Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 10-04-2011, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,369,310 times
Reputation: 7990

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The cost of the debit card processing is germane, when banks are arguing that it's to recoup those costs that they are charging their customers debit usage fees. If there are legitimate costs that exceed what the banks save in overhead and personnel, and those costs aren't already covered by the fees that banks have and continue to charge retailers, then there is justification for charging consumers. But if the banks are simply making billions of dollars of pure profit, and the amount of profit is being diminished during an economic period where virtually every business has suffered diminished profits, then the justification for charging consumers is tenuous. And since one of the defenses of these charges is that consumers can move their business to banks and credit unions that don't charge these fees, smaller banks and credit unions that didn't compensate their CEO $10,000,000.00 in 2010, it would seem the justification is indeed tenuous.
So your answer to my question about Justin Beiber is 'yes?' (I asked, if it only costs Beiber a penny per 45 cents of ticket revenue to put on a concert, should Dick Durbin step in and reduce ticket prices?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2011, 11:25 AM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,143,230 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
So, what's the cost of debit cards to banks?
The cost to a bank to process a debit card transaction: $.02

Two cents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 11:32 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,898,651 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
So your answer to my question about Justin Beiber is 'yes?' (I asked, if it only costs Beiber a penny per 45 cents of ticket revenue to put on a concert, should Dick Durbin step in and reduce ticket prices?)
No.

Banks are businesses, they should make profits. They are making profits. They are making huge profits. Billions of dollars. I'd like it if they made billions of dollars for actually providing services, rather than skimming the till. The debit usage fee isn't justified. It's an extra burden on customers. I hope those customers do walk, even run, to credit unions and small banks. But I don't think it's going to change the "banking culture" at big banks like Bank of America where the "banking culture" is clearly a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 11:34 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,898,651 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
The cost to a bank to process a debit card transaction: $.02

Two cents.
And how much do they save when customers use those debit cards to make deposits, withdrawals or transfers without the assistance of bank personnel?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 11:50 AM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,143,230 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And how much do they save when customers use those debit cards to make deposits, withdrawals or transfers without the assistance of bank personnel?
They save customers nothing.

They save themselves and the banks bottom line quite a bit.

Why does the Right Wing want to socialize losses and privatize profits by corporations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,369,310 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
No.

Banks are businesses, they should make profits. They are making profits. They are making huge profits. Billions of dollars. I'd like it if they made billions of dollars for actually providing services, rather than skimming the till. The debit usage fee isn't justified. It's an extra burden on customers. I hope those customers do walk, even run, to credit unions and small banks. But I don't think it's going to change the "banking culture" at big banks like Bank of America where the "banking culture" is clearly a problem.
you side-stepped my question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,121 posts, read 3,098,001 times
Reputation: 2312
Big Banks make money by enhancing every potential revenue stream. The idea that BofA was never going to enhance a potential revenue stream unless another one was blocked is patently absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 12:11 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,898,651 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
you side-stepped my question.
I answered your question. I said "no". I said I fully supported banks making profits. And I support Justin Bieber making a profit, too. I support capitalism. I also support government regulations of the market. Because capitalism has a downside as well as an upside. Any economic system has advantages and disadvantages. Any political system has advantages and disadvantages. I think monopolies are bad for an economy, for instance, and government regulations designed to prevent monopolies are good. Is that price-fixing? Maybe. Aren't tariffs a price-fixing strategy, too? And yet there are many conservatives who post on threads in this forum about how tariffs are what we need to offset globalism.

I support balanced approaches to our economic problems. And caps on fees that banks charge, just like laws against usury, are legitimate strategies to deal with those problems, as long as the strategy is well-formulated and thought out.

Was this current law well-formulated and thought out? I don't think it was. But I also think the banks are playing the public, and I have very little sympathy for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,369,310 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I answered your question. I said "no". I said I fully supported banks making profits. And I support Justin Bieber making a profit, too. I support capitalism. I also support government regulations of the market. Because capitalism has a downside as well as an upside. Any economic system has advantages and disadvantages. Any political system has advantages and disadvantages. I think monopolies are bad for an economy, for instance, and government regulations designed to prevent monopolies are good. Is that price-fixing? Maybe. Aren't tariffs a price-fixing strategy, too? And yet there are many conservatives who post on threads in this forum about how tariffs are what we need to offset globalism.

I support balanced approaches to our economic problems. And caps on fees that banks charge, just like laws against usury, are legitimate strategies to deal with those problems, as long as the strategy is well-formulated and thought out.

Was this current law well-formulated and thought out? I don't think it was. But I also think the banks are playing the public, and I have very little sympathy for them.
I answered too fast. But so your answer is 'no?' If the bank makes 45 cents on 1 cent of cost, and Beiber makes 45 cents on 1 cent of cost, why a cap on the bank but not Beiber?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 12:26 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,898,651 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I answered too fast. But so your answer is 'no?' If the bank makes 45 cents on 1 cent of cost, and Beiber makes 45 cents on 1 cent of cost, why a cap on the bank but not Beiber?
How many people carry and use debit cards?

How many people go to a Bieber concert?

I realize that scale is sometimes irrelevant to a discussion, but I think it's relevant to this discussion because on one hand we are talking about a singular entertainment event, and on the other hand we are talking about 520 million debit cards, used often daily, which has an impact on the nation and its economy. So the nation, the nation's government, has an interest in banks, but not an interest in Bieber.
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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top