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.
Cash is NOT the way. Checks work but if everyone used checks, the banks would soon get fed up with that and start charging for writing and processing a check. They are already doing this in the UK so it is not a new or original idea.
We used to have checking accounts when we lived in FL, not sure what banks, everyone belongs to everyone else now, but we were charged after we wrote so many checks per month, and it wasn't many.
I wonder what the bank feel about Near Field Communication (NFC). This is technology built into newer cell phones that allows you to pay for stuff by waving your phone "near" a payment device.
The banks have spent considerable money to implement this.
Looks like the BoA webpage is Temporarily Unavailable, wonder if their recent fee increase announcement had anything to do with it
As I said, bone head move, we want to promote green technology (less checks, printed money) and then this move comes along pulling us couple of years back...
And as much as I now detest BofA, in this case I can't blame them! This fee is a direct result of over Federal regulation. I was appalled when I heard the Feds were regulating the amount a bank can charge a merchant for processing a debit card transaction. Why do we need or want the Feds setting a price? Let the merchants charge consumers for using their debit cards. Let the consumer decide if he wants to use his debit card, but regulating the fee, well that will simply force the banks to turn around and charge the consumer... which is exactly what they are doing, so what does the new federal regulation actually accomplish?
I agree. Glad to see that there are folks seeing through the chatter and seeing this for what this is - the federal government sticking their noses where they don't belong.
Thankfully I don't HAVE a BofA credit card, but I do have other bank carrds, but I'm pretty sure I'll be switching anyway, or just cashing at the ATM every two weeks.
"Premium" accounts would not be affected, so perhaps this is one way for banks to weed out low-profit customers. After all - How much revenue can a bank generate from a basic checking account that has a small balance?
As others have said above, why use a debit card? Use a rewards credit card instead. Credit cards tend to have higher rewards for so-called everyday purchases like groceries and gasoline.
But that just brings up other past bad behavior. Like Discover raising my APR because they didn't like how high my balance was on OTHER cards. I don't think it's legal to do that now.
Or my mom who had her rate increase 25% because she has a business card and they needed to make up profit somewhere. She has perfect credit.
Or Citibank raising me from 8% to 29% for a $1 shortage in a monthly payment.
I'm not perfect and I don't like the idea of the banks holding all the cards. There are stricter rules now but the bottom line is banks have a habit of betting against their customers in order to make a profit. I swear the reason online bill pay is free is that you're more likely to bounce a check.
I got hit by the overdraft stacking too and should be getting a check from the class action lawsuit.
So yes, ideally get a rewards card and don't keep a balance but don't be surprised if everyone did that they don't come up with annual fees for the less than rich.
The crux of the matter is this (from the link above)
"The Dodd-Frank Act's Durbin amendment, due to go into effect on October 1, caps fees banks can charge merchants for processing debit card transactions at 21 cents per transaction from an average of 44 cents, potentially costing banks billions of dollars."
Wells Fargo are "trialing" a $3 per month charge in some states. Here's another extract from the relevant link.
"Wells Fargo's $3 debit card fee test will be limited to accounts opened in Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington."
I too shall be looking to a Credit Union for my day to day banking. I will do this just to avoid paying the $36 (3 * 12) that Welss Fargo will certainly impose once their "trial" has finished.
I shall vote with my feet.
I hope the credit unions can hold in there. USAA as a bank most certainly is. But even though the credit unions are not for profit, they are going to hurt with the cut in fees too. If the fees aren't necessary to run a credit union, what were they doing with the "extra" before the fee structure changed?
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.
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.
