U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2012, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
162 posts, read 350,969 times
Reputation: 122

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tober138 View Post
I don't blame them. If the government imposed a law to reduce your current income, would you not look for a way to make up for that money being lost?

Never mind the fact that the transaction fees were charged to merchants, who likely pass those costs on to their customers. I doubt very few businesses are passing the savings from these lower transaction fees on to their customers, yet no one seems to be in an uproar over that.



Good for them.
My current income is constantly being reduced. Rising gas prices, rising food prices, the cost to buy anything manufactured, rising cost of car maintenance, etc. No raise in income though. So what choice do I have? I have to "screw my customers" aka my family- That means I have to cut back on going out to eat, buying a bigger TV, turning down my thermostat, waiting until the vary last second of sunlight disappears before turning on lights, lowering my water heater temperature, shopping more at Walmart, hell just going out for a cruise for the hell of it. How do I find my lost income? Finding a second job basically.

With the banks they immediately try to recoup the lost income by fee-ing their customers. Meanwhile BOA has enough money for the executives to get BONUSES. Maybe they have to just do without. Oh God forbid, did I just say that out loud? If they are making enough profit to keep in business and pay their employees then I guess they're doing fine. A bonus is just that. A bonus. I've know many people who had received a bonus, but no longer do because the company makes enough to be profitable, but not enough to splurge.

Again, they still are making money on the transactions, it's not completely lost. I personally know people who's income's were cut 3%. Yes, they lost some income, they had to cut back on frivilous spending (maybe their "bonuses"?) but still survived. They still made enough to pay bills.

The merchants not passing on the savings. I completely agree with you on that, but didn't mention it because of the subject of the thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2012, 04:13 PM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,946,361 times
Reputation: 1272
If you bank at a Credit Union (preferred) or a small regional bank, and you need some cash, simply go into a grocery store, buy something, and ask to have extra cash returned. They will be glad to do it and they do not charge a fee. They are quite happy to provide this customer service without charge. In most cases it's safer than going to a bank ATM too. Credit Unions also pool their ATMs so there isn't a charge to use one from another Credit Union. So you don't have to bank at a too big to fail bank with their high fees for this convenience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 04:17 PM
 
2,603 posts, read 4,273,915 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slakkie View Post
Unless you go on vacation then you will have fees.

Don't get me wrong I use a Credit Union myself mostly because my home loan, car loans and bill pay are their. I lose functionality but I am cool with that. I do have a small account for when I am out of town and don't want to pay fees.

But in the end you pay one way or another. I pay for online billpay which would be free at a big bank and more robust.
I bank online for free at my credit union. I also never carry cash (almost everywhere takes cards now), so there's no need to worry about an ATM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Near the water
8,231 posts, read 11,591,481 times
Reputation: 3877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tober138 View Post
I don't blame them. If the government imposed a law to reduce your current income, would you not look for a way to make up for that money being lost?

Never mind the fact that the transaction fees were charged to merchants, who likely pass those costs on to their customers. I doubt very few businesses are passing the savings from these lower transaction fees on to their customers, yet no one seems to be in an uproar over that.



Good for them.
I don't know of one business large or small who had their transaction fees lowered. What DID happen was a cap was put on what the processing companies can charge for fees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,714 posts, read 8,465,121 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slakkie View Post
Unless you go on vacation then you will have fees.

Don't get me wrong I use a Credit Union myself mostly because my home loan, car loans and bill pay are their. I lose functionality but I am cool with that. I do have a small account for when I am out of town and don't want to pay fees.

But in the end you pay one way or another. I pay for online billpay which would be free at a big bank and more robust.
Not sure what this means. I bank with a Credit Union and they have ATMs I can use without a fee all over the country. My wife's credit union will reimburse ATM fees anywhere in the U.S. Although I did get hit with a couple dollar fee when I used an ATM in Toronto several months back.

Neither of our credit unions charge fees for on-line check-writing, bill pay, credit or debit cards, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Ayrsley
4,714 posts, read 8,465,121 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbri20 View Post
My current income is constantly being reduced. Rising gas prices, rising food prices, the cost to buy anything manufactured, rising cost of car maintenance, etc. No raise in income though. So what choice do I have? I have to "screw my customers" aka my family- That means I have to cut back on going out to eat, buying a bigger TV, turning down my thermostat, waiting until the vary last second of sunlight disappears before turning on lights, lowering my water heater temperature, shopping more at Walmart, hell just going out for a cruise for the hell of it. How do I find my lost income? Finding a second job basically.
That is not quite an apples to apples comparison if you are an employee and not a business owner. As you said, you can find ways to reduce your spending or you can increase your income via either a second job or going to work somewhere else for a higher salary (or hourly rate).

But if you owned and operated a business, and outside forces (taxes, regulations, etc) cut into your profits, you would need to either increase the cost of your product (and pass the cost onto your customers) or reduce costs (such as by cutting salaries / jobs) in order to maintain your prfoit margin. Or you could just eat the additional costs and make less profit. If you own a small, personal business, you may be willing to do the latter. If you own a publcly-traded company, allowing a decrease in your annual profits would not sit well with your board or your stock holders and, as a result, would likely not be an option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbri20 View Post
With the banks they immediately try to recoup the lost income by fee-ing their customers. Meanwhile BOA has enough money for the executives to get BONUSES. Maybe they have to just do without. Oh God forbid, did I just say that out loud? If they are making enough profit to keep in business and pay their employees then I guess they're doing fine. A bonus is just that. A bonus.
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. While I agree with you in principle, these bonuses are often an incentive to hire (and keep) employees - especially high performing ones or those who are responsible for helping the company succeed. Without those bonuses, those employees would go elsewhere, so the owners / board need to balance that factor as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbri20 View Post
I personally know people who's income's were cut 3%. Yes, they lost some income, they had to cut back on frivilous spending (maybe their "bonuses"?) but still survived. They still made enough to pay bills.
Again, I get your point (heck, when I got laid off at the end of 2010, the new job I took afterwards was with a starting salary at the time of about 4% less then I had been making previously). But a large corporate business is not run the same as an individual's / family's finances. A company is not in business just to make enough money to "pay the bills".

That said, I get your point. And, heck, I try to manage my $ and I use a credit union where I do not get hit with fees. But that does not change basic business principles and practices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Charlotte
162 posts, read 350,969 times
Reputation: 122
That's the problem with Corporate America- a decrease in profits doesn't sit well with the shareholders. The company is still making a profit, just not what is desired. Do they not realize though that by angering their customers, it may get to the point that, if they are smart, most of them will leave? That means less profit also.

The banks brought this upon themselves. Nobody told them to lend out 500k mortgages to people who could barely afford 200k. Nobody told them to then take my mortgage and your mortgage and his mortgage and her mortgage and bundle them and try to make a profit by investing them. Then taking the bundles they bought and bundling them with others until it got to the point where nobody knows who's mortgage is where. How about the Countrywide acquisition? People with small amounts of money in a checking account should be held responsible because of that fiasco? They have to recoup that loss by taking money from them?

They take people's money, lend it out and charge an interest on it. They don't provide any sort of interest benefit for the customer where they got the money though. They make enough in investing that to pay for infrastructure. Then when the fees they're allowed to charge, which were probbaly higher than they really needed to be in the first place, are lowered, they cry fould and enact these fees on their customers. That to me isn't a smart or fair thing to do.

A personal example for me- I have a Citibank credit card. I've had it since 1995. Longest account with the highest available balance. Last year they sent me a letter saying they were going to charge me a 60 annual fee. Never had one before. I called for three weeks working my way up the ladder until I got someone high enough to waive it on the condition I use it quarterly. Buy a pack of gum. Anything. The reason they told me they were doing this? Because they weren't making any money on me because of my idle account. You're telling me a bank the size of Citibank can't make enough profit in any other way to the point they need to all of a sudden enact a yearly fee on an idle credit card account? My open account just sitting there is hitting them so hard on the bottom line they need me to pay them all of a sudden, even when I'm not using it?

Why are they pushing so hard for credit use instead of debit? It's because they can make MORE buy you swiping credit. It's not about not making enough of a profit, it's about being greedy and wanting more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 02:20 PM
 
335 posts, read 589,971 times
Reputation: 297
The FED has destroyed what was left of the old model of banking, by nearly tripling its balance sheet over the past 5 years. Money does in fact grow on trees now, at least for the mega banks; and the only way to make a sufficient profit (i.e. outpacing the Fed's printing press) is to screw the little guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Wouldn't you like to know?
9,114 posts, read 15,653,743 times
Reputation: 3690
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbri20 View Post

The banks brought this upon themselves. Nobody told them to lend out 500k mortgages to people who could barely afford 200k. Nobody told them to then take my mortgage and your mortgage and his mortgage and her mortgage and bundle them and try to make a profit by investing them. Then taking the bundles they bought and bundling them with others until it got to the point where nobody knows who's mortgage is where. How about the Countrywide acquisition? People with small amounts of money in a checking account should be held responsible because of that fiasco? They have to recoup that loss by taking money from them?
The banks don't deserve all the blame. Fanny and Freddie deserve alot, congress does for encoraging at risk people to be in homes. You also have greedy people who used their homes for ATM's/the appraisers also had their hand in the cookie jar, along w/the realtors who pushed people to buy who didn't have any business buying......banks had a part but they were 1 piece of the mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbri20 View Post
They take people's money, lend it out and charge an interest on it. They don't provide any sort of interest benefit for the customer where they got the money though. They make enough in investing that to pay for infrastructure. Then when the fees they're allowed to charge, which were probbaly higher than they really needed to be in the first place, are lowered, they cry fould and enact these fees on their customers. That to me isn't a smart or fair thing to do.
Where were you when banks were paying 6-7% for CD's? They were paying money in interest then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbri20 View Post
A personal example for me- I have a Citibank credit card. I've had it since 1995. Longest account with the highest available balance. Last year they sent me a letter saying they were going to charge me a 60 annual fee. Never had one before. I called for three weeks working my way up the ladder until I got someone high enough to waive it on the condition I use it quarterly. Buy a pack of gum. Anything. The reason they told me they were doing this? Because they weren't making any money on me because of my idle account. You're telling me a bank the size of Citibank can't make enough profit in any other way to the point they need to all of a sudden enact a yearly fee on an idle credit card account? My open account just sitting there is hitting them so hard on the bottom line they need me to pay them all of a sudden, even when I'm not using it?

Why are they pushing so hard for credit use instead of debit? It's because they can make MORE buy you swiping credit. It's not about not making enough of a profit, it's about being greedy and wanting more.
There are plenty of banks that can take your business. If you don't like citibank anymore, go somewhere else. Its their choice to make a profit anyway they want. If the consumer is not smart enough or doesn't do their homework, then shame on them. Sounds like alot of sour grapes in this post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2012, 07:02 AM
 
24 posts, read 38,256 times
Reputation: 29
"overdraft protection" was the best example of modern corporate robbery...i'm still livid w/ BofA about OP...w/ my particular checking acct now i have to have at least 1500 bux in my acct or direct deposit to not be charged 8 bux a month...i laughed out loud when they advertised the free checking acct but you you can't step foot inside the bank, you have to do all your business with the ATM...laughoutloud...further proof that machines will one day dominate the workforce...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:00 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top