Why do people blame the bank for overdrafts?

1. 0

   Rieceposted 13 years ago

   I hear people everyday in the bank and on message boards complaining about how the bank is so evil in their overdraft charges. Sometimes it is the bank's fault, but when it is, they reverse the fees. That is a very small percent of the time.
   
   When are people going to start taking responsibility for themselves and realize that if they could balance their account, the fees never would have occurred?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      deweyduckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree it isn't the bank's fault, its because some people just don't know or don't want to verify how much they have before they pay for something. 
      
      However, I think it's the outrageous penalty for the overdraft that causes people to blame the bank.  With the bank I'm with, if I overdraft my fee is over $30.  I have never made an overdraft, but I think $30+ is absolutely ridiculous and I would fight it anyway possible including telling the bank that if they don't reverse it I would take my business to another bank. 
      
      If the overdraft fee was $5, I think the bank would make more money and some people will just shrug it off.  I guess it also depends on the amount of the overdraft - maybe make some kind of penalty fee to overdraft amount ratio.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Rieceposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know where banks get the 35.00 fee standard, but I've seen people who will do transactions that will overdraw them 500 dollars. At that point, 35 doesn't seem too bad. On the other end of the spectrum, there's the famous 40 dollar latte.
         
         I like your point about the penalty to overdraft ratio. The downside to that would be the outraged people coming in demanding to know why we charged them double or even equal to their overdraft. Maybe they wrote a check that sent them negative two hundred? A two hundred dollar overdraft fee would be brutal.

         replyreport
   2. 85

      psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The fees are too high and they won't reverse them when it is not the users fault.  For example I once had a vendor double charge me by accident and the bank charged another 31 dollars for something that was not my mistake.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It can happen.  I had someone use a fraudulent eBay and paypal account to make a $1500 purchase from my bank account.  The bank charged me 3 OD fees for what even they acknowledged was criminal activity.  I eventually got them reversed but it took over a month and I had to threaten to take all 4 accounts somewhere else.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Contriceposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      People do not like to admit that they are broke.  Overdraft fees just confirm the fact that you didn't have enough money to pay whatever it is you needed.  Instead of admitting that you're broke, or that you are careless with money, or that you are living outside your means...its just easier to blame the bank lol

      replyreport
   4. 62

      milwivessavingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I worked in banking for over 10 years, and I heard this every. single. day.  I wanted to scream to our customers so badly and slap them silly and yell "Balance your checkbook, idiot!"  Sorry, that was my little vent   I'd often ask (politely, of course), "Do you have a register?"  and I was met with the response of "No."  arrrggghhhh!  LOL!

      replyreport
   5. 52

      013mona013posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      thats not true because when you say you donot want a services  then that should be it not when you get your month statement you see this added to your account. Then you have to go into branch to handle the problem.

      replyreport
   6. 52

      1 Mad Embalmerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/1 … 79178.html
      
      Banks will read this and weep.  Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin. Bwahahahahahaha (evil laugh)...

      replyreport
   7. 69

      tritrainposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Because banks often allow people to take out more "as a convenience", but then charge them an overdraft fee.
      
      Another nifty trick is to pay out all checks and withdrawals first, then deposit a paycheck.  It's a handy way of making $25. Do that every two weeks and multiply it by many thousands and the bank is making money hand over fist.

      replyreport
2. 85

   KCC Big Countryposted 13 years ago

   I do agree with you, Riece.  However, many banks do some sneaky things with the fees too, like running all checks BEFORE deposits and if ALL the checks do not clear they bounce each one instead of letting the ones clear that would and bouncing only the last ones that make it overdrawn.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Rieceposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I've heard some banks do that. The bank I work for doesn't, but I know some that do. Technically unethical? No. Sneaky, yes. The best way to avoid that is not writing a check if you don't have the money in the bank to cover it.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         KCC Big Countryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It all comes down to people educating themselves on the bank policies, then shopping around for banks offering the best deal.  Once you know the rules, you're right, it's ultimately up to you to play by the rules and avoid NSF charges by being a responsible person.

         replyreport
3. 96

   wildernessposted 13 years ago

   Unfortunately people are more and more unwilling to take the responsibility for their own stupid actions.  We see it from parents blaming the schools for the parents inability to raise their children and from drunk drivers claiming it wasn't their fault because they were drunk.  There are a million reasons to somehow put the blame on someone else.
   
   Having said that, the banks actually have been a little unethical in their practices.  Deposits and withdrawals are ordered in such a way as to cause the highest charges possible to be assessed instead of doing them to minimize charges or even as received.  Information on the practice is given to each account holder, but hidden in a mass of legalese that few people read or would understand if they did read it.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Best answer IMO.

      replyreport
4. 61

   Lisa HWposted 13 years ago

   I've had the same account for years, and there have been a couple/few times when the bank actually DID make the error but wouldn't admit it.  Once, I was on the phone with a woman for just about a half hour.  She kept pretending she didn't know what I was saying.  Finally - at about 28 minutes into the call, I had kept "grilling away" until I knew this woman could nothing but admit she understood what I was saying.  You know what she did, rather than let me have my "Perry Mason Moment"?  Hung up on me!!!    
   
   When I had just gotten divorced I was living with little margin for error, and that's when the "funny things" banks do, and how they do them, became more obvious to me.  If you have plenty of margin of error and just don't "do anything funny" you don't have a problem.  It's when you get into that thing where they hold some transactions or don't, you have little margin for error, and they start "re-ordering" what they pay that a $5 oversight can cost you - like - $120.  If I hadn't gone through that time and seen, exactly, how, no matter how careful you are or conscientious you are, things can happen if there's no margin of error.   What made it worse was that even though I had good credit and had had a good income (and still had a good income potential), because the court left me on tiny weekly (but regular) income for months, the bank wouldn't approve over-draft protection even in some small amount.
   
   As someone who has never, ever, been someone to blame anyone else for what I do in my life; I've learned that sometimes other people really ARE to blame.   

   replyreport
5. 61

   paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

   In general, credit unions do less thievery than banks.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Kathryn LJposted 13 years ago

   Because it's easy to blame someone else for your problems.  However, nowadays it is expected that safe guards will be present in any loan agreements to stop desperate people from doing stupid things otherwise it's just lending money for the purposes of extortion.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      When I as in my "low-margin-of-error" time it wasn't a matter of doing desperate things at all.  It was a matter of "50 zillion" little ways the bank would do one thing or another that nobody who lived with, say, more than a $15 margin or error would ever even hear about.  A person could keep an impeccable check register, have run a household with a really good income, managed project budgets at work, read the whole fine-print TOS booklet from the bank, etc. etc., and seemed to be more than capable of knowing how it all worked.  Then, though, some odd little "behind-the-scenes" thing would happen and it would turn out the bank did something like change the way one thing or another would be done, make a deposit that would have otherwise have been available not available for an extra day, and throw off something that was scheduled to go into the account. 
      
      There were things like "Oh well, we used to consider your grocery store purchase within the available 100 dollars that we allow from your new deposit, but that 100 available dollars is only cash from the ATM - not a 10-dollar transaction at a store."  So, a person could have read (and even done a good job remembering) all the "fine-print" ways (beyond the "main ways") the bank did things, but it would change; and it wasn't the kind of change they'd send around notices about.
      
      The whole "era" was an eye-opening experience for me, that's for sure.  People who are "desperate enough" to take chances (and lose) wouldn't see how it can happen for people who NEVER take a desperate chance and who keep their check registers in perfect order (and math).  People without having gone through the low-margin-of-error of thing wouldn't have it happen (and see how it can happen).  What would happen would be some new "remote situation" would go on, I'd call to find out what had happened, and I'd learn yet one new way some "issue" can happen with those "subtle" things that no customer is ever going to learn unless/until the situation happens in his account.  Then I'd think I had run into all possible "remote ways of doing things" and later discover yet a different one would crop up.  I mean...  at times it seemed as if the bank used the "willy-nilly" approach to how things were handled.  I once joked to a customer service guy that I'd call and try to learn how one or another situation was handled and get three different answers.  I told him I'd take the two-out-of-three answer.
      
      I've never been a self-righteous person in general because I'm not someone who needs to feel superior to other people;  but there was a time I would have thought it was a simple matter of not doing anything "stupid" or "desperate".  I learned better.  (And this was in the days before things were anywhere near as "technological" as they are now. )

      replyreport
7. 78

   Shadesbreathposted 13 years ago

   If you can't do math, you deserve to pay the penalty.  If the bank's penalties are too high, get a new bank.
   
   However, I absolutely think that the practice of cashing the checks in such an order as to be able to collect the most fees is wrong.
   
   If I have $499 in my account, and I write five checks for twenty bucks and my wife writes one for five hundred and the bank intentionally runs hers first just so they can hit us five times for fees... that's evil.  Not saying it isn't a fact of life, just saying what it is.

   replyreport
8. 62

   Daniel Carterposted 13 years ago

   Yes we need to take responsibility for our own spending, and as basically already addressed, banks need to stop being so predatory and greedy so that consumers can have a chance to keep their financial affairs in order before banks rush in and virtually steal consumer's money.
   
   One of the most compelling evidences of all of this is the economic meltdown. When will business stop being bailed out and when will consumers, who fund business, going to get a break?
   
   And as a side note, another type of predatory practice of this type is the airline business. A whopping 54% in surcharges can be added to a plane ticket for bags, more leg room, or perhaps tomorrow, needing to pee.
   
   Consumers cannot turn into greedy businesses, or we all pay a horrific price.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We are paying a horrific price. 

      replyreport
9. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   I cannot believe this thread is still alive.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You should check out "ripoffreport dot com" - thousands of posts there.  It pushes a lot of buttons on people that won't keep a check register and resulted in the banking changes recently.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         And, that my friend boils down to self-responsibility. That's all. It clearly shows a lack of effort on the part of the individual and if they are going to be lazy about keeping their financial house in order, then they(the individuals) force others to keep that house in order.
         
         Why do you think there are so many useless laws in effect? You don't actually need to answer that question, just wanted to make it realized.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I agree, cags. So many Americans are very lazy about knowing what their finances really are. I've had to live to the penny so much of my life, and so I'm constantly checking on my accounts and making living modifications to suit my means. I can't imagine people who don't even bother to keep a registry of their transactions, or who are incapable of balancing an account. It's scary to me. But, then, to each his own.

            replyreport
      2. 61

         Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well, people who do that (the careless stuff or the "funny" stuff) are a separate problem.  My point has been that not everyone who gets hit with ridiculous fees is one of those people.  I "loved" it (sarcasm, of course) when I once called the bank and the condescending woman on the other end of the phone asked me if I knew how to keep a check register; and when I told her I kept one and kept in all in order, she was arrogant enough to ask me to read a few facts from it!!
         
         What's scary to me is that thing in human nature that makes so many people prefer to focus on problems that happen when someone screws up out of carelessness, ignorance, or some other "inferior trait"; rather than give equal time to the reality that sometimes things happen even to conscientious, careful, capable, people.  It might be a bank error the bank won't admit.  It might be one of those "somewhere between the bank and the customer" things on which neither party really made any mistake.  (Of course, for the person with no margin for error, one "innocent" $30 fee will then lead to real over-drafts and - like a three-month recovery time.)
         
         Of course, since then I've had the secret little joy of having at least a couple of people, who thought I was "just blaming the bank" when that was going on, have one version or another of something similar go on and find themselves shocked to see how things sometimes happen.  Here's that thing in human nature though:   When someone else goes through some version of a no-fault "issue" that costs bank fees, that person may STILL think, "Well, it wasn't my fault this happened.  When something similar happened to you, it WAS you fault."    "

         replyreport
10. 86

    Denise Handlonposted 13 years ago

    Riece-that is funny!  Because it is so true.  It's not just a lack of ownership for wrongdoing in financial matters-it's out there in society every-day-in-every-way.  So sad!  We have a very narcisstic culture and the 'reality' shows, entertainment news, etc that show how certain groups of people i.e. movie stars, behave badly and get away with it promote this in a younger generation. 
    
    The only way our children will learn to be responsible adults is by setting an example as that type of adult and also, teaching them accountability early on.  I watch parents in the community turn their heads and make excuses for when their child does something wrong.  It is sickening.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       redlightsaberposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       If you really want to talk about evil banks then why not talk about PPI?  Bank charges pale in comparision. It's a £5-12 Billion a year industry depending on who you believe and the banks cetainly aren't happy to pay back in fact the FOB who are the government organisation who regulate claims have recently accused them of Fobbing off.  Lloyds has really been stung with recent media reports accusing them of being the biggest offender.
       
       In fact if  you've ever taken out a Loan or Mortgage in a particular but can also be a credit card check you haven't been mis sold PPI because change are you have even without your knowledge it's that rife, and the average claim is about £2k which may just come in handy.

       replyreport
    2. 50

       cmaygoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I am up late and found this spot while trying to pay a credit card bill.  IT IS TRUE, THE BANKS ARE RUNNING THE CHECKS AND DEPOSITS IN THEIR FAVOR (WELLS FARGO) SO THAT THE LARGEST CHECK TO THE SMALLEST (IF YOU ARE  RUNNING CLOSE ON YOUR ACCOUNT), THEY THEN SERVICE CHARGE $35 a check and $30 for ones that they send back NSF, then the deposit goes in last.  They have this in their rules in such little print (buried) you don't see what they are doing.  I had six checks come in on same day -large one for rent, which would have been covered, then several small checks, they ran the rent check, then the small ones and I had about $300 worth of fees for one day, instead of a one fee for the day if they had posted the checks in the order they come into the bank.  Yes, I knew my account was close, I keep my register with the bank by looking at it online and seeing what has come in or not from my checks I write.  THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE RULED AGAINST THE BANKS DOING THIS AND ORDERED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS RETURNED.  I THINK SOME OREGON  ATTORNEYS ARE WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM AND DOING A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT.  THE BANKS LOVE DOING THIS BECAUSE IT BRINGS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEES.  ARTICLE IN OREGONIAN  PAPER LAST WEEK.  They are really hurting the customer who is having a tough time, but trying to pay their bills.  Why keep a written ledger when you have copies of checks you write and can check to see what has posted and in and your balance.  I run over $5,000 a month through my checking and they still don't see the need to reverse those fees.  I have some big payments for car and rent, etc.  THE BANKS ARE GREEDY.  YES, THEY ARE.  PEOPLE DO GET OVERDRAWN THESE DAYS MORE DUE TO  THE ECONOMY AND NOT MAKING ENOUGH MONEY OR LOSING JOBS AND HAVING TO TAKE LOWER PAYING ONES.  YES, WE DO MAKE MISTAKES, BUT THE BANKS ARE OVERCHARGING FEES LEFT AND RIGHT.  WHEN YOU QUESTION THEM, OH, WELL YOU CAN HAVE AN OVERDDRAWN ACCOUNT.  NOT IF THEY WON'T GIVE YOU ONE IF THEY THINK YOU ARE TO BIG A RISK DUE TO YOUR BANK BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAST HISTORY.  IT'S CATCH 22. AFTER 41 YEARS, I HAD TO GET A DIVORCE, WE HAD A BUSINESS AND I PAID OFF $100,000 WORTH OF DEBT FOR THE EX ON HIS BUSINESS BEFORE I EVEN GOT A DIME.   IT HAS BEEN HARD LEARNING TO NOT EVERSPEND, MAKE MISTAKES, THINK YOUR MONEY WILL COME IN ON TIME AND THEN IT DOESN'T.  IT IS MY FAULT AND THEN AGAIN SOMETIMES IT IS JUST CIRCUMSTANCES. 
       
       I am learning the hard way, don't write a check unless you know the money is in the bank, because you will get caught and you will  get assessed more than you should be.  I THINK THE BANK FEES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN $5.00 A CHECK.  i MEAN i WROTE A CHECK FOR $8.00 AND 18.00 AND THE FEES WERE $70 AND THEY PAID THOSE, THEN THEY SENT SOME BACK AND ASSESSED ME $30 nsf FEES AND THAT IS EMBARRASSING TO SAY THE LEAST. 
       
       tHERE IS FAULT ON BOTH SIDES, BUT AGAIN, THE BANKS ARE GOUGIING, OVERCHARGING AND MAKING YOU OVERDRAWN AS QUICK AS THEY CAN FOR THEIR BENEFIT OF FEES AND LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE VAULT.    TIMES ARE TOUGH, AND IT IS HARD LIVING OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD, REALLY TOUGH.  TRY TO KEEP A BETTER HANDLE ON YOUR BALANCE, THAT IS ALL YOU CAN DO, BUT BELIEVE ME THE BANK DOES MAKE MISTAKES, THEY DON'T LIKE TO ADMIT IT.

       replyreport
11. 75

    Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

    Banks are evil, they make their existence through usury and fees.  They prey on the unsuspecting and naive.
    
    
    Stop doing business with the humongous banking entities.  Find a local credit union and become a member.  You will immediately see a difference in attitudes towards you.

    replyreport
12. 60

    wildorangeflowerposted 13 years ago

    both should be responsible (corporate banking is profit driven)

    replyreport
13. 82

    Rafiniposted 13 years ago

    People blame the banks because they're too irresponsible to look in the mirror.  My biggest problem with the bank?  Charging a $35 overdraft fee for a $0.35 overdraft - it obviously wasn't intentional.

    replyreport
14. 53

    playeroffraudposted 13 years ago

    WHY?  Because we are ALL already raped by the banking institutions!
    
    And it is crystal clear to me that if one has no bank account, one *is* or will be basicly a *noone*.
    
    We already know without one you cannot get credit...thus, no loans, thus no mortgage, no credit card, no Anything...and...
    
    Soon...paper money will be a thing of the past, especially in the USA.  Why?  They have no choice because their money is not backed by ANYTHING!
    
    When they dumped the gold standard; poof!  There is nothing *real* to back up the money being printed by the trillions.
    
    Yes, it will all collapse...and in not so far away future I'm afraid.
    
    So if you don't have a bank and a credit card - what do you do?
    
    Pretty hard to live.  Welfare even wants a bank account I've heard for *auto-deposits*!!!
    
    wow...

    replyreport
15. 67

    alternate poetposted 13 years ago

    There is a deeper issue than just the personal borrowing and its costs - easily available money to anyone means that all around 'everybody' the standard of living seems to be higher than it actually is.  Your 'competition' neighbors have better cars than you, their kids go to better schools, their houses are in better condition.  The pressure to join the debt slaves is steady and intolerable.
    
    As the US comes to terms with its second rate trading position in the world, and the dollar drops to its real value, goods will become 'apparently' more expensive and wages less. It appears to be terrible, catastrophic and the end of the world.
    
    Here in China things are steadily getting better - although the standard of living for many is well below that expected as 'normal' in the US.  Here everybody is happy, they guy who last had a car now has a big car, the guy who had a motorcycle now has a car, the guy with a bicycle now has a motor on it, the guy who was walking has a bike !
    
    You can be at any level you like but if what you have is getting less it is terrible, if you are geting more it is great.  The US as anation and individually has overspent, gone into debt and now it is payback time.  The sooner you get used to a reduced 'standard' of living the sooner you will get happier with it.  AND easy credit, the banks, feed the harmful cycle of spend and borrow because EVERYONE' is doing it - it appears normal.

    replyreport
16. 65

    Brupieposted 13 years ago

    I think it's a mixed bag.  One shouldn't expect the bank to cover every check without charging customers - after all it is essentially a loan.  On the other hand, banks such as Wells Fargo recently was ordered to pay $203 million back to customers for processing checks in order from highest value to lowest in order to maximize overdrafts and thus overdraft fees.  See article in the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/1 … 79178.html

    replyreport
17. 79

    schoolgirlforrealposted 13 years ago

    basically you're right but the fees are way too high it's outrageous
    
    so are credit card fees, in fact it's better not to use credit cards--why spend $ you don't have and then pay 5x more?
    
    Credit should only be for house or something significant like car.
    
    Also there are so many tricks companies play:
    1) they try to force you to buy
    2) many charge you twice and say it was mistake, (if you find out)
    3) ......i forgot. but you get my pic.

    replyreport
18. 0

    Kevin Lamposted 13 years ago

    I think the banks just want to abuse the overdraft fees as another way to make money because not as many people are taking out loans where most of there money comes from.

    replyreport
19. 78

    mega1posted 13 years ago

    I learned how to do without banks at all!  and it is working very well for me - so far I have saved a bunch in fees and their "mistakes"  it is easy to do.

    replyreport
20. 61

    redlightsaberposted 13 years ago

    Forget overdrafts.  What about the great banking PPI scam?  Fair enough the banks aren't totally at fault on the charges thing but where they totally to blame is the fiasco where they can legally scam the public by selling insurance with pushy sales techniques making over £5 billion a year.

    replyreport
21. 50

    WiseWaysposted 13 years ago

    Banking Overdraft fees (penalties)might have rightly or wrongly originated to recover costs and punish consumers when check processing was a manual task requiring a string of people to process a check. It had some actual costs. In the present check processing is mostly automated. You can send a check in signed Daffy duck and it will get processed. Most fees originate from (TDbank) attempted AMT/Check card usage or draft attempts like ACH, etc., which are as automated and cheep as email. For a banker to say "balance your ledger" is not an adequate argument. Since costs have disappeared the fee is in my opinion solely set up to generate revenue from nothing. It cost as much or as little as checking your balance online. Plainly overdraft fees are predatory. I see it similarly to gmail charging you to send an email address and you type it in wrong. Another would be getting charged when you make a call and hear a busy signal...$30! Some banks even went as far as to start charging overdraft fees when you attempt an ATM withdrawal that is higher than your account balance. For those who have been around you can remember sometimes just trying a few amounts until it worked...no fee. Just a simple "insufficient funds" for that amount. Some banks have adjusted their terms and accounts to try and capture a $30 fee on that also.
    
    One day we will remember that they need us more than we need them.

    replyreport
22. 59

    Horatio Baccusposted 13 years ago

    My theory on this is simple.  A long time ago the only thing that came out of your bank account was money to cover the checks you wrote.  When you wrote a check you had a ledger right above the check with the current balance recorded after the last check you wrote.  Now automatic bill pays, debit transactions, internet purchases, banking fees, electronic fraud, or the can Red Balls you had to have so badly last week before the morning meeting that you actually paid the .50 cost to use your card at the 'rip me off' lobby convenience shop can all come through your private checking account and don't always do so as quickly as you might imagine in a high speed age and so now more and more people are completely unaware of their current balances from one day to the next and suddenly a .50 mistake has led to 50 dollars of fees.  This causes further outrage when it is considered that in this time of direct deposit and banking dependence the cost and risk to these institution is non-existent.  The only thing banks risk losing by suspending overdraft fees (for amounts under 10 usd that are overdrawn less than 5 business days) is the money they steal with these draconian fees.

    replyreport
23. 53

    Diggin4Truthposted 13 years ago

    Banks are in a business.
    The purpose of a business is to make money.
    
    With that being said, if a bank wants to charge for bouncing a check. It is their prerogative.
    
    It is also the banks customers prerogative to leave the bank and go with one with less excessive charges.
    
    Now days, with internet banking, there is absolutely no excuse for bouncing a check.
    
    Just log in and check your balance before you send a check. And why even bother to send checks anymore anyway?
    
    You can set up with a vendor (say the electric company, your insurance company, your credit card payment for example) to be deducted on the date you specify. And you can set it up in advance as a one time payment.
    
    The reason people bounce checks is because they don't think.
    The reason people get mad about the bank charging them for bouncing a check, is they are irresponsible and want to put the blame on someone else for their mistake.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       The banks can deny the charge or inform you.They choose not to. Why because they can bend you over. It's called "Moral Hazzard" I am a Mason and I do home Improvement work. I can rip you  if I use the word "Structural" I don't do that,,,Get it

       replyreport
       1. 53

          Diggin4Truthposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          No I don't "Get it"... what I get is you don't like to take personal responsibility for watching your finances and want to balem someone else for your mistakes.
          
          Time to grow up and be an adult... "Get it?".

          replyreport
24. 60

    Moderndayslaveposted 13 years ago

    Some people you just cant reach. I don't rip people off,,,GET IT!You don't know anything about me so don't think I'm gonna lay down if you give me crap.What are you a banker looking for vindication for ripping people off? Deny the transaction and don't do me no favors. I have a 1k line of credit linked to my checking. I never go into ,so the bank doesn't stick it in my ,,,,,. My son had a student checking account that he signed a contract stating " DO NOT cover an overdraw purchase" Chase did anyway because it was at a gas station.Banks are a den of thieves and we should have let them fail. They screwed up,period. Would you like to go into how "Fractional Reserve Banking " works now or are you going top tell me that's a myth?.Greedy cry babies, Grow up and take the truth like a man.

    replyreport
    1. 53

       Diggin4Truthposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Tisk tisk... why is it people like you have to immediately resort to name calling? Please tell me? I'd really like to know.
       
       "Some people you just cant reach." Very true. Especially those wanting to blame everyone else except for themselves for their personal mistakes.
       
       "I don't rip people off"
       I never said you do... GET IT?
       
       "You don't know anything about me so don't think I'm gonna lay down if you give me crap."
       I was just responding in kind to your attack. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
       "What are you a banker looking for vindication for ripping people off?"
       You guessed the wrong profession, and you guessed my ethics wrongly too. Sorry buddy
       "I have a 1k line of credit linked to my checking."
       Gee... I'm really impressed. A whole whopping $1,000 credit line? Wow! That's surely something to brag about!
       "My son had a student checking account that he signed a contract stating " DO NOT cover an overdraw purchase" Chase did anyway because it was at a gas station."
       And what were they supposed to do, make him pump the gas back? Better yet, they should have refused, and the gas station should have reported him for stealing gas. Then he could have gotten locked up, received a criminal record, and paid a heck of a lot more for lawyers and a damaged reputation for the rest of his life... In this instance, I think the bank did your son a favor.
       "Banks are a den of thieves and we should have let them fail. "
       I don't know about the "den of thieves", but letting them fail... I'm with you 100%. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. They should also not be in the business of forcing banks to make unsafe loans in the name of "fairness" like they did at the behest of democrats like Kennedy, Frank, Dodd, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton.
       Banks screwed up, because the government forced them to. Simple as that. Would you personally give a loan to someone who had no history of paying it back, did not have enough income to pay it back? Well... honestly would you? I wouldn't. But that is what the US government forced the banks to do.
       
       Remember, banking is a business. That means they need to make a profit.
       
       "Greedy cry babies, Grow up and take the truth like a man."
       Hey, I'm not the one throwing a HISSY FIT over banks charging when some dumbass goes over the limit...now am I
       
       Love Ya.

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          It was nice to see you agreed to something. It wasn't looking like you would when you started your post.
          Correct, it should not be involved at all.
          I'll agree, the government again shouldn't be involved at all. Yet, it continually sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong.
          Actually, it's a three-part fault, with regards to present situation. The banks screwed up? Yes, the made loans people didn't truly qualify for. The government screwed up, because it was involved. The citizenry screwed up by over extending themselves as a collective. Too much of me, me, me and not enough living within their means. So, let's not just point blame at one thing.
          Banks as a collective have more power than the government does, so the banks doing anything was by choice. Wealth runs this country, not the politicians.
          Yes, profit is the primary reason for business, but uneducated or illiterate people don't care, when they can barely live, enough that they are at least not homeless. Those who cannot do for themselves are the one who suffer. No one is actually helping these people to better their lives, but do enough to keep them alive.
          Actually, all consumers suffer from the irresponsibility of the rest. Those who are irresponsible about their money, then they make more problems for everyone else. We are all connected, because of the Method of Economy used.
          
          A Chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. A Nation only grows and produces, when people live within their means.
          This is classic. Are you going to say that all the time?

          replyreport
          1. 53

             Diggin4Truthposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             "So the banks doing anything was by choice."
             Yes, it was either get sued in federal court for not giving loans to poor people who can never in 3 lifetimes repay them or give them the loan.
             Then give the worthless paper to the government who will package them through Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, and get some of the investment banks to sell the worthless paper to unsuspecting investors.
             
             "Those who cannot do for themselves are the one who suffer. No one is actually helping these people to better their lives, but do enough to keep them alive."
             That would be where charities come in. Who gives anyone the superior knowledge to confiscate money from one person or entity and give it to another who did not earn it... regardless of the person with less' circumstances.
             
             It's like this... the Third Man
             
             Person A has a problem.
             Person B & C decide that they need to solve the problem person A has.
             So they take money from person D (the third man), by coercion or force, and give it to person A.
             
             It sounds like that is what you are advocating when you say that "No one is actually helping these people to better their lives, but do enough to keep them alive."
             If I **feel** like giving that person money or helping them, it is up to me... not someone else telling me what I have to do with my property. Unless of course I cheated someone to get it, or took it through coercion or force.

             replyreport
             1. 71

                Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Hey Diggin,
                
                Actually I'm advocating for better education for people. It has nothing to do with taking from one to pay another, either willingly or unwillingly.
                
                It's about educating the people, so they can better their life. It's about having compassion and understanding for those who don't understand.
                
                It's about seeing beyond yourself long enough to give a damn about someone other than yourself.

                replyreport
                1. 53

                   Diggin4Truthposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Cagsil,
                   
                   No problem on better education for people. I am all for the idea of that.
                   
                   Who is supposed to provide that education?
                   
                   How is that education going to be paid for?
                   
                   Don't say the government, because the government does not make money. It takes money from productive people and redistributes it.
                   
                   I'm not anti-government. I just believe the main function of the government... any government is to provide for the people the needs that are bigger than an individual can handle.
                   
                   For example... Protecting the country against attack.
                   
                   Education is not in my opinion a government issue. It has been usurped by the government. And before public schools, people were more creative thinkers, more critical thinkers, and the literacy rate in the USA was much higher.
                   
                   "It's about seeing beyond yourself long enough to give a damn about someone other than yourself."
                   Most people do... except those who are as Robert Ringer puts it
                   Part of the:
                   GAVEC crowd. (GAVEC = guiltism, angerism, villainism, envyism, covetism.)
                   
                   This conversation is getting way off the original topic. So I will finish with two things...
                   
                   1. Maybe we should start a thread about who is responsible for educating the masses, and private property rights and taxes. Or  what the limits of government should be.
                   
                   2. The other closing thought  is this: No one person, or group of people has the moral right to take something that someone earned, created, etc. by force or coercion and give it to someone else... regardless of their motives or intentions. If they perceive a problem, and want it fixed, then they should fix it... not rely on taking from someone else or requiring someone else to fix the problem.
                   
                   In the USA we all have the freedom to make choices. And with that freedom comes the responsibility to own up to the individual choices we make... whether they turn out good or bad for us.

                   replyreport
       2. 60

          Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I had the fit from your reply.Who do you think your talking to anyway? Now your going to explain Law to me also?My son bought smokes.He had a signed contract that they violated then they enjoyed a $30 overdrawn fee. Look up morals or Moral Hazzard. The credit line is not all that I'm worth more like pre arranged overdraft protection. No Doc loans.The loved every penny of interest and all of the fees generated by that practice.  As far as Greedy,Borrowing money at .025% and charging from 8 to 15% is not enough?How about the robo signers or the Mers system. They are foreclosing on homes and they don't know who owns the note. Sounds like an upstanding business model to me.As far as the Den of thieves lts start with the Federal Reserve and works downhill from there. Name Calling? Your what my sons call a Troll right?

          replyreport
          1. 53

             Diggin4Truthposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Moderndayslave - discussing truth with you is as worthless as playing piano to a cow.  This will be my last reply to you.
             
             "As far as the Den of thieves lts start with the Federal Reserve and works downhill from there. "
             I agree 100% with you.
             
             Now for the rest, based on your attitude and replies...
             
             Enjoy your self absorbed life hating on everybody, and all business entities. Getting angry when someone other than you makes a profit.
             
             Bragging about that huge $1000 credit line your bank gave you.
             
             And taking offense at the truth because you don't want to believe it.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Amazing, you're still stuck on that overdraft protection. It was relevant to the point of the bank charging an overdrawn fee.playing piano to a cow,self absorbed and hating is your version of a personal attack on me. Nice Try, I"m still wondering if you work for a bank.

                replyreport
25. 61

    paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

    Cags
    
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/72047?p … ost1567689
    
    

    replyreport
26. 69

    tritrainposted 13 years ago

    It's fairly easy to overdraft, especially if you have a shared account.  Some services that automatically deposit/withdraw could come at the wrong time or unexpectedly, which can cause this issue as well.
    
    Banks allow over-charging as a "convenience" and then nail you with a huge fee.  How about not allowing the charge in the first place?!
    
    I specifically have asked to not allow over-charging.

    replyreport
27. 61

    duffsmomposted 13 years ago

    I miss the old days of banking.  When I worked at a bank, when dinosaurs walked the earth (1970's) we reviewed each overdraft before returning the check and charging the customer

    replyreport