[I see my hands]

Intent? That's irrelevant. One isn't lent money on their intention to repay. One is lent money on their signature, their sacred word. And when they don't pay back a mortgage loan, for example, they may not have intended to lower the property values of the homes in their neighborhood but that's just what they did. (And by lots more than $5/mo!!)

And no, you're just confused. The $5/mo isn't to use your own money it's for the convenience of using a debit card. Used to be the merchant paid (and had an incentive to pass along as little of the fee as possible in order to be competitive with other businesses) but federal regulations required the banks to shift the burden directly to the retail consumer. Convenience isn't free. Somebody has to pay, otherwise how would a profit be made? How would employees be paid? Or stockholders?

Nah, the $5 isn't to use your money, it's a fee for service rendered.

It's the loser, thief, deadbeats who thought they could take advantage (in the case of mortgage loans, for example) of a government rigged (CRA) system.

[moehoward]

"One is lent money on their signature, their sacred word."

So signing the contract binds the borrower to some higher conditions not included in the contract? I fail to see how either parties "sacred word" is diminished by exercising contract provisos both agreed to.

And, again. That has nothing to do with BoA debit card fee. I supposed the bottom line is, all they're doing is upping the cost of a BoA checking account. If that makes them too expensive to do business with, people will walk away. I did years ago.