Debit cards: $50 spending limit coming?

[teedubya]

This would be fucked, especially when it cost $60+ to fill up my tank now.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/10/pf/debit_cards_limit/index.htm?hpt=T2

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Declined! Your debit card may soon be denied for purchases greater than $100 -- or even as little as $50.

JPMorgan Chase, one of the nation's largest banks, is considering capping debit card transactions at either $50 or $100, according to a source with knowledge of the proposal.

Why? Because of a tricky thing called interchange fees.

Right now, every time you swipe your debit card, your bank charges the retailer an average fee of 44 cents, which it shares with its partners. Those little fees, however, add up to about $16 billion per year, according to 2009 data from the Federal Reserve.

But as part of the Wall Street reform legislation that was passed last year, these fees are being slashed. The Fed is currently proposing rules that would go into effect in July and would cap interchange fees at 12 cents.

That's a big enough cut to cost Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) more than $1 billion a year. And Chase may not be alone. Other major issuers are also projecting huge losses from the interchange fee cap.

Joe Price, president of consumer banking for Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), said in an e-mailed statement that the lower fee wouldn't fairly compensate the bank for the infrastructure and services it provides to retailers.

And consumers would end up feeling the pain when Bank of America is forced to recoup costs "by increasing the cost of their everyday debit card transactions, limiting their payment choices, and impacting industry innovation," according to the email.

Credit cards from hell
Aside from mulling over a limit on transaction amounts, Chase is already testing $3 monthly fees on debit cards and $15 fees on checking accounts in certain states. Additionally, the bank announced in November that it has stopped issuing debit rewards cards.

A Chase spokesman declined comment on this story.

The revenue banks get from interchange fees helps to offset money lost from fraudulent transactions. So with the Fed's proposed cap in place, banks argue they won't have the money to protect themselves against fraud. And, of course, the bigger the purchase the bigger the risk, so banks are considering limiting consumers' ability to pay by debit card.

"If banks cannot recapture their fraud-prevention costs, it is likely that a lower percentage of transactions at the point of sale would be approved," Price said. "If the final rules that are issued in April look like the draft, there's no question that it will impact how we and other issuers price deposit and payment services and what features and benefits are included."

But a Bank of America spokesman declined to comment on whether the bank would cap debit card purchases at $50 or $100.

The 8 least evil banks (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/1101/gallery.least_evil_banks/index.html?iid=EL)
Representatives from Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and HSBC (HBC) declined to comment on their plans, while a spokeswoman from Citi (C, Fortune 500) said the bank isn't making any changes at this time.

If a cap like this does make its way into accounts across the board, consumers would be forced to write checks, withdraw cash from ATMs, or put their spending on credit cards.

"The whole model on the debit card side is in flux because of Dodd-Frank," said Brian Riley, senior research director at financial services consulting firm TowerGroup. "The unfortunate thing is that the people who will really get hurt on this are the people who need the most help."

Many consumers with bad credit aren't able to qualify for credit cards -- and when they do, it's often with hefty rates and fees. Additionally, ATMs typically only dole out a limited amount of money at a time and checking accounts are being loaded with fees.

At the same time, even the customers who do qualify for credit cards are being punished for having tarnished credit. Bank of America, for example, announced a $59 annual fee last month for its riskiest customers -- making up about 5% of consumer credit card accounts.

[mnchiefsguy]

Not sure if the consuming public will be okay with this...some bank somewhere will see an opportunity and offer a higher limit debit card, and then Chase will be hurting even more.

[Bowser]

Not sure if the consuming public will be okay with this...some bank somewhere will see an opportunity and offer a higher limit debit card, and then Chase will be hurting even more.

Yep. Chase isn't the only bank out there.

[teedubya]

I think we will move back to more community banks, soon. Especially if this shit happens, which is retarded.

[Garcia Bronco]

I walked into a bank today and they wanted to charge me a 5 dollar fee to cash a check on an account at the bank for a Boy Scout Troop account. After about ten minutes she came back and said it could be waived since it was for the children. I told her she had wasted more than 5 dollars of my time.

[Garcia Bronco]

I think we will move back to more community banks, soon. Especially if this shit happens, which is retarded.

Good.

[Rain Man]

I still don't understand why people use debit cards. "Yes, please, I'd like you to remove the money from my account as quickly as possible, so use this card." Use a credit card, get the float on the money, earn some frequent flyer miles, and then pay it off at the end of the month.

[mikey23545]

I think you obtuse fucks are really missing the point...

"The whole model on the debit card side is in flux because of Dodd-Frank," said Brian Riley, senior research director at financial services consulting firm TowerGroup. "The unfortunate thing is that the people who will really get hurt on this are the people who need the most help."

Once again, the always great result of government getting larger and more intrusive...

[WV]

I still don't understand why people use debit cards. "Yes, please, I'd like you to remove the money from my account as quickly as possible, so use this card." Use a credit card, get the float on the money, earn some frequent flyer miles, and then pay it off at the end of the month.

This requires a lot of discipline and relies on paying off your credit cards off every month. For a large percentage of the population this would be disasterous IMO.

[Bewbies]

I think we will move back to more community banks, soon. Especially if this shit happens, which is retarded.

Bingo.

For the life of me I don't understand why bankers are thought of as good people. Dirty, evil industry.

[kysirsoze]

All this will make me do is keep more of my cash out of the hands of my bank to make it easier to buy what I want. How can this be good for them?

[kysirsoze]

Bingo.

For the life of me I don't understand why bankers are thought of as good people. Dirty, evil industry.

They are?

[alnorth]

If you don't like the caps, and you insist on using debit cards instead of credit cards, then you better be willing to pay an annual fee.

We do not have a constitutional right to free checking. We've had it for so long that now it seems like it, but the banks made their money off the merchants. Well, congress has cut down on the interchange fee, so the bank has to either get that money back out of your hide, or make it tougher to use a stolen debit card.

[alnorth]

All this will make me do is keep more of my cash out of the hands of my bank to make it easier to buy what I want. How can this be good for them?

The banks are probably fine with it, given that new law + they do not change = they lose money.

[Deberg_1990]

I still don't understand why people use debit cards. "Yes, please, I'd like you to remove the money from my account as quickly as possible, so use this card." Use a credit card, get the float on the money, earn some frequent flyer miles, and then pay it off at the end of the month.

Theres alot of people that do that. Including myself. Free Disney Dollars!

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Not sure if the consuming public will be okay with this...some bank somewhere will see an opportunity and offer a higher limit debit card, and then Chase will be hurting even more.

Yep. Personally, my thought is, let's get back to cash. It hurts online transactions, and those outlets are going to be trying to find creative ways to move higher end product, but I just can't help but love the idea of banks cutting their own throats with a stupid move like this.

[The Franchise]

I'll just write checks then.

[alnorth]

Yep. Personally, my thought is, let's get back to cash. It hurts online transactions, and those outlets are going to be trying to find creative ways to move higher end product, but I just can't help but love the idea of banks cutting their own throats with a stupid move like this.

Stored value visa card, bought at wal-mart. Done.

This is not "the banks cutting their own throat". Maybe I'm overly sensitive because I work for a big evil insurance company, but I'm always amused at how people assume that unpopular industries do what they do because they are stupid or evil. Sometimes a company is stupid and/or evil, but the banks have been backed into a corner on this one.

[DTLB58]

This requires a lot of discipline and relies on paying off your credit cards off every month. For a large percentage of the population this would be disasterous IMO.

Plus, even when you do make a payment on time all they have to do is claim it didn't make it through their process center on time. Then your stuck arguing with some idiot in a cubicle 500 miles away which gets you know where, but they get to add a $35 late fee and start the interest game.

No thanks. CC free for 8 years and NEVER going back. Cash is king!

[ElGringo]

Here I was thinking that this would not affect me, living in Mexico, it is an all cash society anyway. However, thanks to this thread, I have realized that when I purchase my tickets back to visit the states, I use my debit card over the Internet, and won't be able to do that, that would suck. I already use a local community bank, so am hoping this won't affect me so much.

[Just Passin' By]

Stored value visa card, bought at wal-mart. Done.

This is not "the banks cutting their own throat". Maybe I'm overly sensitive because I work for a big evil insurance company, but I'm always amused at how people assume that unpopular industries do what they do because they are stupid or evil. Sometimes a company is stupid and/or evil, but the banks have been backed into a corner on this one.

Do you have the number for the actual cost of each such transaction? If not, you're just taking the word of the banks.

[alnorth]

Do you have the number for the actual cost of each such transaction? If not, you're just taking the word of the banks.

This isn't the NFL or the local private grocery store where you have no right to see their books and everything is cloaked in a shroud of secrecy. Most of them are freaking publicly-held companies that are audited and file with the SEC. (or maybe not the SEC in the case of banks, but they file with someone in the government) The analysts, who have absolutely no loyalty at all to the bank and are paid good money to know all the gory details of a company's operation to recommend whether the company is healthy or not, are telling us that this cut to the interchange fee is a massive hit to their profitability. The banks fought like hell in congress to try to prevent it.

Aside from that, use simple damned logic. This change will obviously enrage their customers. It will obviously cause many of them to leave or stop using their debit cards. Why would any sane company do that, unless they had to?

[Just Passin' By]

This isn't the NFL or the local private grocery store where you have no right to see their books and everything is cloaked in a shroud of secrecy. Most of them are freaking publicly-held companies that are audited and file with the SEC. (or maybe not the SEC in the case of banks, but they file with someone in the government) The analysts, who have absolutely no loyalty at all to the bank and are paid good money to know all the gory details of a company's operation to recommend whether the company is healthy or not, are telling us that this cut to the interchange fee is a massive hit to their profitability. The banks fought like hell in congress to try to prevent it.

Aside from that, use simple damned logic. This change will obviously enrage their customers. It will obviously cause many of them to leave or stop using their debit cards. Why would any sane company do that, unless they had to?


There's a difference between making less of a profit and suffering a loss. That's why I asked you about the actual transaction cost. Unfortunately, you didn't supply an answer, so we're likely at an impasse.

Companies fight like hell about a lot of things. That doesn't mean that they are telling the truth, and it doesn't mean that they are losing money, either. Banks lie. Remember how ATM cards weren't going to result in transaction fees, because they were actually cheaper than teller transactions? Next time you see that $2 charge notice, tell me how that's going. And let's not get started about the stunts they've been pulling with mortgages for years.

Insurance companies scream bloody murder every time they don't get the rate increases they claim to need. Miraculously, they're not only still in business, but they're making a lot of money. Without the numbers proving otherwise, why should we assume this is not something similar?

[Bugeater]

Meh. I have a $50 daily purchase limit on my debit card anyway.

[alnorth]

Insurance companies scream bloody murder every time they don't get the rate increases they claim to need. Miraculously, they're not only still in business, but they're making a lot of money. Without the numbers proving otherwise, why should we assume this is not something similar?

heh. This is a little funny to me, because I work in pricing. In the states I work on, we usually file an insurance rate increase only when my department finally manages to convince the regional offices to let us file for the rate increase, after beating them over the head with all the losses they have had for several quarters. Saying "lets wait another year and see if it doesn't get better, that wind storm last year was a total fluke" starts to get old when you get that "fluke" wind storm or those "fluke" fires several years in a row.

Insurance agents hate rate increases. Everyone in the insurance company hates rate increases and the angry calls they bring, except the "bad guys" like me.

[Just Passin' By]

heh. This is a little funny to me, because I work in pricing. In the states I work on, we usually file an insurance rate increase only when my department finally manages to convince the regional offices to let us file for the rate increase, after beating them over the head with all the losses they have had for several quarters. Saying "lets wait another year and see if it doesn't get better, that wind storm last year was a total fluke" starts to get old when you get that "fluke" wind storm or those "fluke" fires several years in a row.

Insurance agents hate rate increases. Everyone in the insurance company hates rate increases and the angry calls they bring, except the "bad guys" like me.

That's why they ask for 30% and say that they can't survive without it, only to make millions even after getting "only" 15%. Or, to bring it more to real stuff:

Attorney General Coakley says that originally Progressive had filed a proposed rate hike of 26.5%, but reduced that number to 23.5% after her office began to question their proposed rate increase and supporting data...

...The increase would be Progressive’s fifth in three and a half years while having been in the Massachusetts market a total of four.

http://agencychecklists.com/2011/02/11/massachusetts-attorney-general-opposes-progressives-rate-hike-proposal-for-commercial-vehicles/

Hell, while you're at it, check out the crap that State Farm is trying to pull in Florida. The execs from that company should be tarred and feathered.

[Paniero]

Step 1. Go USAA Bank.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit.

[BigMeatballDave]

This is fucking stupid. I pay all my shit online.

[alnorth]

That's why they ask for 30% and say that they can't survive without it, only to make millions even after getting "only" 15%. Or, to bring it more to real stuff:



http://agencychecklists.com/2011/02/11/massachusetts-attorney-general-opposes-progressives-rate-hike-proposal-for-commercial-vehicles/

Thats really kinda nit-picky to point at a reduction of 3% when its still over 20%. 20% is a freaking MONSTER increase, I dont even remember the last time I filed for over 20. If the state thinks 23.5% is adequate, they are hurting.

Aside from that, trying to calculate an adequate insurance rate is an inexact science filled with assumptions that have to be made and subjective selections of what you think will happen given the past. A rate filing is usually an adversarial relationship where the company goes in thinking the state will push back with unreasonable silly arguments and vice-versa, but I've seen it happen many times where the state points out a flaw in the calculation that was simply missed, or they make a compelling argument that our company is being too pessimistic where we look at it and think "you know what, they are probably right." Its not that we were evil or they were anti-business, but insurance is complicated stuff and reasonable people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Its almost like trying to predict the weather where two weathermen are looking at the same data except one weatherman has a bias to assume it'll be sunny, and the other will have a bias to assume it will rain. If the horizon is filled with dark clouds and lightning, even the sunny guy will admit that it looks like it'll rain, then they argue about how bad the rain will be. (ie, the state says ok, you are right, you need an increase, but surely not THIS much?)

[alnorth]

ell, while you're at it, check out the crap that State Farm is trying to pull in Florida. The execs from that company should be tarred and feathered.

I wont even read the story. The insurance department in the state of florida is flat-out stupid. By default, I'll just assume state farm was right and florida was wrong.

There is a good reason why many companies (including mine) have said "F*** this, we're out. We're not writing any more new policies and we're cancelling EVERY policy in southern florida!" The government in florida is completely unreasonable in regards to insurance.

[BigMeatballDave]

I still don't understand why people use debit cards. "Yes, please, I'd like you to remove the money from my account as quickly as possible, so use this card." Use a credit card, get the float on the money, earn some frequent flyer miles, and then pay it off at the end of the month.I havent had a credit card in yrs. I had one back in '93. I couldnt control my spending with it, so I cut it up. I do not want one.

[KC native]

I seriously doubt this happens. It costs the banks less money when you use your card vs. writing checks.

Also, the interchange fee cut may hamper the banks ability to be as profitable as they have been but it doesn't threaten their profitability.

[Just Passin' By]

I wont even read the story. The insurance department in the state of florida is flat-out stupid. By default, I'll just assume state farm was right and florida was wrong.

There is a good reason why many companies (including mine) have said "F*** this, we're out. We're not writing any more new policies and we're cancelling EVERY policy in southern florida!" The government in florida is completely unreasonable in regards to insurance.

This really says all there is to say about your position on the point I brought up about you assuming.

[Just Passin' By]

Thats really kinda nit-picky to point at a reduction of 3% when its still over 20%. 20% is a freaking MONSTER increase, I dont even remember the last time I filed for over 20. If the state thinks 23.5% is adequate, they are hurting.

Aside from that, trying to calculate an adequate insurance rate is an inexact science filled with assumptions that have to be made and subjective selections of what you think will happen given the past. A rate filing is usually an adversarial relationship where the company goes in thinking the state will push back with unreasonable silly arguments and vice-versa, but I've seen it happen many times where the state points out a flaw in the calculation that was simply missed, or they make a compelling argument that our company is being too pessimistic where we look at it and think "you know what, they are probably right." Its not that we were evil or they were anti-business, but insurance is complicated stuff and reasonable people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Its almost like trying to predict the weather where two weathermen are looking at the same data except one weatherman has a bias to assume it'll be sunny, and the other will have a bias to assume it will rain. If the horizon is filled with dark clouds and lightning, even the sunny guy will admit that it looks like it'll rain, then they argue about how bad the rain will be. (ie, the state says ok, you are right, you need an increase, but surely not THIS much?)

Coakley is fighting the increase even as is. The point was about the company padding the initial request. You're missing that because you have an interest here and are letting it influence your position. That's understandable, but it makes discussion on the matter useless.

[Just Passin' By]

This is ****ing stupid. I pay all my shit online.

How do you pay your grocery bill online?

[alnorth]

This really says all there is to say about your position on the point I brought up about you assuming.

Yes, it does. It says that I have a very good reason to believe that the OIR in Florida is staffed with drooling retards.

[Just Passin' By]

Yes, it does. It says that I have a very good reason to believe that the OIR in Florida is staffed with drooling retards.

No, it says that you're willing to believe one side without bothering to get the facts, which goes back to my 9:33 pm post.

[alnorth]

Coakley is fighting the increase even as is. The point was about the company padding the initial request. You're missing that because you have an interest here and are letting it influence your position. That's understandable, but it makes discussion on the matter useless.

Again, you missed the fact that 20% is enormous. To me, this says that Progressive has needed a larger rate increase than what they have been filing for a long freaking time in that state. You don't go from adequate to crisis in one year, there must have been many years where the pricing nerds in progressive have been yelling for bigger increases than what they have been filing, but the powers that be who dont like to face angry agents have been sticking their head in the sand, thinking next year will be better, next year will be better, next year will be better, oh God, fine you are right, file 26.5%!

[jspchief]

When you were a kid, you ever hear about how drug dealers would start out by giving you freebies, so that one day you would be hooked, and they could cash in on your new addiction?

Now look back on how you came to start using ATM/Debit cards. How many people got that shiny ATM card in the mail as a new free service the bank was offering their customers? How many of us saw our ATM cards upgraded to debit cards, without requesting it, just because the bank wanted us to enjoy this new convenience?

Then one day, you went to withdraw cash from the ATM like you do every Friday evening, and there's a new $1 charge attached to your habit. You got your statement from the bank at the first of the month, and realized that going over a certain number of transactions is going to start costing you.

Banks practically force fed consumers into replacing the teller with the ATM, and cash/checks with the debit card. Now they want to cry about what it costs them? Give me a f*cking break. They are laughing all the way to their weekend at the unicorn ranch. Banks' unadulterated greed continues to screw over this nation and our economy.

[Just Passin' By]

Again, you missed the fact that 20% is enormous. To me, this says that Progressive has needed a larger rate increase than what they have been filing for a long freaking time in that state. You don't go from adequate to crisis in one year, there must have been many years where the pricing nerds in progressive have been yelling for bigger increases than what they have been filing, but the powers that be who dont like to face angry agents have been sticking their head in the sand, thinking next year will be better, next year will be better, next year will be better, oh God, fine you are right, file 26.5%!

I didn't miss what you're claiming. However, you seem to have missed a part of the quote that I posted, so let me put it here:

"The increase would be Progressive’s fifth in three and a half years while having been in the Massachusetts market a total of four. "

This isn't a company holding back on increases until it's suffered months and months of losses. This is a company ramping up fees repeatedly, even though it's just started in the state.

[RJ]

Stored value visa card, bought at wal-mart. Done.

This is not "the banks cutting their own throat". Maybe I'm overly sensitive because I work for a big evil insurance company, but I'm always amused at how people assume that unpopular industries do what they do because they are stupid or evil. Sometimes a company is stupid and/or evil, but the banks have been backed into a corner on this one.


You're usually a pretty smart guy but I don't understand what you mean by "backed into a corner". I don't buy that.

[bowener]

A local place I eat, hang out, and shoot the shit gets charged $.80 every time they swipe a credit card/ debit card now. I guess it has something to do with the company that gives them the equipment.

[jspchief]

A local place I eat, hang out, and shoot the shit gets charged $.80 every time they swipe a credit card/ debit card now. I guess it has something to do with the company that gives them the equipment.start paying in cash. Then when the owner gets stabbed for his money bag on the way to make a nightly deposit, he can think of all the money he saved while he bleeds out.

[WV]

A local place I eat, hang out, and shoot the shit gets charged $.80 every time they swipe a credit card/ debit card now. I guess it has something to do with the company that gives them the equipment.

Businesses have always had to pay to accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover...etc. Nothing new there.

[Bugeater]

start paying in cash. Then when the owner gets stabbed for his money bag on the way to make a nightly deposit, he can think of all the money he saved while he bleeds out.
That brings up a good point, I've often wondered which most business owners prefer. Sure, they don't have to pay the service charges for cash, but they also don't have to worry as much about losses due to robbery or employee theft or incompetence, and I have to think that the electronic transactions make bookkeeping easier. It's probably a wash.

[RJ]

Businesses have always had to pay to accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover...etc. Nothing new there.


It's a big % of the cost of sales. The next time I raise the prices in the stores I manage I'm going to add about 2% for CC transactions. Which I assume is exactly why the banks want to push debit transactions over to credit.

[RJ]

That brings up a good point, I've often wondered which most business owners prefer. Sure, they don't have to pay the service charges for cash, but they also don't have to worry as much about losses due to robbery or employee theft or incompetence, and I have to think that the electronic transactions make bookkeeping easier. It's probably a wash.


I don't think it's even close. CC and debit transactions are crazy expensive for a merchant. And the smaller the average ticket the costlier it becomes.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Stored value visa card, bought at wal-mart. Done.

This is not "the banks cutting their own throat". Maybe I'm overly sensitive because I work for a big evil insurance company, but I'm always amused at how people assume that unpopular industries do what they do because they are stupid or evil. Sometimes a company is stupid and/or evil, but the banks have been backed into a corner on this one.

Good. They've been backing us into a corner on all of these retarded fees for years. First, you lose money by not gaining interest on standard accounts anymore, then you get charged fees for every little thing they can think of.

They make money on the cash we leave in their institutions and take every advantage to take whatever they can from us. Let me give you one great example of how you can tell if an industry is honest or not. Do they have a location on every street corner of America without selling some kind of tangible good? If the answer is yes, they're fucking crooks.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

When you were a kid, you ever hear about how drug dealers would start out by giving you freebies, so that one day you would be hooked, and they could cash in on your new addiction?

Now look back on how you came to start using ATM/Debit cards. How many people got that shiny ATM card in the mail as a new free service the bank was offering their customers? How many of us saw our ATM cards upgraded to debit cards, without requesting it, just because the bank wanted us to enjoy this new convenience?

Then one day, you went to withdraw cash from the ATM like you do every Friday evening, and there's a new $1 charge attached to your habit. You got your statement from the bank at the first of the month, and realized that going over a certain number of transactions is going to start costing you.

Banks practically force fed consumers into replacing the teller with the ATM, and cash/checks with the debit card. Now they want to cry about what it costs them? Give me a f*cking break. They are laughing all the way to their weekend at the unicorn ranch. Banks' unadulterated greed continues to screw over this nation and our economy.

AMEN.

[BIG_DADDY]

When you were a kid, you ever hear about how drug dealers would start out by giving you freebies, so that one day you would be hooked, and they could cash in on your new addiction?

Now look back on how you came to start using ATM/Debit cards. How many people got that shiny ATM card in the mail as a new free service the bank was offering their customers? How many of us saw our ATM cards upgraded to debit cards, without requesting it, just because the bank wanted us to enjoy this new convenience?

Then one day, you went to withdraw cash from the ATM like you do every Friday evening, and there's a new $1 charge attached to your habit. You got your statement from the bank at the first of the month, and realized that going over a certain number of transactions is going to start costing you.

Banks practically force fed consumers into replacing the teller with the ATM, and cash/checks with the debit card. Now they want to cry about what it costs them? Give me a f*cking break. They are laughing all the way to their weekend at the unicorn ranch. Banks' unadulterated greed continues to screw over this nation and our economy.

Awesome post.

[WV]

I don't think it's even close. CC and debit transactions are crazy expensive for a merchant. And the smaller the average ticket the costlier it becomes.

I thought most businesses preferred Debit transactions as opposed to Credit because the fee's were less, but I'm not positive.

Businesses are also backed into a corner when they agree to accept CC's and DC's. A local business here had a sign hanging on their register about not accepting CC or DC for any purchase under like $5 or something. Well unfortunately that's not legal to do once you agree to accept CC and DC's. Had a friend call them on it and they relented, but i don't think they ever took the sign down.

[alnorth]

I didn't miss what you're claiming. However, you seem to have missed a part of the quote that I posted, so let me put it here:

"The increase would be Progressive’s fifth in three and a half years while having been in the Massachusetts market a total of four. "

This isn't a company holding back on increases until it's suffered months and months of losses. This is a company ramping up fees repeatedly, even though it's just started in the state.

I was curious enough to look into this. (I'm able to easily look up what other companies are doing. This information is public so there's no problem with me posting about it, and it is available to you but you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops either by going to the MA department of insurance or sending them a letter, so you'll just have to trust me)

At first I was confused because I saw that progressive has filed only piddly little increases for auto insurance the last few years. So, I went back to the article you posted and realized it was about ***COMMERCIAL AUTO INSURANCE***. Perhaps you missed that little bit of information. Rates for commercial and business insurance are filed less often with less data available, so larger increases are more common. Unless you own a company which runs a fleet of vehicles to do business in MA, this 23.5% increase doesn't impact you at all.

Here's what progressive has filed for personal auto insurance the last few years in MA, as far as I can see:

(nothing before 2008)
0.0% 5/1/2008
0.0% 10/3/08
4.9% 4/8/09
4.0% 11/29/09
6.6% 3/21/10
0.0% 8/8/10
0.0% 1/2/11

Those... Evil... BASTARDS! :cuss:

[007]

People still use debit cards?

[alnorth]

You're usually a pretty smart guy but I don't understand what you mean by "backed into a corner". I don't buy that.

Its really simple. You think it costs the bank nothing to give you free checking and free debit cards? Of course it costs them something. Instead of charging you, they charged the merchant. Maybe the merchant passed those few dollars into the retail price you paid, but hey you have free checking and free debit cards, so you are happy.

Congress sticks their nose into the situation and tells the banks "no, you can only charge x% to the merchant for using the debit card, not x + y%" The bank's cost to give you a checking account and debit card doesn't change, the only thing that changes is they now get less money from the merchant. Their options are now to either take less profit (or a loss) by doing nothing, or make you pay an annual fee, or try to figure out a way to reduce their cost, perhaps by reducing your debit card limit and thus the amount of loss due to ID/card theft.

Seriously, its not that hard to understand. A bank is not a charity, You had free checking because your local wal-mart and gas station paid for it. Now, you have to pay for it, one way or another.

[Just Passin' By]

I was curious enough to look into this. (I'm able to easily look up what other companies are doing. This information is public so there's no problem with me posting about it, and it is available to you but you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops either by going to the MA department of insurance or sending them a letter, so you'll just have to trust me)

At first I was confused because I saw that progressive has filed only piddly little increases for auto insurance the last few years. So, I went back to the article you posted and realized it was about ***COMMERCIAL AUTO INSURANCE***. Perhaps you missed that little bit of information. Rates for commercial and business insurance are filed less often with less data available, so larger increases are more common. Unless you own a company which runs a fleet of vehicles to do business in MA, this 23.5% increase doesn't impact you at all.

Here's what progressive has filed for personal auto insurance the last few years in MA, as far as I can see:

(nothing before 2008)
0.0% 5/1/2008
0.0% 10/3/08
4.9% 4/8/09
4.0% 11/29/09
6.6% 3/21/10
0.0% 8/8/10
0.0% 1/2/11

Those... Evil... BASTARDS! :cuss:

So commercial auto insurance isn't insurance? I posted the link. Read what it says, and you'll see it says "commercial vehicles". Look, you're a shill when it comes to the insurance industry. I get it, and that's fine. But, come on. At least feign some level of objective analysis and discussion.


Edit: Here's the title of the linked article:

Massachusetts Attorney General Opposes Progressive’s Rate Hike Proposal for Commercial Vehicles

[Bugeater]

People still use debit cards?
I do, but only because the atm is in a different direction than the place where I buy my gas/smokes/beer.

[BIG_DADDY]

Its really simple. You think it costs the bank nothing to give you free checking and free debit cards? Of course it costs them something. Instead of charging you, they charged the merchant. Maybe the merchant passed those few dollars into the retail price you paid, but hey you have free checking and free debit cards, so you are happy.

Congress sticks their nose into the situation and tells the banks "no, you can only charge x% to the merchant for using the debit card, not x + y%" The bank's cost to give you a checking account and debit card doesn't change, the only thing that changes is they now get less money from the merchant. Their options are now to either take less profit (or a loss) by doing nothing, or make you pay an annual fee, or try to figure out a way to reduce their cost, perhaps by reducing your debit card limit and thus the amount of loss due to ID/card theft.

Seriously, its not that hard to understand. A bank is not a charity, You had free checking because your local wal-mart and gas station paid for it. Now, you have to pay for it, one way or another.

You have officially lost your fucking mind. Those poor fucking banks.

[Just Passin' By]

You have officially lost your ****ing mind. Those poor ****ing banks.

Dude, BOA only pulled in $3 billion in profits in the second quarter last year. How is the company CEO supposed to feed his family on that?

[BigMeatballDave]

People still use debit cards?Not sure what you mean by this. I dont like to carry cash, and I refuse to get a credit card.

[alnorth]

So commercial auto insurance isn't insurance? I posted the link. Read what it says, and you'll see it says "commercial vehicles". Look, you're a shill when it comes to the insurance industry. I get it, and that's fine. But, come on. At least feign some level of objective analysis and discussion.


Edit: Here's the title of the linked article:

fine, you wanna die on this hill, here's progressive commercial auto in MA:

1/3/07: 0.0%
11/20/07: 0.3%
8/22/08: -6.5% - holy crap, a big rate decrease!
11/17/08: 0.4%
7/30/09: 1.1%
9/23/10: 4.0%
(filed/disputed): 23.5%

Sure, it is technically true that they filed 4 rate increases the last few years before asking for this monster increase, but don't you think that is just a LITTLE deceptive, especially given that big decrease they filed in 2008? The stupid worthless media doesn't want to report that though, because that doesn't make for a compelling eye-catching story.

The truth is, after briefly looking at their filings, it looks like they should have been asking for bigger increases before now, but they were chasing after growing their business with an artificially too-low rate and now they suddenly realize that selling lots of policies is a bad thing if those policies are unprofitable, so now they finally want an increase.

[007]

Not sure what you mean by this. I dont like to carry cash, and I refuse to get a credit card.My credit card IS my debit card. Pay my balance in full every month.

[alnorth]

You have officially lost your ****ing mind. Those poor ****ing banks.

in other words: "Lets bash the banks because thats cool. YEAH, down with banks, woohoo! Anarchy rar!"

Whether or not the banks made or lost a lot of money in mortgages is freaking IRRELEVANT.

Checking accounts should stand as profitable on their own. The cost of checking and debit accounts doesn't decrease, but the income is drastically slashed. What in the f*** do you expect them to do? Just treat checking accounts as a bleeding red-ink loser in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, possibly some of their checking account holders will decide to also give them profitable business? That is f***ing stupid.

[BIG_DADDY]

Dude, BOA only pulled in $3 billion in profits in the second quarter last year. How is the company CEO supposed to feed his family on that?

I am all for free markets bro but that is not what we are talking about here. I am going on record right now saying I believe this will fail because it will remove a paper trail.

[Just Passin' By]

fine, you wanna die on this hill, here's progressive commercial auto in MA:

1/3/07: 0.0%
11/20/07: 0.3%
8/22/08: -6.5% - holy crap, a big rate decrease!
11/17/08: 0.4%
7/30/09: 1.1%
9/23/10: 4.0%
(filed/disputed): 23.5%

Sure, it is technically true that they filed 4 rate increases the last few years before asking for this monster increase, but don't you think that is just a LITTLE deceptive, especially given that big decrease they filed in 2008? The stupid worthless media doesn't want to report that though, because that doesn't make for a compelling eye-catching story.

The truth is, after briefly looking at their flings, it looks like they should have been asking for bigger increases before now, but they were chasing after growing their business with an artificially too-low rate and now they suddenly realize that selling lots of policies is a bad thing if those policies are unprofitable, so now they finally want an increase.

I don't know what hill you think I'm dying on, but let's recap.

First, I pointed to the Massachusetts situation to note one thing: a real life example that went along with point about insurance companies claiming they need one percentage just to survive but somehow still thriving at lower percentages. The article about Massachusetts shows them lopping off percentage points from their request pretty much the moment they are confronted about them.

Second, there's nothing deceptive at all in what's happened. Progressive has asked for a rate increase 5 times in 3 years. A one time decrease doesn't change that, as I'm sure you know. You were the one tossing out the "years" stuff, not me. I was just responding to your erroneous claim.

[BIG_DADDY]

in other words: "Lets bash the banks because thats cool. YEAH, down with banks, woohoo! Anarchy rar!"

Whether or not the banks made or lost a lot of money in mortgages is freaking IRRELEVANT.

Checking accounts should stand as profitable on their own. The cost of checking and debit accounts doesn't decrease, but the income is drastically slashed. What in the f*** do you expect them to do? Just treat checking accounts as a bleeding red-ink loser in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, possibly some of their checking account holders will decide to also give them profitable business? That is f***ing stupid.

WOW.

[WebGem]

People still use debit cards?

lol what do you mean? Do you just carry cash all the time and use that? I know a lot of people do that, but a lot of people use their debit cards/never carry cash too.

[Sure-Oz]

Debit Cards are easy....couldn't you just do the 'credit' option rather than enter the pin and do debit and do for a higher dollar amount

[alnorth]

I don't know what hill you think I'm dying on, but let's recap.

First, I pointed to the Massachusetts situation to note one thing: a real life example that went along with point about insurance companies claiming they need one percentage just to survive but somehow still thriving at lower percentages. The article about Massachusetts shows them lopping off percentage points from their request pretty much the moment they are confronted about them.

Second, there's nothing deceptive at all in what's happened. Progressive has asked for a rate increase 5 times in 3 years. A one time decrease doesn't change that, as I'm sure you know. You were the one tossing out the "years" stuff, not me. I was just responding to your erroneous claim.

You are being dumb. I read the filing in question. They filed 26.5%. MA pointed out a clerical error they made. Progressive basically said (in polite business language) "woops, you are right, our bad. We should have filed 23.5% instead."

Regarding the rate history, break out your f**king calculator. 1.003 x 0.935 x 1.004 x 1.011 x 1.04 = 0.99.

What does that tell you? That tells me their rates are currently 1% lower now than they were in 2007! To point out their recent rate increases as if to make the point that they are being greedy, that is beyond deceptive, it is silly, slimey, and misleading! To criticize them for filing lots of (teeny tiny, almost irrelevant, they probably should have been filing for more) increases is basically to lie without technically lying.

In the insurance world, we've seen this story many times. A new hotshot insurance company starts up with this jackpot low rate. They run lots of ads on TV with a catchphrase, perhaps encouraging the viewer to "be progressive". The rate is way, way too low with a loss ratio that is probably well over 100%, but they dont care, they figure if they sign up a bunch of new business, they will eventually make it up by investing the float like Warren Buffet's Geico, or they think they will figure out a new nifty way to underwrite that hasn't already been discovered decades ago. They discover no, they aren't brilliant. They have one of the lowest rates and now they are losing their ass. In desperation they finally file big rate increases and some of the states (eg MA) object. The state has no problem with our company, we already have a higher (profitable) rate but we aren't asking to increase it. Unfortunately for Progressive, they do have a problem with allowing Progressive to have a big rate increase because someone like Martha Coakley is a politician who doesn't know much about insurance, they want to be elected to something someday, and that wont happen by being seen as the stooge who let progressive get a big increase.

I'm happy that progressive is struggling, their rate is much lower than ours. They were stupid, and they are suffering in MA for it. They deserve the pain of not getting that increase. They may have stolen business from my company with their lower rate, but they aren't profiting from it now.

[alnorth]

WOW.

Why do you deserve free checking? Seriously, your checking was subsidized by the stores you swiped your debit card with. Those stores are no longer willing to pay for your checking account. You expect the bank to just eat it?

Don't be dumb, think about it.

[Bugeater]

Debit Cards are easy....couldn't you just do the 'credit' option rather than enter the pin and do debit and do for a higher dollar amount
I've never understood what the difference in the two options are. The money still comes out of my account either way.

[007]

lol what do you mean? Do you just carry cash all the time and use that? I know a lot of people do that, but a lot of people use their debit cards/never carry cash too.

My credit card IS my debit card. Pay my balance in full every month.

:thumb:

[Just Passin' By]

You are being dumb. I read the filing in question. They filed 26.5%. MA pointed out a clerical error they made. Progressive basically said (in polite business language) "woops, you are right, our bad. We should have filed 23.5% instead."

Regarding the rate history, break out your f**king calculator. 1.003 x 0.935 x 1.004 x 1.011 x 1.04 = 0.99.

What does that tell you? That tells me their rates are currently 1% lower now than they were in 2007! To point out their recent rate increases as if to make the point that they are being greedy, that is beyond deceptive, it is silly, slimey, and misleading! To criticize them for filing lots of (teeny tiny, almost irrelevant, they probably should have been filing for more) increases is basically to lie without technically lying.

In the insurance world, we've seen this story many times. A new hotshot insurance company starts up with this jackpot low rate. They run lots of ads on TV with a catchphrase, perhaps encouraging the viewer to "be progressive". The rate is way, way too low with a loss ratio that is probably well over 100%, but they dont care, they figure if they sign up a bunch of new business, they will eventually make it up by investing the float like Warren Buffet's Geico, or they think they will figure out a new nifty way to underwrite that hasn't already been discovered decades ago. They discover no, they aren't brilliant. They have one of the lowest rates and now they are losing their ass. In desperation they finally file big rate increases and some of the states (eg MA) object. The state has no problem with our company, we already have a higher (profitable) rate but we aren't asking to increase it. Unfortunately for Progressive, they do have a problem with allowing Progressive to have a big rate increase because someone like Martha Coakley is a politician who doesn't know much about insurance, they want to be elected to something someday, and that wont happen by being seen as the stooge who let progressive get a big increase.

I'm happy that progressive is struggling, their rate is much lower than ours. They were stupid, and they are suffering in MA for it. They deserve the pain of not getting that increase. They may have stolen business from my company with their lower rate, but they aren't profiting from it now.

A "clerical error"? If only they'd carried the '1'. I'm sure it was all just an honest mistake, because companies don't double check their data before taking it to government agencies on something as significant as this. That must be why Coakley isn't contesting the lower increase. :rolleyes:

Also, given that I was just pointing to one simple example of what I was referring to, and given that you say you're in that business (I don't doubt you), you know full well that what I was posting was absolutely true, yet those companies are still raking in the coin.

[alnorth]

yet those companies are still raking in the coin.

Maybe my company, but not progressive! ;)

At least not in MA for commercial auto, where their rate was stupidly too low, and now they cant get an increase!

[RJ]

I thought most businesses preferred Debit transactions as opposed to Credit because the fee's were less, but I'm not positive.

Businesses are also backed into a corner when they agree to accept CC's and DC's. A local business here had a sign hanging on their register about not accepting CC or DC for any purchase under like $5 or something. Well unfortunately that's not legal to do once you agree to accept CC and DC's. Had a friend call them on it and they relented, but i don't think they ever took the sign down.

It depends on the amount of purchase. CC's are a % and DC are a flat fee. A guy I know who owns a small local grocery had one of those same signs. He explained it to me with an example of someone buying a single can of coke and paying with debit. He said it cost him about 15 cents to make the sale. I thought that was valid.

Also, does anyone know if stores get something from the banks when you do "cash back"? I can't think of any other reason why the groceries would always offer it.

[RJ]

Its really simple. You think it costs the bank nothing to give you free checking and free debit cards? Of course it costs them something. Instead of charging you, they charged the merchant. Maybe the merchant passed those few dollars into the retail price you paid, but hey you have free checking and free debit cards, so you are happy.

Congress sticks their nose into the situation and tells the banks "no, you can only charge x% to the merchant for using the debit card, not x + y%" The bank's cost to give you a checking account and debit card doesn't change, the only thing that changes is they now get less money from the merchant. Their options are now to either take less profit (or a loss) by doing nothing, or make you pay an annual fee, or try to figure out a way to reduce their cost, perhaps by reducing your debit card limit and thus the amount of loss due to ID/card theft.

Seriously, its not that hard to understand. A bank is not a charity, You had free checking because your local wal-mart and gas station paid for it. Now, you have to pay for it, one way or another.


I understand it completely. I see the statements we get at work from the bank every month. The fees are huge. Now their fees are going to be a little less huge and they want to make that up in other areas.....in this instance by pissing off their (frequently) loyal customers. You think that's ok, I don't.

[RJ]

Why do you deserve free checking? Seriously, your checking was subsidized by the stores you swiped your debit card with. Those stores are no longer willing to pay for your checking account. You expect the bank to just eat it?

Don't be dumb, think about it.


Actually, I pay a fee for my checking and have for some time. I expect service in return and I don't expect a limit on my DC that is lower than my weekly grocery purchase.

[R8RFAN]

Yep. Personally, my thought is, let's get back to cash. It hurts online transactions, and those outlets are going to be trying to find creative ways to move higher end product, but I just can't help but love the idea of banks cutting their own throats with a stupid move like this.

Simple solution, Fire the bank!!!

They work for YOU, you don't work for them.... if the super big mega bank wants to lose a zillion customers to the small or online banks then so be it...:thumb:

[Rausch]

When you were a kid, you ever hear about how drug dealers would start out by giving you freebies, so that one day you would be hooked, and they could cash in on your new addiction?

Now look back on how you came to start using ATM/Debit cards. How many people got that shiny ATM card in the mail as a new free service the bank was offering their customers? How many of us saw our ATM cards upgraded to debit cards, without requesting it, just because the bank wanted us to enjoy this new convenience?

Then one day, you went to withdraw cash from the ATM like you do every Friday evening, and there's a new $1 charge attached to your habit. You got your statement from the bank at the first of the month, and realized that going over a certain number of transactions is going to start costing you.

Banks practically force fed consumers into replacing the teller with the ATM, and cash/checks with the debit card. Now they want to cry about what it costs them? Give me a f*cking break. They are laughing all the way to their weekend at the unicorn ranch. Banks' unadulterated greed continues to screw over this nation and our economy.

When banks start limiting how much of your money you can withdraw one might start to worry...

[Iowanian]

My counter argument is that the banks are already making a profit off of my accounts.

Not only are they dinging retailers for transactions, but my cash isn't all sitting liquid in their vault waiting for me to come and get it. They're loaning it out, for a significantly higher percentage than they'll ever consider paying me, in interest on a savings(less than %1) or CDs which are still shitty returns....and then they loan MY money out to others and back to me for 6-12% depending on who is getting the money and purpose.

I should never have to pay them to get my own money back out.



in other words: "Lets bash the banks because thats cool. YEAH, down with banks, woohoo! Anarchy rar!"

Whether or not the banks made or lost a lot of money in mortgages is freaking IRRELEVANT.

Checking accounts should stand as profitable on their own. The cost of checking and debit accounts doesn't decrease, but the income is drastically slashed. What in the f*** do you expect them to do? Just treat checking accounts as a bleeding red-ink loser in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, possibly some of their checking account holders will decide to also give them profitable business? That is f***ing stupid.

[R8RFAN]

This is nothing but a fight between the store and the bank and the only one that will lose is the customer...

Banks like that shithole Bank of America give unsecured credit card to people that don't even have a social security card in this country and they want you and me to pay for it when they default on them...

Screw the brick and mortar banks, they are a thing of the past

[Skyy God]

For the life of me, I fail to see how capping interchange fees benefits the consumer. It's not like retailers are going to pass the savings on.

[R8RFAN]

For the life of me, I fail to see how capping interchange fees benefits the consumer. It's not like retailers are going to pass the savings on.

The bill says it will save 1 billion for consumers over a year.
Basically it will cap it at like 12 cents per transaction as opposed to 63 cents per transaction.

Will the retailer lower their prices? Not a chance...

The bank will not lose money, if they are forced to do this they will add more fees to compensate for it in other areas.....

[Skyy God]

The bill says it will save 1 billion for consumers over a year.
Basically it will cap it at like 12 cents per transaction as opposed to 63 cents per transaction.

Will the retailer lower their prices? Not a chance...

The bank will not lose money, if they are forced to do this they will add more fees to compensate for it in other areas.....

That's a BS assumption.

Looks like the amount of the cap is still in flux until April. Hopefully, the Fed arrives at some middle point that allows banks to make a reasonable profit without forcing them to shift the costs directly to consumers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/federal-reserve-said-to-consider-interchange-fee-cap-on-dec-16.html

[Valiant]

This isn't the NFL or the local private grocery store where you have no right to see their books and everything is cloaked in a shroud of secrecy. Most of them are freaking publicly-held companies that are audited and file with the SEC. (or maybe not the SEC in the case of banks, but they file with someone in the government) The analysts, who have absolutely no loyalty at all to the bank and are paid good money to know all the gory details of a company's operation to recommend whether the company is healthy or not, are telling us that this cut to the interchange fee is a massive hit to their profitability. The banks fought like hell in congress to try to prevent it.

Aside from that, use simple damned logic. This change will obviously enrage their customers. It will obviously cause many of them to leave or stop using their debit cards. Why would any sane company do that, unless they had to?

You are trying to inject rational into mostly crooked corporations. If someone at corporate thinks they can piss their base off and still keep them to recoup the money they will. Someone deemed it a good idea.

Samething with programming in deposits. If you have under a certain amount of money in yur account it takes longer for a check to deposit. Over that, damn thing is near instant. Have had this happen with even direct deposit.

[Skyy God]

This, btw, is a classic example of legislators trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

[Valiant]

The bill says it will save 1 billion for consumers over a year.
Basically it will cap it at like 12 cents per transaction as opposed to 63 cents per transaction.

Will the retailer lower their prices? Not a chance...

The bank will not lose money, if they are forced to do this they will add more fees to compensate for it in other areas.....


Why would a retailer lower prices? if you use cash it is not cheaper(most places). More of aoperating expense.

[R8RFAN]

Why would a retailer lower prices? if you use cash it is not cheaper(most places). More of aoperating expense.


Thats their argument, not mine....

[Lbedrock1]

If you don't like the caps, and you insist on using debit cards instead of credit cards, then you better be willing to pay an annual fee.
u
We do not have a constitutional right to free checking. We've had it for so long that now it seems like it, but the banks made their money off the merchants. Well, congress has cut down on the interchange fee, so the bank has to either get that money back out of your hide, or make it tougher to use a stolen debit card.

They dont have a constitutional right that rigged a system to force people to need banks to cash chks, direct deposit money, and store cash with easy access to it then wanna charge you high fees for it either. Banks are in the business to make money off loans that is why the can borrow at such low interest. If they want to make money through fees and other slick products they can come up with i say they stop being able to borrow from the fed reserve and let the people borrow from the fed reserve out right. One more thing we must understand the constitution is a guide not the end all to be all. There is no way we can always say we dont have a constitutional right when the fore fathers could not have seen the kind of shit big business and wall street has put the country in. We are suppose to be protected from all enemies both foriegn and domestic which would include corp that are killing our economy and holding America hostage with their greed.

[El Jefe]

That brings up a good point, I've often wondered which most business owners prefer. Sure, they don't have to pay the service charges for cash, but they also don't have to worry as much about losses due to robbery or employee theft or incompetence, and I have to think that the electronic transactions make bookkeeping easier. It's probably a wash.

I have personally handled 5k (I know its not a ton) in cash multiple times leaving our shop. I have no problem having big money in my pockets, unless someone had a gun or a knife I wouldn't lose that money, plus all three of us leave at the same time. I would prefer cash everyday of the week and twice on Sunday over paying our merchant services "fees".

[DaKCMan AP]

I still don't understand why people use debit cards. "Yes, please, I'd like you to remove the money from my account as quickly as possible, so use this card." Use a credit card, get the float on the money, earn some frequent flyer miles, and then pay it off at the end of the month.

+1

[R8RFAN]

Originally Posted by Rain Man http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7480906#post7480906)
I still don't understand why people use debit cards. "Yes, please, I'd like you to remove the money from my account as quickly as possible, so use this card." Use a credit card, get the float on the money, earn some frequent flyer miles, and then pay it off at the end of the month.


Because I get 2% back on every purchase I make is why I use a debit card with no fees whatsoever...

Perkstreet.com

[kcfanXIII]

My paycheck is direct deposited. I have no choice whether the bank gets my money. A $100 cap would be extremely inconvenient for me. Might make some things impossible for me. But as usual the banks don't give two shit about people (see bailout and the bonuses the execs got.) I don't see this actually happening though. I see a fear tactic being used by the banks to scarelaw makers into letting them keep their little cash cow. Maybe they shouldn't have spent all their bailout money on bonuses.

[R8RFAN]

My paycheck is direct deposited. I have no choice whether the bank gets my money. A $100 cap would be extremely inconvenient for me. Might make some things impossible for me. But as usual the banks don't give two shit about people (see bailout and the bonuses the execs got.) I don't see this actually happening though. I see a fear tactic being used by the banks to scarelaw makers into letting them keep their little cash cow. Maybe they shouldn't have spent all their bailout money on bonuses.

You have the choice on which bank gets your money though, the direct deposit form can be filled out and within 2 weeks you can direct deposit in any bank you choose...

heres the problem, these idiots in congress want to regulate everything, just let capitalism work and we would all be better off

[dtebbe]

This would be ****ed, especially when it cost $60+ to fill up my tank now.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/10/pf/debit_cards_limit/index.htm?hpt=T2


The revenue banks get from interchange fees helps to offset money lost from fraudulent transactions. So with the Fed's proposed cap in place, banks argue they won't have the money to protect themselves against fraud. And, of course, the bigger the purchase the bigger the risk, so banks are considering limiting consumers' ability to pay by debit card.


The above is the biggest line of Bullshit ever. The banks have ZERO liability on fraud unless it's a cash advance. The Merchant that they are porking for the "interchange fees" is the one who takes it up the azz when any fraud is involved.

Liars & Thieves = Banks, MasterCard, Visa, & Discover

DT

[sedated]

But as usual the banks don't give two shit about people (see bailout and the bonuses the execs got.)

well the same could be said about the government that allowed the banks to do what they did. they should have eliminated or capped bonuses for bank executives, but simply handed over millions of dollars and trusted them to do the right thing (which they didn't).

sort of a similar situations here - they passed laws that 1) were very aggressive towards banks, and 2) didn't protect the average consumer from having the costs passed on to them.

their heart MIGHT have been in the right place (for once), but their heads were up their asses. and their hands are still taking payoffs from big businesses, which is something the average citizens will NEVER be able to compete with.

[munkey]

A local place I eat, hang out, and shoot the shit gets charged $.80 every time they swipe a credit card/ debit card now. I guess it has something to do with the company that gives them the equipment.


Impossible...

[FringeNC]

Don't blame the banks, blame Dick Durbin. These idiot politicians refuse to understand price controls are a disaster.

[munkey]

Don't blame the banks, blame Dick Durbin. These idiot politicians refuse to understand price controls are a disaster.

:thumb:

[R8RFAN]

Don't blame the banks, blame Dick Durbin. These idiot politicians refuse to understand price controls are a disaster.

Exactly....
Let the free market dictate the price

If any business is not doing you right as a consumer, fire them...

How many people will keep going to a restaurant that served them cold crappy food over and over and over?

[Bob Dole]

Now look back on how you came to start using ATM/Debit cards. How many people got that shiny ATM card in the mail as a new free service the bank was offering their customers?

When Bob Dole got his first ATM card, it had a 2-digit PIN and there was still another human involved in the withdrawal process (service desk at the grocery store). Bob Dole misses the '70's. :p

[R8RFAN]

When Bob Dole got his first ATM card, it had a 2-digit PIN and there was still another human involved in the withdrawal process (service desk at the grocery store). Bob Dole misses the '70's. :p

The 70's miss Bob Dole too Bob Dole

[The Franchise]

So.....I should be able to just choose the "Credit" option then......right?

[munkey]

So.....I should be able to just choose the "Credit" option then......right?

yes...the way the card is accepted dictates the rate the merchant pays...so with a higher ticket item the merchant would prefer pin based debit...smaller swiped. You'll notice most if not all small convenient stores don't even offer debit...that's because their average ticket is small and it's cheaper to swipe the card.

[Inspector]

I never got into the cards or debt thing. I've heard all the really good reasons why it's a lot better to use credit but I'm old and was raised in the olden days when we didn't have that stuff and, heck, I don't know, but we did ok.

If I want to buy something, I just reach in my pocket, pull out the dough and buy it. I've always just saved my money for what I want and then just bought it when I was ready. I don't like using other peoples money and I don't want to owe anybody anything.

Truth is I rarely ever buy anything. My wife is retired and she does all the shopping. I'll put a few twenties in my pocket and carry them around for several weeks until I stop and get gas or something. And I only do that maybe once a month, tops.

And Yeah, I hate pretty much everything too. And stay off my lawn dammit!

[Simplex3]

Plus, even when you do make a payment on time all they have to do is claim it didn't make it through their process center on time. Then your stuck arguing with some idiot in a cubicle 500 miles away which gets you know where, but they get to add a $35 late fee and start the interest game.

No thanks. CC free for 8 years and NEVER going back. Cash is king!

On the rare occasions that my cards try that stunt we tell them they can either waive the fee and any interest they want us to pay or we will cancel our account and use another card. We put pretty much everything on our cards (and pay them off every month). They always give up, and generally without a fight.

[Just Passin' By]

Don't blame the banks, blame Dick Durbin. These idiot politicians refuse to understand price controls are a disaster.

Given that many of the banking laws favor the banks, this sort of argument becomes highly selective.

[RippedmyFlesh]

I still don't understand why people use debit cards. "Yes, please, I'd like you to remove the money from my account as quickly as possible, so use this card." Use a credit card, get the float on the money, earn some frequent flyer miles, and then pay it off at the end of the month.

A lot of people get paid with a debit card and figure why bother with another card. And some people need the cap of a debit card because you can't spend what you don't have. People who live pay check to pay check get no benefit from float anyways having near 0 balances.

[bevischief]

Glad I hate Bank of America...

[jspchief]

heres the problem, these idiots in congress want to regulate everything, just let capitalism work and we would all be better off

That's all fine and good until capitalism lets these super banks get so huge that they are literally the lifeline of our economy, and the banks let their greed dig them in such an enormous hole that my tax dollars have to bail them out.

Capitalism in it's current US form is f*cking this country. Certain industries have a stranglehold on consumers and operate without consequence.

Banks are a perfect example. They've made their living for centuries on the business of lending. Then one day the CEOs started catering to shareholders instead of customers. And now we face banks trying to keep their ridiculous profit margins by forcing me to pay more fees on the services they offered to me for free.

[Chiefshrink]

Wall Street reform- Don't ya just love all this 'hope and change':rolleyes:

Wall Street reform- nothing but attacking "free market capitalism" to the point where common everyday "joe six pack guys" like you and me can't even use our debit cards:banghead:

[Chiefshrink]

That's all fine and good until capitalism lets these super banks get so huge that they are literally the lifeline of our economy, and the banks let their greed dig them in such an enormous hole that my tax dollars have to bail them out.

Capitalism in it's current US form is f*cking this country. Certain industries have a stranglehold on consumers and operate without consequence.

Banks are a perfect example. They've made their living for centuries on the business of lending. Then one day the CEOs started catering to shareholders instead of customers. And now we face banks trying to keep their ridiculous profit margins by forcing me to pay more fees on the services they offered to me for free.

So is it capitalism or corrupt individuals that so call in your words "f" this country? Think awhile before you answer this so then you will answer 'honestly'. Hell let me help you here.

Capitalism is "financial freedom" to at least have the opportunity to acquire and maintain your particular "lot in life" on how you see fit to live it.

It is not the Govt's right to come in and tell you what your worth is to society and tell you when to piss and sh** and how much and what you will make financially and what you are allowed to own materially. Capitialism in and of itself is not corrupt but in the hands of "corrupt people" becomes not Capitalism anymore but outright "theft".

"We the People" must protect ourselves by enforcing the laws we have already in place to avoid the "corruption" that allows those individuals/groups from the financial world and our Fed Govt to "steal" from "We The People".

When a society begins to snub it's nose to high moral ethics(ala Judeo Christian values) and approaches everything with a greeedy attitude of "everyman for himself, gonna get mine and "f" everyone else" mentality as we are seeing right now in our country. Then Capitalism turns into "greed" resulting in "theft" and like cancer that is not cut out before it gets into the "lymph system"(ala enforcing our laws) then the "unchecked greed" will ultimately kill our country because corrupt individuals in power never enforce the law. What did Thomas Jefferson say, "As soon as the Fed Govt realizes they can vote themselves $$ the country will cease to exist or something like that.

The Seven Deadly Sins of which no country in history has ever been immune to but our country has been somewhat more successful than most "BUT" in the last 60yrs has given in significantly to these sins and we have paid a dear, dear price of which IMO we will never recover from.

So I ask you again, is it Capitalism in and of itself or "corrupt individuals" that turn Capitalism into "theft and greed"?