[Unsound]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

So, what are you saying? Just because Netflix can stream an entire feature length movie for less than a nickle, you're saying that the data needed to let us have $20 of our own money somehow magically costs every bank $3? And it costs every bank the same in every location?

Unpossible!

It's not just the data. There's also the cost of the machine itself, and the armoured car to deliver the cash. So there is definetly some cost to the bank, and as others have said, you can avoid it by going to your banks machine. It's inconvenient, but that's why the fee is called a concvenience fee, right?

Not to mention, this new regulation would only apply to the machines owned by the banks. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd have to say that at least 75% of the time the machines I find convenient are owned by a third party, and their fees won't be going down, so I wouldn't save much at all if this became law.

[Public_Domain]

[Jabberwalker]

The middle is not such a bad place to be. Look at where our American neighbours are. They have lost sight of their middle and it is increasingly difficult to find consensus about anything. It is a bad place to be and any resolution of the situation involves serious internal or external trauma to fix. Thank your lucky stars for our political blandness.

[Canadian_Mind]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Secondly, the fee is entirely avoidable; it's actually voluntary.

Clearly you have never been in a pinch, or been out in rural areas. Frankly, shit happens. I shouldn't have to pay 25 bucks when I need a 20 for whatever I need it for it from the nearest ATM. Sometimes the nearest branch from your bank is, in my case, 72km away.

Unless it's an independent ATM, the whole purpose of the fee is truthfully a loyalty fee. You are being charged money for not being a part of the institution that owns the ATM.

That said, independent ATMs should be charging a fee because that is their only income and they are put in places as a matter of convenience rather than necessity; bars, theatres, pharmacy, wal-mart, etc.

As for bank based ATMs? fuck em. Either make it free, or make the institutions pay for it. If BMO wants to charge me $3.50 or whatever their fee is now for using their ATM, TD should pay for it because they can't be bothered to set up even a mini-branch in this town.

[bootlegga]

"Hello, NDP, this is the 1990s, we want our idea back please!"

/sarcasm

This is a non-issue. People who pay these fees usually do it willingly (although grugdingly).

I know I haven't paid it in in this century. It's a simple matter of making sure you swing by the closest bank branch at some time in your weekly running around, no big deal.

[BeaverFever]

Bank fees are a private-sector tax that we all must pay, unless we want to keep our lifesavings under our mattress. Did you know that up until the late 70s/early 80's most types of personal bank accounts didn't have any fees at all? The bank made all of its money off of interest from deposits and loans. Now various banking and trasaction fees make up almost 50% of bank profits.

I think there are alot of false arguments going on here:

1) "Avoid fees by using your own bank" argument.

AFAIK, when people say that you can avoid the fee buy using your own branch, the truth is that you actually have to sign up for a monthly fee package to have the ATM/online transaction fees waived and even then there is often a limit. For example, there may be no same-bank ATM fees if you pay $20 per month, or you may get x many free transacitons for $10 a month, with regular charges thereafter, etc.


This is almost worse than the per-transaction fee because you are pre-paying for services you might not even fully use, and then you have to keep track of how many times you've used the bank machine that month in order not to exceed your limit and pay additional fees.



2) "You pay for convenience" argument:

Whose convenience are we paying for? It's easy to argue that ATMs are just as (if not more) convenient for banks than for customers.

- Fewer tellers/bank employees on company payroll
- New 24/7 revenue stream: instead of paying someone to service customers for 8 hours a day, banks are now collecting transaction fees around the clock, without having to pay an employee for it.
- Lower real estate costs as many branches are replaced with ATMs and many others move to smaller locations, since they don't need as many tellers and fewer customers are inside waiting to speak to them.

3) "If you don't like it, don't use it" argument:

- Doesn't address whether the fee is fair
- Doesn't acknowledge that as we continue moving to a ATM/Online-based world with fewer/less convenient branch banks, using an ATM not so much an 'option' or 'conveneience' but an unavoidable necessity.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Bank fees are a private-sector tax that we all must pay, unless we want to keep our lifesavings under our mattress. Did you know that up until the late 70s/early 80's most types of personal bank accounts didn't have any fees at all?

Really? Did you also know that they paid interest, compounded daily even, just for having a regular savings account?

[Jabberwalker]

I remember ... vaguely.

That was back in the old days when the banks were dirt poor paupers ... you know, back when they were building mega skyscrapers in Toronto with gold flake embedded in the windows?

[bootlegga]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Bank fees are a private-sector tax that we all must pay, unless we want to keep our lifesavings under our mattress. Did you know that up until the late 70s/early 80's most types of personal bank accounts didn't have any fees at all? The bank made all of its money off of interest from deposits and loans. Now various banking and trasaction fees make up almost 50% of bank profits.

I think there are alot of false arguments going on here:

1) "Avoid fees by using your own bank" argument.

AFAIK, when people say that you can avoid the fee buy using your own branch, the truth is that you actually have to sign up for a monthly fee package to have the ATM/online transaction fees waived and even then there is often a limit. For example, there may be no same-bank ATM fees if you pay $20 per month, or you may get x many free transacitons for $10 a month, with regular charges thereafter, etc.


This is almost worse than the per-transaction fee because you are pre-paying for services you might not even fully use, and then you have to keep track of how many times you've used the bank machine that month in order not to exceed your limit and pay additional fees.



2) "You pay for convenience" argument:

Whose convenience are we paying for? It's easy to argue that ATMs are just as (if not more) convenient for banks than for customers.

- Fewer tellers/bank employees on company payroll
- New 24/7 revenue stream: instead of paying someone to service customers for 8 hours a day, banks are now collecting transaction fees around the clock, without having to pay an employee for it.
- Lower real estate costs as many branches are replaced with ATMs and many others move to smaller locations, since they don't need as many tellers and fewer customers are inside waiting to speak to them.

3) "If you don't like it, don't use it" argument:

- Doesn't address whether the fee is fair
- Doesn't acknowledge that as we continue moving to a ATM/Online-based world with fewer/less convenient branch banks, using an ATM not so much an 'option' or 'conveneience' but an unavoidable necessity.

I do remember the days when banks didn't charge fees, but sadly, those days are long gone...sigh

1. My bank charges NO monthly fees if I keep $1000 in your chequing account. If my balance drops below $1000, then I pay $3.95.

2. It is a convenience if you aren’t willing to walk/drive/bike to your branch instead of just grabbing cash from the nearest ATM. That is the very definition of convenience – the ATM is here, not two blocks away.

3. I’d say this is a valid argument. If you don’t want to pay those fees, then there are steps you can take to avoid it. Why is it my problem if you are too lazy to do so?

[Dayseed]

bootlegga bootlegga:

3. I’d say this is a valid argument. If you don’t want to pay those fees, then there are steps you can take to avoid it. Why is it my problem if you are too lazy to do so?

And why would it require government intervention? Complain to your bank, speak with your wallet, move your accounts.

Why not have the NDP cap parking lot fees too?

[Zipperfish]

Dayseed Dayseed:

And why would it require government intervention? Complain to your bank, speak with your wallet, move your accounts.

Why not have the NDP cap parking lot fees too?

Every industry sector is subject to government intervention. They are, for example, subject to income tax, which is a form of government intervention. Or environmental regulations. Or occupational health and safety regulations. Strike One.

I have no problem with limited government intervention for oligopolies, since they will inevitably screw the consumer. Ideally the government "intervention" will be to take measures to open up the market, but failing that, there is a good economic case for intervention. Strike Two.

Strike 3 will be whatever drivel you call a rebuttal.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Complain to your bank, speak with your wallet, move your accounts.

The banks all collude, its an oligopoly. You can't vote with your wallet, because they all agree to charge these fees.

$1:

If you don’t want to pay those fees, then there are steps you can take to avoid it. Why is it my problem if you are too lazy to do so?

How is lower ATM fees your problem? Also as I said, many of the supposed steps are not practical - like telling people they can take the morning off work and stand in line if they don't want to pay a \per-transaction fee or buy a monthly 'fee package'. What's next, if commuters don't want to pay a 2000% gasoline tax for any internal-combustion vehicle, they can take a horse a buggy to work?

Also, if you keep a $1,000 float in a simple low-interest chequing account, you're being a sucker. The bank wants you to do that because they're lending that money out at 20% and giving a few pennies in interest. All while pretending to be benevolent by waiving a monthly fee that only exists to recover the paltry interest they're paying you. So you need to keep the amount of money you want to spend in a month, plus 1000 extra in a low interest account. I only keep my spending money in my cheqing; everything else gets trasferred to savings.

As I said, most banks still charge a monthly fee and/or limit the number of fee-free transactions you can use, even at their own ATM.

$1:

2. It is a convenience if you aren’t willing to walk/drive/bike to your branch instead of just grabbing cash from the nearest ATM. That is the very definition of convenience – the ATM is here, not two blocks away.

That makes sense for why the OTHER BANK charges you a fee, but why does YOUR bank charge you a fee for using some other ATM? They aren't providng you anything!

[Public_Domain]

[Zipperfish]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

"Vote with your wallet" is yet another purposefully deceitful dis-empowering throw-away phrase similar to "vote"

What they really mean to say is "write down your complaints on a piece of paper and shove it up your ass"

Tell me about it. I'm just sick of getting ripped off. My doctor gives me these suppositories for a condition I had. Two weeks I took them--nothing. I said to him "Doc, for all the good these fucking things did, I may as well've shoved 'em up my ass."

[Public_Domain]