So regulation to make things fair for consumers cuts into expected profits, so the banks charge another fee somewhere else which is especially visible to consumers so they can get mad, and the banks can point fingers at big government for daring to interfere in ever expanding corporate greed.

In this sense government regulation certainly seems like a bad idea.

Credit unions are the way to go. Better service, better value and far less evil. As far as convenience goes, most of them are networked together, so you can deposit or withdraw anywhere you like.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

Bank of ASS... I can't wait until you implode because you will have brought it on yourselves.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Credit unions are the way to go. Better service, better value and far less evil. As far as convenience goes, most of them are networked together, so you can deposit or withdraw anywhere you like.


My credit union and USAA accounts both stopped offering their swipe bonus's in reaction to the new regulations. So while BOA is most likely being overly evil, I know I felt some of the regulatory effect, even from my credit union and non-profit banking institution. No more cash back for swiping in my future

>> ^Issykitty:

Bank of ASS... I can't wait until you implode because you will have brought it on yourselves.


Yea but it fucks everyone who has an account there doesnt it.

"Dear Sir/Madame,

You are a bank of America account holder, for no reason what so ever on your part, you now have a balance of 0. Thank you, fuck yourself again please "

Bank of America has been evil for a long while. They are vultures to low income people and shit all over their regular customers as well. I stopped using them a couple of years ago. Credit unions are the way to go.

I love this guys analogy to McDonalds. A bank and Mcdonalds? This guy really thinks everyone is an idiot; what a scummy piece of work this guy is.

Guess I'll go back to keeping all my money in an old coffee can.

It costs money to do a credit/debit card transaction. In most cases, this charge is eaten by the merchant. The cost of doing the service have not decreased. In fact, they are going up. The bank has to have systems in place to receive the transaction, record it, log it, verify it, and process it. That takes computers, databases, and networks - all of which have to work quickly and with very few mistakes. That doesn't come cheap. Not to meantion all the audits they constantly undergo as a matter of federal law.

Some brag about credit unions. No offense - but that's like comparing apples to t-bone steak. Credit unions and banks are treated very differently. CUs don't get hit with a fraction of the regulations, taxes, fees, and audits that even small banks do. That's why a CU can afford to run at lower profit margins. It isn't that the credit union is 'nicer'. Banks are treated like a pro baseball team. Credit unions are treated like a 3-year old T-ball team.

Why the change all of a sudden? Well, you can thank (as usual) your Federal government. Obama is putting a cap on how much banks can charge merchants for transactions. I think Obama's "theory" (as usual based on the assumption banks are evil) is that merchants will no longer have to 'pass on' this hidden cost to consumers. As usual, he assumes the banks will just shrug and start coughing up billions of dollars to do transactions for free. He's an idiot.

Banks will charge consumers directly for transaction fees now - or (as BoA is doing) they will charge a yearly fee for the priveledge of a debit card. Congratulations - you've discovered The Law of Unintended Consequences! You can't legislate morality. People will or won't do the right thing on their own. Likewise, you can't legislate 'fairness'. If you think a business is unfair, then don't go there. That is how you punish a business. Relying on legislation just creates an environment of 'whack-a-mole' uncertainty.

OK, wait.

Dear Bank of America:
This card is the banks idea, your idea. We didn't ask for it.

It was established to curve the rising costs of moving money around. It costs money to move coin from one location to the next. Paper money costs money to print and replace as it deteriorates. Moving money electronically greatly decreases the instance of hold-ups and robbery.

I remember having arguments with bank managers who wouldn't let me stand in line at the bank - I had to use the machine. The bank in question had someone in-line asking each person in the teller line-up what their transaction was and diverting everyone they could to the machines.

Saying that the card system costs the banks money and the consumer must pay the price of having one is absurd. This is YOUR cost of doing business. I currently pay a bank service charge which includes my ability to have a card. I am allowed a limited number of transactions per month, after that I am charged per transaction (30¢ each). I am also charged a $1 fee every time I use a bank machine from a different bank (interac connected). Further, there are machines strategically located (example inside the movie theater) where they charge an extra $3 to make a withdrawl - which is robbery because they pulled the debit from the theater and force you to use these machines if you need cash for the concession.

For us to pay extra fees and pay for fraud coverage is also a scam. The system the bank uses is faulty, it always has been and they know it. To charge us fees to cover losses for a system that by design is easy to fraud is a sham. If they can't figure out a fraud free system, why are we using it? Fix the dam system. Adding a chip that can be scanned from a foot away as someone walks by is a faulty system and no better than the strip it replaced.

Clearly, the card is a cash cow that was instituted as a money scheme from the beginning. The banks pull more money from clients with the invention of these cards than anyone realizes. That combined with accounts that never pay interest, or so little that it's invisible, Overdraft fees, Service fees, and every other fee aside from you investing our money and grossing profit while it sits with you is the tip of the iceburg.

Your take from us is not unlike taxes, we are forced to pay it. Our pie is getting smaller and smaller while you keep asking for bigger and bigger pieces. Housing costs have skyrocket, mortgage rates, insurance rates and all the other plates that want a piece of the monthly pie. By the end of the month, there is little, if nothing, left for all our hard work.

And for all that, you slap us in the face and try to institute another fee just because you think you can. Are you that disconnected with the patrons that grace your bank with their business? You work for us and only when we ask you to. If we come to shop at your place of business, you should be grateful and pander to your clients. Not throw leg-irons on us and laugh at us behind our backs.

Thanks for listening.. (I wish)

You have been brainwashed by their system. It is NOT a privilege to use their card, it is a requirement.

The banks have made it so that the card has replaced tangent legal tender. Many businesses don't even accept cash anymore. they have made us reliant on the bank to do everything. we can't even pay our bills any more without the bank. All local services have closed their doors to bill payments, we have been forced to pay through the banks. And you can't even access your account anymore, even at the teller, without your card.

The "Card" is not a privilege, it has been instituted into everything we do. Online shopping is part of that. Even my fourteen-your-old daughter has been forced to use a visa-debit card by the bank to force her into online shopping. Many products and services can now 'only' be bought using these online-debit cards. Things like video rentals, Theater and concert tickets and more. Many stores don't bring in their full selection anymore because they make it available on-line instead.

Trust me, get rid of your credit an debit card and you'll see how crippled you are without them.
I repeat, NOT a privilege,a REQUIREMENT.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


Banks will charge consumers directly for transaction fees now - or (as BoA is doing) they will charge a yearly fee for the priveledge of a debit card.

This card is the banks idea

It would be more accurate to say it was not any one person's idea but a convenience that both financial houses AND customers saw as a benefit. When debit cards first started to take off, it was not like the public stood up and started screaming in protest at an unwanted, undesired change. Quite the contrary. Debit cards made transactions far more convenient for EVERYBODY. We could now pay for gas right at the pump. We didn't need to carry a big wad in our pockets, wallets, and purses. We didn't need to sit at the checkout and hold up the line writing checks. We could do transactions on the internet. And now today were at the point where we can even run our OWN cards on smartphones with a simple dongle. It's a wonderful change over the days of cash & carry.

You are talking as if they became ubiquitous as part of some massive, evil conspiracy against the public's will. Such language is idiotic and foolish. It started small, and as technology advanced it just naturally filled a huge public demand for ease and convenience. The only problem is that some folks in their ignorance seem to think that 'convenient' should also mean 'free'. Folks who think that need to slap on a dunce cap and sit in the corner until all the stupid leaks out.

And a 'requirement'? Last time I looked I could get my paycheck in cash, take it home, operate strictly 100% 'off the grid' if I wanted. It isn't anywhere near as convenient, but you can do it. No one is 'requiring' you to have a bank account or a debit card. Such a claim is preposterous.

"Since we can't fuck you in the ass anymore, we'll now start fucking you in the mouth" -- Banks.

First of all, of course is was the bank's idea. That is simply a silly statement. That we agreed to it is secondary and after the fact.

Yes, the debit card made things more convenient - that's a fact. Sometimes a little too convenient but that another issue. But more importantly, it also made it more convenient for the banks. Far less people in bank line-ups means less tellers, less paperwork, less behind the scenes people filing and organizing. It also eliminated inter-bank transactions which used to be a huge process. (Remember when you wanted to make a withdrawl, but it wasn't your branch?) I can't imagine the process for corporate money and investment money managing on a global scale without digital accounts. The process alone just for taking in, processing and returning checks/cheques must be arduous.

The point is, this system wasn't made for MY convenience, it was made for THEIR convenience.

Yes, you are right, we did embrace the convenience. Who wouldn't? The nature of the word is obvious and we embrace every new convenience. That we were slowly lulled into compliance through this convenience is more the issue. That's how most traps are set. Now the system has been institutionalized, there is no way we can do without it, so now the service charges start to increase - and there is nothing we can do about it.

Actually, I can't get my paycheck in cash. I have to have a bank account for the automatic payroll. I also cannot pay my bills without the bank, I either need to pay online using my bank account, pay at the bank teller, (which I also need my card for) or pay by mail using checks (yup need the bank for that too - and an added service charge.) I can't rent anything without a credit card deposit. I can't stay at a hotel without a credit card, I can't make a reservation anywhere, I can't book a flight or plan holidays. I can't rent a movie, I can't get tickets to the theater or see a concert. Starting next year, I won't even be able to purchase the lunch program at my kids school without an online-transaction (Yup - credit card.) So don't tell me that I am not required to have the cards because we ARE required to have them.

I could take out a wad of cash every two weeks, except the banks are only open while I am at work and closed before I get off. The problem is, I can't stuff that cash into the phone line or mail it. Yes there are things I can still do with it. Buy groceries and gas... but there are many things I can't use it for.

Didn't someone say something about unintended consequences?

It wasn't 'the bank's' idea any more than the Internet was Al Gore's 'idea'. Computer records were just a natural evolution. Computers came along. Magnetic card readers came along. Banks didn't 'invent' them. They just used them like everyone else to simplify their work. Secretaries didn't invent word processors, but they use them to improve performance.

And consumer convenience via electronic records is very much something that banks want to 'do for thier customers'. They can use the convenience to attract customers and profits. Obviously such a thing is helpful to them both on the back end with their records, and on the front end in attracting potential clients. If a bank is more convenient than the other guy - it gets more business. That's making something for YOUR convenience that also helps them. Nothing wrong with that.

And so what if it is 'institutionalized'? Clothing is institutional. Should you tear them all off and go around naked because you're afraid of getting ripped off by the textile industry? Food is institutional. Should you die of starvation so you don't get ripped off by farmers and grocery stores? TV is an institution. So go throw your TV out the window so you don't get brainwashed by the 'free' TV progam ads? Money is an institution too. What's your point? That we should live in a cave and never partake of any human advance in civilization just because someone else is making a profit on it?

And everything you say you 'can't do' without a credit/debit card is bologna. You can walk to your HR department right now and demand your wages as a check, and then take that check to the bank and get cash. You can buy airline, bus, and train tickets with cash. You can buy food, clothing, utilities, and every other necessity with cash. You can pay your bills by mail. You can pay rent in cash. You can buy a house with cash. A bank account HELPS in all these transactions (IE convenience). But if you walk up to a business with with a wad of legal tender they WILL accept it - I promise you. I have never once walked into a car dealership with a pile of cash to buy a car and had them turn me away. Quite the opposite. They literally drool over me, and it gives me far more power to negotiate.

All I'm saying is that the things you SAY you can't do without a bank are easily doable if you apply a little elbow grease. If you find paying a measley $5 a month so horribly offensive and crippling to your finances, then do yourself a favor and stop whining about it. Take your money and go somewhere else.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Issykitty:
Bank of ASS... I can't wait until you implode because you will have brought it on yourselves.

Yea but it fucks everyone who has an account there doesnt it.
"Dear Sir/Madame,
You are a bank of America account holder, for no reason what so ever on your part, you now have a balance of 0. Thank you, fuck yourself again please "


Except that every account is FDIC insured up to $250,000 specifically to prevent things like that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:

So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

Really? That says that, rounded to the nearest percent, they really did pay 0% of gross profits in tax, and 10% net.
>> ^rottenseed:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:
So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

I didn't make it up, it's right there publicly reported!!!>> ^oritteropo:

Really? That says that, rounded to the nearest percent, they really did pay 0% of gross profits in tax, and 10% net.
>> ^rottenseed:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:
So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

I'm just surprised. It's one thing to know that U.S. corporations don't like paying taxes, but another to read it in the report.
>> ^rottenseed:

I didn't make it up, it's right there publicly reported!!!>> ^oritteropo:
Really? That says that, rounded to the nearest percent, they really did pay 0% of gross profits in tax, and 10% net.
>> ^rottenseed:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BAC+Income+Statement&annual>> ^RFlagg:
So to translate the BS the banker dude was saying, "We made record profits last year and paid zero cents in taxes because we are lying cheating scum. We would make record profits without those $5 a month fees, but we can make even bigger record profits with those fees. It is a win for us, a win for the millionaires who invest heavily in us, and who cares about the American public. They will be told to be upset at the government, because we'll cry about over regulation, Fox will repeat it, and the American public will ignore the facts of our record profits and zero taxes and be pissed at the government not us. We are brilliant."

I'm just surprised. It's one thing to know that U.S. corporations don't like paying taxes, but another to read it in the report.

The issue here being that it is government who is picking & choosing who does & doesn't get the plum breaks. It is changing (literally) from election to election. Government should NOT be in the position to be the power-broker who determines what companies/industries get massive subsidies and tax breaks year by year. All that does it create an environment of arbitrary modern patronage where companies are far more beholden to politicians than they are to the public. Think about it. GE could literally fall on its face as a company, but it would be OK because it is getting 'green' money shovelled at it along with tax-breaks, subsidies, and other gimmies. Why should they care jack-squat about whether they manufacture crap that no one wants when they have their CEO on Obama's cabinet?

That's the problem here. Government is the problem. Slap down government. Remove them from the marketplace. Set up a system of basic rules that ALL companies have to obey and that government cannot change and then put the government in a box and lock it away forever.