From a broad perspective, the logic behind the initial rule limiting overdraft fees might be debated. However, if the intention is to address one financial burden, it would be prudent to consider other impactful issues concurrently, particularly those that offer tangible benefits to the middle class.
How’s it in anti-middle class move when the middle class isn’t the one being hit with overdraft fees? If anything it’s an anti-lower class move because that is the class filled with people who keep making poor financial decisions in line with other poor choices they make elsewhere in their lives that prevents them from attaining more success.
A checking account is not a credit account. Of course if you pull more money than you have in it you should be charged a fee. If you wanted to go into debt with the bank you should have opened the proper account that is structured to allow it.
The government should just mandate acceptable prices for all goods and services that the poor use, that way they will be “protected” from any risk whatsoever. /s
It does not help the poor or middle class to impose price controls – there is so much evidence in opposition to price controls that to support them is no different than economic flat eartherism.
I work in a bank. OD fees act more as a deterrent. The number of accounts who cancelled OD protection such as auto transfer from savings or an LOC as soon as there was no longer a penalty! And it didn’t stop them from overdrafting-actually, to the contrary the AMOUNT of accounts that overdrafted daily increased by a LOT.
I don’t think they necessarily should charge almost $40/transaction but we have to do something.
Comments
FLAIR IS REQUIRED TO COMMENT!
Only OP and new “Conservativism” flairs may comment
A high standard of discussion and proper decorum are required.
Read our RULES before participating.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
From a broad perspective, the logic behind the initial rule limiting overdraft fees might be debated. However, if the intention is to address one financial burden, it would be prudent to consider other impactful issues concurrently, particularly those that offer tangible benefits to the middle class.
How’s it in anti-middle class move when the middle class isn’t the one being hit with overdraft fees? If anything it’s an anti-lower class move because that is the class filled with people who keep making poor financial decisions in line with other poor choices they make elsewhere in their lives that prevents them from attaining more success.
A checking account is not a credit account. Of course if you pull more money than you have in it you should be charged a fee. If you wanted to go into debt with the bank you should have opened the proper account that is structured to allow it.
The government should just mandate acceptable prices for all goods and services that the poor use, that way they will be “protected” from any risk whatsoever. /s
It does not help the poor or middle class to impose price controls – there is so much evidence in opposition to price controls that to support them is no different than economic flat eartherism.
In today’s world where we have instantaneous data, why not just decline the charge?
I work in a bank. OD fees act more as a deterrent. The number of accounts who cancelled OD protection such as auto transfer from savings or an LOC as soon as there was no longer a penalty! And it didn’t stop them from overdrafting-actually, to the contrary the AMOUNT of accounts that overdrafted daily increased by a LOT.
I don’t think they necessarily should charge almost $40/transaction but we have to do something.