is part of what drove the housing crisis. The banks didn't give a crap if the customer couldn't pay back the mortgage. They took the fees at closing, bundled up the note with a bunch of others, sold off the package and hedged against it.
I think it's crap.