#1 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Don't overdraft and they won't charge you for using the backup funds. The checking account is no longer free so you consider it a rip off. It isn't.
#2 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Tiredofthefees! - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
It is still a ripoff when I was sold a free checking account. My other bank charges only \$.99 cents to use my overdraft protection. $10 is gouging and is a ripoff in anybody's book! To charge a fee of that magnitude on top of the interest is gouging.
#3 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
It's no longer free. Not a rip off."My other bank charges only \$.99 cents to use my overdraft protection."Apparently you overdraft quite often. Get your act together.
It's not gouging because you can move to another bank. You have no idea what a rip off or gouging is.They charge you interest on your account? Really? Maybe you need to learn what interest is too.
#4 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
You need to learn some financial discipline and you will then not pay fees.
Or switch to a bank with little or no fees.
My credit union pays me 4.5% on my checking account!
And that is from the first dollar!
I have 3 checking accounts.
2 personal, and 1 business.
I don't pay any fees whatsoever.
Because......
I don't overdraft.
I watch my minimum balances to avoid the monthly fee.
I don't use foreign ATM's.
I don't use any premium or convenience services.
In any case, there is no "rip off" here.
You have the choice to pay the fees, or take your business somewhere else!
After all, the fees were plainly disclosed in your account agreement.
#5 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Flynrider - Phoenix (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Since Congress ushered in consumer protection regulations that reduced the amount of overdraft fees on "free" checking accounts, it is no longer worth it for banks to offer free checking. This applies to all banks. Before debit cards allowed banks to rack up fees on the irresponsible, checking accounts always had fees associated with them. Now banks have just gone back to the old model. Although you may have signed up for free checking, there wasn't anything in the terms guaranteeing you that it would be free forever. Times change.
If you did enough business with the bank, the monthly fee would be waved. Specifically :
Options to Waive the Monthly Fee
Combined monthly direct deposits totaling $500+, OR
Average account balance of $1,500
If you don't do much business with them, then you're account costs them money. Why should they take a loss to give you free checking? You are not that special.
As for the charges when you overdraft, that's simple. Quit overdrafting! If you can't, maybe you should find a bank that charges a lower fee to use a reserve account. Simple as that. It's not a ripoff if the you are aware of the fees and choose to continue paying them.
#6 Update By Author
AUTHOR: Tiredofthefees! - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Obviously you make a million a year and don't live in the real world. I don't overdraft often, but occasionally tip the scale. The point of the reserve account is so I CAN overdraft and not have to pay a bounced check charge. Maybe you should research how reserve accounts work. And I'm trying to get my act together, but it's hard when the bank keeps overcharging and ripping me off.
#7 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: mr rik - miami (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, May 26, 2011
I just typed in us bank
AND FOUND 449 RIPOFFS!
OUCH!
#8 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 27, 2011
POSTED: Friday, May 27, 2011
"Maybe you should research how reserve accounts work."
Maybe you should research how check registers work.
You never answered my question about why you are being charged interest. Banks pay interest on accounts. They charge interest on loans.
#9 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: patti - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 27, 2011
POSTED: Friday, May 27, 2011
Usually, if you maintain an overdraft line of credit and manually transfer funds there is no fee. The fee comes into play when the bank has to make an automatic transfer. They key is keeping an accurate register and knowing when your account is not sufficient to cover transactions. Just go online and transfer the funds ahead of time, or if you aren't able to do this online then call the bank and request a transfer.
Regarding banks starting to charge for formerly free accounts, there are many others besides US Bank that are doing this. They are required to give advance notice so you have the opportunity to move your account if you are not willing or able to do this. As an example, my bank was recently purchased by a large international bank. The integration date is mid-June and I received a new terms and conditions notice 30 days in advance of the integration. They informed account holders of the new fee structure and are also giving all account holders the first month free of any of the new account fees. I have five accounts with this bank. The minimum daily balance to keep your account free of the monthly maintenance fee is only $100. If your account falls below $100 on any one day of the account cycle, you will incur a fee. They were very clear about this.
There are some banks that do offer free accounts, but that service is dwindling fast. Contrary to popular belief, banks are not charitable organizations. Like most business entities, they want to make a profit at the end of the day.
#10 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: mr rik - miami (USA)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 27, 2011
POSTED: Saturday, May 28, 2011
The banks think they have all the angles covered. You need to cash a check? Better have an acct somewhere, because most banks won't do it for free anymore, even when it has there OWN name on it. -PAY.
You work? Chances are your employer is requiring direct deposit, even if you DON'T WANT IT. -PLAY
Now that your forced "in the game" (against your will), the banks know they can count on a lifetime of profit from you- Either through fees for the less fortunate, or for those who think theyre big shots for keeping a high balance, the bank is simply using their money for evil- and paying them peanuts for the privilege.
Thats why I put feces in night deposit boxes.
#11 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, May 28, 2011
POSTED: Saturday, May 28, 2011
It costs $10 (which you agreed to when you set up the account and agree to each time you overspend your account) when the bank has to transfer money from your reserve account to cover an overdraft. This fee is per transfer which can cover more the one transaction that posts negative. An OD fee is usually in the $25-$35 per item range, plus any fee the store will impose again usually $25-$35 per item. So if an item is paid into overdraft it would cost $50-$70 in fees. This is per item. So your $10 transfer fee is "saving" you $40-$60 when you don't keep your register. If you don't like paying the fee, don't overdraft your account. If you think $10 is too much, close your account and use the other bank.
#12 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: I am the law - Chicago (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 02, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, June 02, 2011
Ok, a few things I need to get off my chest here....
First off, if you have a reserve line, and you manually move the money before you complete a business day with a negative available balance, you don't get charged. That only happens if USB has to move the money for you. Next time, move the money yourself and you'll just have to pay back the principal and whatever amount of interest.
Second, where are these fantasy banks and credit unions that allegedly pay four or five percent interest on checking account? Where are these places that charge minimal fees or no fees at all? I'm noticing that no one ever tells you the names of these godsend institutions; they always just say "my bank" or "my credit union". Please, enlighten us so we can cash in as well.
Finally, thanks to "bank reform", banks are now finding creative ways to supplement their income since they aren't allowed to use the same OD fee polices as they have in the past. In other words, since they can't charge as many OD fees as often as they did before, banks are now imposing fees on previously free products. They're also lowering interest paid to customers on CD's, investments, and savings accounts while jacking up the interest rates for loans and credit products.
#13 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
..if the bank won't provide an accurate record, with which to reconcile, of what's in the account in the first place. Still, people like coast keep suggesting it. Once again: Banks have the technical ability to significantly reduce or eliminate over-drafts, altogether. Particularly with debit-cards, purchases, at the merchant level, can be declined when there will be insufficient funds in the account.
They just choose not to.
Keep recommending check registers. I'll keep pointing out how intellectually dishonest you're being by remaining completely obdurate to statistical and technical facts.
#14 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
"Check Registers are useless...if the bank won't provide an accurate record, with which to reconcile"
That is why they provide a record every month. It's called a statement.
"Still, people like coast keep suggesting it."
Because check registers are the most accurate way to track funds.
"Banks have the technical ability to significantly reduce or eliminate over-drafts...Particularly with debit-cards, purchases...They just choose not to."
Yes, the banks do have that ability but some people would prefer to overdraft. That's why customers have been given the choice to opt-in or opt-out since August 2010.
"I'll keep pointing out how intellectually dishonest you're being by remaining completely obdurate to statistical and technical facts."
Obdurate is about pity, which is debatable. How does that mix with numbers, which are factual?
#15 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (USA)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
My primary checking account is with Florida Central Credit Union.
They have several branches in Florida, but usually only 1 in each city.
Florida Central pays me 4.5% on my checking from dollar 1 up to the first $25,000.
The amount over $25,000 is paid substantially less, like 1%.
And, I pay no monthly fees, and I get all ATM fees refunded if I use a non-fccu atm.
Anyone who puts money in a regular bank at that sorry .25% interest rate is a moron.
Anyone who pays a monthly fee is a moron.
Anyone who pays overdraft fees is really a moron.
And, to the tool who says registers don't work.
You are wrong.
They have worked for me for 32 years of maintaining checking accounts.
I have NEVER paid an overdraft fee.
The only people that registers do not work for are...
...you guessed it!
The MORONS!
#16 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jim - Anaheim (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
It is intectually dishonest to suggest check registers are useless. If you use a register correctly, you cannot overdraft an account. The bank could even manipulate transactions highest to lowest, record your deposits before your debits, and if you have money in your account, the account cannot be overdrafted. If someone decides to overdraft the account because you decide to run thin, then you take your chances with the bank. This is something I not only teach clients when I bring them onboard, but I now teach various construction trade union employees (apprentices and journeyman-level folks) this important principle, along with other conservative economic principles. I teach them banks are not their friend, but that responsibility for your account rests with the account holder, whether you use a bank or a credit union.
A while ago, I also indicated how these class action lawsuits do not result in free money to members of the class. Clearly, the OP is realizing this. The banks have made certain that they're going to get their $38.5B in fees one way or the other to pay the deductible on the insurance money they pay, but to also pay for Rik's "nightly deposits". The quicker we all realize we have a hand in making certain the bank can't get our money, but that is our responsibility.
Sorry, if you leave a response - I won't be able to respond for a while.....
#17 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: mr rik - miami (USA)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 05, 2011
Jim- "we have a hand in making certain the bank can't get our money, but that is our responsibility."
CORRECT!
DON'T BANK WITH CRAPPY BANKS!
#18 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
Eddie,
Your statements are absolutely ridiculous. An ACCURATE register is the ONLY way to PROPERLY manage your account.
Think about this. How could the bank know if you have checks outstanding? How could the bank know if you authorized a recurring debit? How could the bank know if you made a check by telephone? How could the bank know if you did a purchase with manual imprint?
The bottom line here is that you are an idiot, and your "advice" is dangerous and irresponsible.
Whatever "business" you are in is obviously a joke or a scam, as your "clients" are in serious financial jeopardy if following your flawed advice.
#19 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
Okay, guys. Yes. If you post-date, on your register, a deposit to account for a five day hold (a completely unnecessary practice) and only reconcile your register once per month (even though the bank has it within their technological grasp to provide a current, accurate balance of your account without having to go to a teller to get that information), then you're right.
There's no reason why a checking account holder should fall out of balance when they use their debit card, if they're using a check register to record every transaction (particularly when you consider it's also within a bank's technological ability to decline purchases on accounts that would otherwise be over-drawn). Banking practices are completely fair (when you fail to consider the double-digit revenues created by "courtesy" loans).
I completely understand that it is the account holder's responsibility for falling out of balance (even though it's within the bank's interest to let such a situation occur). I don't think the practice is, at all, unethical (because I have just taken an ice-pick and detached my frontal lobes from the rest of my brain, thereby divorcing me from any ability I may have had to empathize or anticipate long-term consequences).
These banking practices are actually fostering a more beneficent society where people genuinely care about other people's welfare (if you change the definition of beneficent to mean something more along the lines of intolerant, malignant, parasitic, et al). I guess I would have to concur with Jim and Coast, after all (if I had Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, Anti-Social Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Profound Mental Retardation, Spongiform Encephalopathy, or a closed head injury).
I really love living in the same society with you guys as you are able to rationalize the victimization of people who's only real fault is a lapse in memory, a lack of understanding that they're involved in a game, and/or a simple misunderstanding of what's occurring in their account (while I hate the prospect of living in a society that promotes fair and just treatment and hasn't turned into a survival kick where finding legal ways of f*****g other people over is considered 'good').
#20 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Southern Chemical & Equipment, LLC - Sarasota (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
Eddie,
You are seriously misguided, to say the least.A checkbook register is the only accurate method of managing a checking account.But, you have to have the minimum amount of common sense and third grade math ability to accomplish this task.
I can see that you do not meet these requirements.
It's real simple.
1. You write in debit/check/ATM transactions and fees as soon as possible.
Deduct these amounts from your available balance right away.
2. When a deposit is made, simply put the deposit record/reciept in your checkbook, but DO NOT add it in to your register/available balance until after it posts. You can check your online banking or telephone banking to see when a deposit has posted to your account and is available for use.
This is a really simple process that has worked for me for years.
Just too simple.
#21 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
No Eddie, postdating a deposit is not necessary. Simply don't record the deposit before the funds are available (as noted by Southern Chemical & Equipment). If your account is in good standing the bank will not withhold the deposit credit after the account has been open for a reasonably short period of time.
"Check Registers are useful... (If you love living in a distopic hell-on-earth)"
Distopic is not a word. Maintaining a check register takes a few minutes every week but it's well worth it to avoid the overdraft fees.
"it's also within a bank's technological ability to decline purchases on accounts that would otherwise be over-drawn"
I already addressed that. Yes, the banks do have that ability but some people would prefer to overdraft. That's why customers have been given the choice to opt-in or opt-out since August 2010. That is for debit card purchases only. Checks, EFT and ACH transactions are not included. Don't keep complaining that 'banks have the technological ability to decline purchases' now that it has been addressed twice.
"the victimization of people who's only real fault is a lapse in memory"
Once again, record transactions in your check register because we all suffer from memory lapse.
#22 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
...how to make it more obvious that what I'm arguing has nothing to do with the efficacy of using a check register. I understand the concept and methodology of utilizing a check register. What you all seem to be failing to grasp is that regardless of check registers, it is still unethical for banks to continue such practices and that, in advocating the use of check registers, you are condoning techniques deliberately conceived of in order to deprive people of their funds.
Unfortunately, Southern Chemical & Equipment (I'm assuming you're the owner), checking for the availability of funds, online, has been advised against, precisely because what's reported on-line is not what's being balanced against, by the bank.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/fifth-third-bank/fifth-third-bank-66-00-in-ove-a67ay.htm
Such a condition is
precisely what happened, above. On the eighth, I had an adequate "available" balance, yet more over-draft charges were being levied on my account against the ostensibly prior balance.
I don't need a lesson on how to balance a checkbook. The
ad hominem implying that I don't have a comprehension for simple mathematical concepts doesn't stand. That's not even what I'm arguing and if you actually cared to read the post above yours, you'd have some comprehension that I'm quite familiar with how to balance a checkbook. Leaving out the parenthetical phrases, that's precisely what it describes.
It's funny that you're even bothering to raise issues like math skills when the fundamentals of logical argument and satire seem to be eluding you. The assumption you (and others who have adopted similar arguments) are operating out of is that my arguments dispute the usefulness of Check Registers. Misconstruing my arguments, however, doesn't take away from their validity. At worst, what I've said is that one is not able to easily reconcile a check register when the balance being reported, online, is inaccurate.
Once again, since it seems to be an iron-clad bonding of proteins constituting an electrical circuit in that thick skull of yours, the argument isn't that Check Registers are actually useless. More to the point, the argument is that the practice of courtesy loans and overdraft fees is unethical.
One more time, just because you seem a little too dense to actually get this point:
The practice of overdraft fees for "courtesy" loans is completely and totally unethical.
must
In case Since you ^ have missed the totality of my arguments concerning these infractions against human dignity, allow me to elaborate what supports my thesis, here:
1. It is in the interest of banks to continue the practice of over-draft fees/"courtesy" loans because it is part of a multi-billion dollar revenue stream.
2. It is technologically feasible to end over-draft conditions occurring with debit card (and even some check) transactions but banks choose not to do this.
3. It is technologically feasible to allow for a timely and accurate accounting for the availability of funds, online, but banks choose not to do this.
4. It is unethical to take advantage of people because they make mistakes and that banks choose to do this.
5. Banks stack transactions from largest to smallest in order to maximize the number of over-draft fees that can be assessed when it would be more beneficial to the customer to simply let checks bounce and decline debit card transactions.
Arguing that the consumer is at fault for not maintaining an accurate Check Register, while also true, deligitimizes the ethical aspects of their complaint while legitimizing the practice of levying overdraft fees against their account.
#23 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: mr rik - miami (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
-"US Bank must have people sitting up all night trying to figure out ways to gouge their customers. "
Yes they do.
#24 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
Right. People would "opt in" for that? Most people prefer it? Clearly, with the population of complaints, here, most people who have "opted in" aren't that happy with the service. But you go ahead and pick on typos.
Because when there's no integrity to your argument, a great fall-back position is to pick on typos.
#25 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 06, 2011
Eddie wrote the following jibberish:
...."Unfortunately, Southern Chemical & Equipment (I'm assuming you're the owner), checking for the availability of funds, online, has been advised against, precisely because what's reported on-line is not what's being balanced against, by the bank"......
http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/fifth-third-bank/fifth-third-bank-66-00-in-ove-a67ay.htm
>>
Now Eddie,
Nobody here suggested that you manage your account online, nor did anyone advise you to check your available balance online.
LEARN HOW TO READ!
PAY ATTENTION!
The advise was given to check to see if deposits had cleared via online banking.
That's it.
PAY ATTENTION!!
#26 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Southern Chemical & Equipment, LLC - Sarasota (USA)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Eddie,
I never told anyone to use online banking to determine available balance. You really need to learn how to read before jumping on others.
Here is a copy and paste directly from my previous post:
"2. When a deposit is made, simply put the deposit record/reciept in your checkbook, but DO NOT add it in to your register/available balance until after it posts. You can check your online banking or telephone banking to see when a deposit has posted to your account and is available for use".
>>End quote.
As you can see, I simply told you to check the status of a deposit with online banking.
That's it.
Nothing more.
#27 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
"You can check your online banking or telephone banking to see when a deposit has posted to your account and is available for use."
That's the direct quote, from Mr. LaCroix, to which I was referring in the text you quoted when, somewhat ironically, you were attempting to impugn my reading comprehension skills. You people seem to have to now dither what that actually means. Again, I point to the use of the word "available" with which both an actual balance and available balance may be inferred. And Steve & Mr. Steve LaCroix: I'm pretty sure the check number of the deposit was on my statement, when
my account was still getting hit with Overdraft Fees and I'm quite certain it had cleared. AVAILABLE implies that it has CLEARED.
This is what makes what I do, here, so much fun. The only thing I have to do is tell the truth, where-as you have to keep up with all the lines of bullshit fueling the fallacious narrative constructed by the banking industry (i.e., the laughable, "
most people prefer to be overdrawn" - f*cking priceless, Coast - Looks like you
opted in to looking like a complete buffoon). You all have wound up painting yourselves into corners where you look like the dishonest shills I've taken you for, and I get to point out how much of your disingenuous nature is revealed. I don't think I've ever seen a
group of people humiliate themselves so richly.
The simple, utterly simple fact of the matter is that what you're suggesting is an absolutely convoluted methodology ONLY made necessary by banks operating in a manner which is used to deliberately mislead consumers. The only reason to for banks to post an Available Balance incongruous with the actual total relating to actually cleared deposits that are actually available is to actually mislead people into believing they have more money in their accounts than what is actually available. You invoke this notion of an unassailable simplicity about the whole thing as though the matter should be obvious and that those who complain here are just woefully ignorant.
And perhaps they are ignorant but that is precisely what makes each and everyone of you wicked and utterly dishonest. It is your bullying tactic and it's clear - abundantly clear - that is what your intent, here, is. You're not interested in helping anyone but yourselves by pedaling this line of bullsh*t. Whatever interest you have in this, be it personal or financial or both, you are
just here to make people feel stupid for getting ripped off by a completely unfair, unnecessary, and unjustifiable "business" practice.
I'm sure you "people" think you are clever. You're not clever and your self-lampooned humanity, to my mind, is an utter joke. To my thinking, it is nothing more that a perversion masking a hideously twisted and pathological visage. In my opinion, you are the symptom of a society inverting in on itself, savaging those it perceives as meek whilst parasitically exploiting those who have fallen into its myriad traps.
#28 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
"You can check your online banking or telephone banking to see when a deposit has posted to your account and is available for use."
That's the direct quote, from Mr. LaCroix, to which I was referring in the text you quoted when, somewhat ironically, you were attempting to impugn my reading comprehension skills. You people seem to have to now dither what that actually means. Again, I point to the use of the word "available" with which both an actual balance and available balance may be inferred. And Steve & Mr. Steve LaCroix: I'm pretty sure the check number of the deposit was on my statement, when
my account was still getting hit with Overdraft Fees and I'm quite certain it had cleared. AVAILABLE implies that it has CLEARED.
This is what makes what I do, here, so much fun. The only thing I have to do is tell the truth, where-as you have to keep up with all the lines of bullshit fueling the fallacious narrative constructed by the banking industry (i.e., the laughable, "
most people prefer to be overdrawn" - f*****g priceless, Coast - Looks like you
opted in to looking like a complete buffoon). You all have wound up painting yourselves into corners where you look like the dishonest shills I've taken you for, and I get to point out how much of your disingenuous nature is revealed. I don't think I've ever seen a
group of people humiliate themselves so richly.
The simple, utterly simple fact of the matter is that what you're suggesting is an absolutely convoluted methodology ONLY made necessary by banks operating in a manner which is used to deliberately mislead consumers. The only reason for banks to post an Available Balance incongruous with the actual total relating to actually cleared deposits that are actually available is to actually mislead people into believing they have more money in their accounts than what is actually available. You invoke this notion of an unassailable simplicity about the whole thing as though the matter should be obvious and that those who complain here are just woefully ignorant.
And perhaps they are ignorant but that is precisely what makes each and everyone of you wicked and utterly dishonest. It is your bullying tactic and it's clear - abundantly clear - that is what your intent, here, is. You're not interested in helping anyone but yourselves by pedaling this line of bullsh*t. Whatever interest you have in this, be it personal or financial or both, you are
just here to make people feel stupid for getting ripped off by a completely unfair, unnecessary, and unjustifiable "business" practice.
I'm sure you "people" think you are clever. You're not clever and your self-lampooned humanity, to my mind, is an utter joke. To my thinking, it is nothing more than a perversion masking a hideously twisted and pathological visage. In my opinion, you are the symptom of a society inverting in on itself, savaging those it perceives as meek whilst parasitically exploiting those who have fallen into its myriad traps.
#29 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
The 4.50% APY is only given for the first $1500 not $25000 as posted. But that's cool because he said he thought the balance cut off was 425000.
However you failed to say that a qualification to get this great rate was a loan balance of $5000 or more. So while the rate sounds great, it's offset by the interest rate paid on the loan. Mortgages as low as 5.50% APY, vehicle loans as low as 2.80% APY. So if your carrying a mortgage loan your actually in a negative interest position. ooops, didn't cross your mind to tell us what you have to do to get that great rate on your checking. Although if the loan qualification isn't met but the others are the CU will give you 3.51% APY on the first $15000
#30 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
"In my opinion, you are the symptom of a society inverting in on itself, savaging those it perceives as meek whilst parasitically exploiting those who have fallen into its myriad traps."
We are a society that chooses to maintain check registers so we can spend our hard earned money on the luxuries of our lives, whereas you choose to refuse to maintain a check register and therefore donate your money to the staff of your favorite bank.
#31 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 07, 2011
You seem to only be only capable of missing some key points. Whether or not people can balance their checkbook is irrelevant. If you leave your car door unlocked and thieves take your laptop, yes - you are a complete idiot for leaving your car unlocked...
But the thieves are still prosecuted when they're caught.
It's a very, very, very simple concept that's eluding you.
Don't worry, though, as I'll be around to get you sorted out on it. ;)
#32 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jim - Anaheim (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 09, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, June 09, 2011
Before I begin, do not even begin accusing others of ad hominem arguments. You have been engaging in those arguments from your first appearance. Now that I've dispensed with that, let's get to the root of why your thesis falls flat on every front:
1. It is true that banks count on overdraft fees as a revenue stream. And why not? When an account holder overdrafts an account. the bank is forced to use its capital to make good on the transaction. You yourself have found such a practice acceptable in at least one other ROR's. If you believe a $5 fee to a customer is acceptable when a bank uses its own capital, it follows you MUST accept this revenue stream equally as legitimate. You may not like the fact that it is a substantial amount; the materiality of the amount has nothing to do with the argument.
2. Whether a bank can end the practice of overdrafts or not, is again...not the point. People actually opt to overdraft their accounts. It may not meet with your values, or mine for that matter, but people do this. There was a blog on yahoo talking about just this practice and the person actually opted to overdraft because he didn't want his card declined. You cannot assign your values onto a population, and neither can I.
3. I understand your argument here is the ridding of a check register, but the problem is you've neglected to point out why a check register is kept. You don't see the value. I do. The check register is YOUR accounting of what is in your account. After all, it is your account. Whatever is done...online...is always the bank's accounting of your account. If there is ever a dispute between you and the bank, your check register and your documents serve as your ability to dispute a transaction with the bank. When you basically rely on the bank to account for every transaction....you're surrendering your ability to dispute a transaction. Not good.
4. Ethics have nothing to do with whether someone makes a mistake on their register or their account. If someone overdrafts their account, the bank still has to utilize its own capital to cover the transaction. I would even argue, based on some of the responses from my students in class today, that they sometimes purposely overdraft an account. In any definition of this issue, you will never be able to truthfully differentiate between a unintentional mistake and an intentional overdraft? No one can, except with...tada...a check register.
5. This part of your thesis is sort of a combination of your other statements. There is no question the rearranging of transactions results in higher overdraft revenue for the bank to the point where revenues in this area increased by a factor of 2X or 3X if I remember correctly. You don't indicate whether you believe this is unethical, however I would point out that when people are careless with their transactions, they do take their chances with the bank. Again, since you've previously pointed out the bank's use of their own capital to fund overdrafted transactions is sufficient justification to charge a fee, I would point out you have already determined it to be ethical. You simply don't like how the bank rearranges transactions, and I would point out all parties agreed to how the bank would order transactions from the beginning.
People have the responsibility of tracking the activity in their account; that responsibility will continue even if the banks carry through on the advances you want them to. I sort of think that if the banks actually do what you want, people will actually decide to let the bank do their accounting for them, which will leave them even more vulnerable to banking errors. I think having a bank in control of YOUR money is stupid, but that's me.
#33 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Ken - Greeley (USA)
SUBMITTED: Friday, June 10, 2011
POSTED: Friday, June 10, 2011
When my daughter got her first checking account, she would write her checks, call the bank's telephone teller line and write the balance in her check register....same day. She said that had to be her balance as that's what the account showed.
Then, and you guessed it, when everything went wrong and she got tons of short check fees, she said "The stupid bank can't even keep good records!!!" Sound familiar...oh, but wait, she was only 16. ;)
Change banks, but I'll wager you'll have the SAME PROBLEMS wherever you go.
#34 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 11, 2011
POSTED: Saturday, June 11, 2011
Before I begin, do not even begin accusing others of ad hominem
arguments. You have been engaging in those arguments from your first
appearance. Now that I've dispensed with that, let's get to the root of
why your thesis falls flat on every front:
And I quote, from your reply to my report, emblematic of what you and others have responded with:
5. Finally, get rid of your debit card. Aside from the fact you don't
understand what it is or how to properly manage your account with it, it
will do nothing but cost you money you don't want to be parted with.
If you stop using the debit card, keep a check register, stay off their
online system to determine your bank balance (no online system is
accurate and besides, your balance is in your check register) and deal
primarily in cash and checks, you'll be far better off and keep more
money in your pocket.
From Ken:
Didn't anyone ever explain to you that checks have to clear before they become available to spend?
These imply ad-hominem. It's subtle, and not meant to be seen as an insult, but it is what it does and I've seen worse, in response to original posts, asserting that people were idiots, mathematically challenged, et al. I defy you to find one of my replies where I tersely respond to a complainant poster, here, with an ad hominem. When I am responding with one, it's because someone else or myself is clearly being subject to them.
Implying that I lack any understanding with "how debit cards work", implies a deficit, on my part - ergo - the ad hominem. I understand how such conclusions are arrived at, however, those conclusions are born out of a fallacious assumption, necessary for you and others, here, to impugn the veracity of my (or other complainant's) indignation. So, when I assert that you're a morally impaired, dyssocial sociopath, wallowing in the filth of the vitriolic excrement your group so eagerly spews at effort to impart a sense of shame to the indignation posters rightfully feel, here, it isn't because you were this wonderful, compassionate human-being who didn't have it coming.
1. It is true that banks count on overdraft fees as a revenue stream.
And why not? When an account holder overdrafts an account. the bank is
forced to use its capital to make good on the transaction. You yourself
have found such a practice acceptable in at least one other ROR's. If
you believe a $5 fee to a customer is acceptable when a bank uses its
own capital, it follows you MUST accept this revenue stream equally as
legitimate. You may not like the fact that it is a substantial amount;
the materiality of the amount has nothing to do with the argument.
Your text, above, is a fallacy of composition, predicated by the inherent similarities of both fees being assessed to bank accounts. It also relies on the well-healed but untrue assumption that banks are forced to let an account fall out of balance - but I've already covered and will continue my attention to that in excruciating detail. Most notably, they're two different types of accounts, two different causes, and two different balance conditions. And here's another ad hominem of your making:
presuming that I'm so stupid, I'd actually let this point stand.
You're really doing a great job of keeping things civilized.
2. Whether a bank can end the practice of overdrafts or not, is
again...not the point. People actually opt to overdraft their
accounts. It may not meet with your values, or mine for that matter,
but people do this. There was a blog on yahoo talking about just this
practice and the person actually opted to overdraft because he didn't
want his card declined. You cannot assign your values onto a
population, and neither can I.
Appeal to populace and, I'd argue,
appeal to common practice logical fallacies. You can argue that
some idiot put it in his blog, all you want. I could blog about how it's part of my value system to birth human babies in shark infested waters. I'll blog about how female circumcision has been practiced for years, even though it actually causes significant harm. Definitely not
my value system but it's part of a long practiced tradition and, Lord knows, we should provide adequate allowance for other people's
values, no matter how repugnant.
3. I understand your argument here is the ridding of a check register,
but the problem is you've neglected to point out why a check register is
kept. You don't see the value. I do. The check register is YOUR
accounting of what is in your account. After all, it is your account.
Whatever is done...online...is always the bank's accounting of your
account. If there is ever a dispute between you and the bank, your
check register and your documents serve as your ability to dispute a
transaction with the bank. When you basically rely on the bank to
account for every transaction....you're surrendering your ability to
dispute a transaction. Not good.
Straw-man logical fallacy. Or you're just
not paying attention. I'm disputing the usefulness of the check register to create an ironic rhetorical device with which to attack the unfair banking practice of over-draft fees. Let me assure you - It's this exchange, here, that I had in mind when I did it. Your use of that slogan, "Use a check register", converges on an
argument negating cliche'. I'm not actually disputing the usefulness of a check register. But when all is said and done, you're still left with banks utilizing people's carelessness and ignorance to justify stealing from them.
4. Ethics have nothing to do with whether someone makes a mistake on
their register or their account. If someone overdrafts their account,
the bank still has to utilize its own capital to cover the transaction.
I would even argue, based on some of the responses from my students in
class today, that they sometimes purposely overdraft an account. In any
definition of this issue, you will never be able to truthfully
differentiate between a unintentional mistake and an intentional
overdraft? No one can, except with...tada...a check register.
Again, you're speaking as though banks
have - that they are obliged - to let someone over-draft their account. You seem to be characterizing a bank account as though it were some imperfect container like a sieve, or maybe even a nickle-plated colander, which works, for the most part, but if something falls out, it's not the fault of the sieve... disguised as a
safe place to put your money.
5. This part of your thesis is sort of a combination of your other
statements. There is no question the rearranging of transactions
results in higher overdraft revenue for the bank to the point where
revenues in this area increased by a factor of 2X or 3X if I remember
correctly. You don't indicate whether you believe this is unethical,
however I would point out that when people are careless with their
transactions, they do take their chances with the bank. Again, since
you've previously pointed out the bank's use of their own capital to
fund overdrafted transactions is sufficient justification to charge a
fee, I would point out you have already determined it to be ethical.
You simply don't like how the bank rearranges transactions, and I would
point out all parties agreed to how the bank would order transactions
from the beginning.
Your last point is nothing more than recycled conjecture and a monumental failure to understand implications. I'm not even going to bother with it. It's silly, simplistic, and ironic for someone who has the audacity to claim I don't have a fundamental grasp with how debit cards work.
People have the responsibility of tracking the activity in their
account; that responsibility will continue even if the banks carry
through on the advances you want them to. I sort of think that if the
banks actually do what you want, people will actually decide to let the
bank do their accounting for them, which will leave them even more
vulnerable to banking errors. I think having a bank in control of YOUR
money is stupid, but that's me.
To your first point about the responsibility of the account holder - the one plausible, rational argument you've made in your otherwise inane missive, bereft of even elementary textual zeal. I agree that banks will not be able to foresee
all out of balance situations. People who float checks, mail-timing issues, and other inadvertent as well as fraudulent activity can, does, and will occur and banks
are entitled to protection and recompense resulting from those situations.
The rest of it is garbage, however, reliant on your easily debunked assumptions, likely the result of thinking nested almost entirely in logical fallacy.
#35 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 11, 2011
POSTED: Saturday, June 11, 2011
"Check Registers are the most useless, dangerous thing ever devised by man"
OK, Eddie. What procedure works better? It certainly can't be utilizing the online resources supplied by the bank because that doesn't reflect outstanding transactions. Please enlighten me with a rational response.
#36 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Stacey - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 11, 2011
POSTED: Saturday, June 11, 2011
Tell us the reason that check registers are useless. And while you are at it explain the reason reconciling your bank statement is a waste of time. I am sure my CPA Father could use this information at his next lecture.
#37 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 12, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 12, 2011
It's a wonder you can use a check register, since it's apparent you can barely read.
From comment 34:
Straw-man logical fallacy. Or you're just not paying
attention. I'm disputing the usefulness of the check register to create
an ironic rhetorical device with which to attack the unfair banking
practice of over-draft fees. Let me assure you - It's this exchange,
here, that I had in mind when I did it. Your use of that slogan, "Use a
check register", converges on an argument negating cliche'. I'm
not actually disputing the usefulness of a check register. But when
all is said and done, you're still left with banks utilizing people's
carelessness and ignorance to justify stealing from them.
It's likely that your father's drearily clinical, accounting field kept him so detached during your childhood that he failed to cultivate a sense for detecting irony, disciplined reading comprehension, emotionally-reactive impulse control, or an understanding of tenth-grade vocabulary words; let alone healthy ethical standards. It's either that or he was too busy having to puree' your food to keep you from aspirating. Regardless, I'm sure he loves you very much.
Coast? What about your father? You haven't shared much about how your upbringing led you to become disenfranchised with a verbal myopia that allows you to only read the text you think applies while ignoring the totality of the context it was excised from. I bet he interrupted you a lot. It certainly fits in with your bullying strategy where the written word is concerned.
#38 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 12, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 12, 2011
I asked you for a rational response. You failed to comply. So Eddie, I will ask you again- What is the best process to keep a record of the funds in my checking account? Apparently you are aware of a better system than a check register. Be sure to recommend a procedure that will enable me to avoid overdrafts and overdraft penalties. Your recommendation will need to track outstanding transactions. My check register works for me (I use Quicken) but I'm open to new ideas.
I saw Ben Cartwright use a check register on Bonanza so maybe it's outdated.
#39 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 12, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 12, 2011
Somewhat autistically, you seem so eager to hop on that one point, which I've already conceded was deliberately flawed. I've even illustrated how it was flawed, that it was made flawed, intentionally, and to what end it was intentionally flawed. But you keep going, no doubt with some grimace worn in the face of my persistence, completely obdurate to the facets of my arguments which are actually pertinent and I've illustrated how your obduracy is part and parcel to the strategy you employ, here, with the aim of impugning the indignation of people who are rightfully pissed with the banking industry and its practices of levying over-draft fees.
#40 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: I am the law - Chicago (USA)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 14, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 14, 2011
is my personal hero. Thanks for telling it straight up! I thought I was the only voice of reason.
#41 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Truth Detector - Indianapolis (USA)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 18, 2011
POSTED: Saturday, June 18, 2011
Check registers are useless?
Yeah...just like day-planners don't help with organization...
...just like keeping folders or favorites on a computer doesn't organize files...
...just like keeping personal finance and tax records isn't a useful way to budget your money...
You know, you can always tell when you're dealing with a dependent child/liberal. If someone isn't thinking for them, they can't find their butts with two hands.
How about promulgating a little adult responsibility instead of spouting these whiny little rants because banks won't manage finances for idiots?
#42 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 19, 2011
POSTED: Sunday, June 19, 2011
I'd urge you to go back and re-read the totality of my posts before making such pronouncements. Your sentiment about the "welfare state" goes both ways. If people don't need big brother looking over their shoulder to help them balance their check-books, then large corporations don't need deregulation that helps them to rip people off. Your thinking seems empirically reliant on cliche', poor reading comprehension, and syllogisms.
That doesn't make for very good truth detecting.
#43 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Truth Detector - Indianapolis (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 20, 2011
POSTED: Monday, June 20, 2011
COMMON SENSE!
Track your debits and credits via your CHECK REGISTER using THIRD-GRADE MATH SKILLS.
It's a process so simple, a moron can follow it...
#44 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (USA)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 21, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 21, 2011
No, Striderq, you are once again wrong.
I do know the terms of my account.
You got bad information.
I get 4.5% on my balance up to $25,000.
There is no requirement on my account to have a loan with them.
The ONLY qualifying factors are 12 ATM or debit/pos transactions per month, and either 1 direct deposit or ACH transaction per month.
That's it.
I do know exactly what account I have, and what the qualifying factors are.
Striderq wrote the following Jibberish:
The 4.50% APY is only given for the first $1500 not $25000 as posted. But that's cool because he said he thought the balance cut off was 425000.
However you failed to say that a qualification to get this great rate was a loan balance of $5000 or more. So while the rate sounds great, it's offset by the interest rate paid on the loan. Mortgages as low as 5.50% APY, vehicle loans as low as 2.80% APY. So if your carrying a mortgage loan your actually in a negative interest position. ooops, didn't cross your mind to tell us what you have to do to get that great rate on your checking. Although if the loan qualification isn't met but the others are the CU will give you 3.51% APY on the first $15000
#45 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Robert - Irvine (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 21, 2011
POSTED: Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Hey Striderq, once again, you are WRONG!
- No it's not jibberish. They are talking about the terms that can be viewed from their web site. It specifically states to get that rate you need to have a loan of at least $5,000. What is posted is all the we have to go on.
Now, if you have some "mystery" account that is not acessible to everyone then great for you. If you have an old account that has been "grandfathered" in then again that is great for you. I am not going to say you are wrong because we have no idea what the true terms of your account are, but this does not change the fact that no one else can seem to find the terms you state.
Perhaps you can point us to a direct link we can all look at.
#46 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Eddie zilker - Mt. Pleasant (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
POSTED: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
I don't even think you understand what I'm arguing.
#47 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: coast - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
POSTED: Wednesday, June 22, 2011
"I don't even think you understand what I'm arguing."
Eddie, you don't understand your own delirious and nonsensical gibberish.
#48 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 23, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, June 23, 2011
1) If you admit the argument against using a check register is false and just used to initiate a discussion, why are you still clinging to that argumant?
2) If you're upset that some posters make statements that can be insulting, why do you come out with statements that are insulting? You say some comments seem helpful or innocent but the insinuation is there. And yet you straight out attack CPAs in response to a post that doesn't fit your agenda of victimhood. These actions affect your credibility as they are tactics used only when you don't have a valid point.
And for Steve Bradenton... Gee don't you hate it when you post trash, get called on it, try to prove your post isn't trash and then step in it again ?
#49 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Truth Detector - Indianapolis (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 23, 2011
POSTED: Thursday, June 23, 2011
My point was elementary, yet you either failed to comprehend it or are being willfully obtuse. You don't seem like a dunce to me, so I have to assume the latter.
You are arguing nonsense here...when in fact, the solution to this entire thread is incredibly simple:
1. Take the DeLorean back to 3rd Grade and re-acquire your math skills
2. Track your own finances using your FREE check register
3. Don't spend money that is not available in your account
4. Graduate to the elite company of adults who actually exercise an ounce of responsibility for their finances and stop voluntarily paying fees to banks.
Now, kindly tell the class what you find so difficult about those easy steps. My 3rd grade daughter is here at the computer with me...and she awaits your answer.
Seriously, she is openly wondering why a grown adult can't grasp the simple logic of not spending more money than you have available in your account...and so am I.
