Posted on 02/20/2011 7:30:15 AM PST by FromLori
What if you go to use your debit card but find you have a $100 spending limit — even if you have more money in your account? Right now, the idea is a bargaining chip being used by some of the nation's biggest banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup.
The change would have a big impact on shoppers. The average family spends $122 on groceries every week, so a simple trip to the supermarket might in the future require a stop at the ATM.
It all goes back to new rules that Congress is considering aimed at limiting the fees that banks can charge retailers every time you swipe your debit card.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Unfortunately, we live in a digital world.
There is a risk that all of this will fail and we will have nothing physical to prove our assets. Just an electronic bank account on a computer somewhere that crashed or was hacked or locked out by the Feds or the Bank itself.
It can go both ways, I guess.
They refused to cash the check, insisting I go to my bank to cash it.(I had everything I needed to prove ID for both of us)
I am stubborn. It would have been no problem to get in the car and drive a few blocks to my bank, but that was not the point. The point was the bank was refusing to honor a check written by an account holder to my son.
They held their ground & I held mine.
The tipping point came 10 minutes later (the stubborn factor) when I raised my voice ever so slightly so those waiting in lie heard:
“Let me get this straight. You are refusing to cash my eight year old son's $25.00 birthday check written to him by his grandparents even though the account is with your bank? “
“Well Ma’am, we will do it this one time.”
lie = line
“That happened to my wife. She ended up talking to some Indian (dot not feathers) and found out that someone had used her driver license number to cash a bad check. “
Nice to see it work well in her case. My problem is that there doesn’t seem to be a way to appeal their ruling...and they don’t rule until you’ve filled your shopping cart and are checking out. I have it happen once in a while with credit cards, but I can have multiple cards, and can call them in worst-case, without having to divulge my account access password to them.
They’ve pretty much negated the use of my checking account for retail transactions. I don’t think get in the way of other transactions, like credit card payments or mortgage payments, but I have absolutely no faith in writing a check at a store again.
No, not every day. I go about once a week, maybe twice if I have a trip coming up. I don't spend near $300 a day, or even a week. I generally take out $200 or so, and I always put 10-20% aside so that when I have a little extra spending to do, I can pull some cash out of the stash and use it. As I said, on big-ticket items and internet purchases, I use the credit card (and paypal on occasion). I also buy gas on CC bacause I get 5% back on gas purchase.
It helps that my bank has branches in very convenient locations so I can stop by the drive-through ATM just about any time I want.
In economics classes I was taught that a check is a contractual agreement between the owner if the check,the bank,and the receiver to issue legal tender based on the funds being available.
What we have in effect here is a throw-back to the days before the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Notes in which everything is now denominated.
Let's say that your debtor banks at Wells Fargo and the amount of debt to you is $5000. What we have here is $5000 in Wells Fargo Notes, and the fee assessed by Wells Fargo is the same sort of fee one would pay to switch from Dollars to Euros or to Pesos. Before the Fed, every bank had its own bank notes and the quality of the debt instrument predicated on the stability of the Bank that cashiers the note. If you also banked at Wells Fargo, then you would be denominating your debt in Wells Fargo notes and thus would not expect to have a currency conversion fee attached.
Removing this burden used to be the whole point and purpose behind the Federal Reserve. With this sort of policy they obviate their need to exist.
That exact same thing happened to me (minus the child). Genuinely angry, and without using it as a ploy, I raised my voice and said, “So a check from an account at this bank is not worth the paper it’s written on?”
A minute or two later, I walked out with my cash.
Never banked with the others and left Bunch of A$$e$ many years ago.
Write a check, use cash, don’t deposit any money in these backs.
What good are they, if they don’t honor the balance in your account?
Remember, banking is in reality legalized crime in the first place! They create money out of thin air with an accounting entry, ‘loan’ you the money to buy a house or whatever, and then confiscate real property if you don’t pay them back with interest on time!
You are correct, that's always been the traditional understanding of a wrongfully dishonored in-person presentment of a valid "on-us" check. The traditional understanding was that such wrongful dishonor is the check-writer's problem, even though the bank is the one in the wrong. The recipient of the dishonored check only has recourse against the writer of the check and not the bank it is drawn on, even if the check is a valid instrument that has been wrongfully dishonored. That does make sense since the only customer relationship in the check process is that of the writer of the check to the bank it was written on. The bank has failed in its contractual obligation with the writer of the check in the wrongful dishonor, and not with the recipient of the check.
However, the idiots in the Clinton administration decided that, no, the *presenter* is somehow magically a customer who can be charged a fee for services rendered, thereby destroying centuries of understanding that the bank's customer is the writer of the check, not the recipient.
This was recently floated as an idea in the UK, I kid you not.
Some people just prefer to pay as they go and not use credit; no bills to pay later. A debit card is little different from paying cash, at least as they've always been to now.
The reason behind this activity by the big banks goes back, as usual, to regulations by the leftist Congress to prevent their deadbeat voters from paying their own way.
In last year’s Dodd-Frank regulatory bill (could it cause anything but harm?) there was a tiny clause that effectively keeps banks from charging overdraft fees on debit card transactions.
Works like this: If you write a bum check and it cause an overdraft, the back will likely bounce your check AND charge you the overdraft fee.
If you use your debit card to make the same purchase, in many cases the bank is prohibited from charging you the fee.
Dodd-Frank’s rationale (if you want to call it that) was that a check-writer often has a day or two, especially over weekends, to get money in his account to cover his checks.
A debit card, on the other hand, in most cases hits your account immediately, weekday, weekend, business hours, nights, whenever.
The Democrats decided that it just wasn’t fair that their constituents who wanted to buy doritos and malt liquor on Saturday at 3 a.m., even with no money in their accounts, ought to be able to do it without penalty. Just like the rest of us.
This means a loss of income to the banks. This pisses the banks off. So now they are coming up with other fees to offset the income, and to flip off Dodd and Frank.
As I say, business as usual.
“There is also a rumor of ATM cash shortages going around.”
Agree, when things go bad, they go bad really, really, fast. You’re basically frozen with whatever you have - be it food, fuel, cash, etc. You simply cannot count on anything being available. For example, I figure that there are about 25,000 families ready to rush to my Sams Club to buy toilet paper on a moment’s notice (once a shortage is declared). By my estimate, last time I was there, that comes out to one roll per family. But what really happens is that he store doesn’t have a contingency plan, so the shelves empty out with the first 100 of those people. From there, as toilet paper trickles in, you wait in line for an hour to get your roll. Meanwhile, that gasoline that you planned to buy next just got snatched up...not to mention food. Of course, that all pre-supposes that you had cash ready, because (as you allude to) that ATM might not be so friendly anymore.
It has happened over and over throughout history, and happens after disasters - although the rest of the country can help there, so it’s short term. But it will be months before things get moving at all, when the big one (i.e., dollar collapse) hits - and it will get very ugly, and very, very, quickly. And it’s only a matter of time, unless the Democrats team up with Republicans to cut entitlements, which I do not see happening prior to the meltdown.
Would you mind if I ask why you are kind of over-focused on using cash? It’s ok if you don’t want to answer:)
You hit on the issue that is shocking to me. A check is an order to pay. How a bank is allowed to charge the check holder for obeying the order to pay the check holder is beyond me.
The rest of this is a matter of a contract between the bank and the account holder. If the account holder does not like the contract the bank offers and the bank will not negotiate a special deal with the account holder, then the account holder either accepts the deal offerred or goes elsewhere. That is the way it is with all business transactions.
There are lots of credit unions out there. The rules for credit union membership are much more relaxed than previously. If enough of us go to credit unions when a change in our contracts are issued, then banks will get the message.
BFLR
I don’t follow; the employee who banks elsewhere is charged by Wells Fargo to cash a check drawn on Wells Fargo by their employer. I don’t see where a bounced check comes into play here (there are adequate funds in the employer’s account).
I've had debit cards that have $500 daily limits - only to the bank's advantage. Putting in a PIN - only to the bank's advantage. Immediate debit from account - only to the bank's advantage. Less liability for fraudulent usage - only to the bank's advantage.
I just don't see where the my advantage would lie other than some "peace of mind" thing.
Good points; I believe the larger banks will always lose to small local banks and credit unions for the small individual account holder.
Again, I’m just surprised that it is legal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.