govt now trying to regulate ATM fees?

[cubby1223]

Another area where regulation isn't desired or necessary. Seriously, I got fed up with overdraft fees at my bank and the fact that they were paying me less than the rate of inflation for the privilege of leveraging my capital, so I switched to a local credit union and never looked back. This definitely falls under something that a free marketplace is better at sorting out than additional bureaucracy.

The credit union does not have to charge additional fees because they have tax exempt status with the government. If they had to compete on a level playing field, they would be charging fees just the same as the big banks. Just pointing out that this is *not* a free marketplace sorting this out, but rather government control that gives you this separation.

 

[dmcowen674]

Yup. I'd rather have a $5 fee ATM than...no ATM.

You work for Citi Bank?

 

[bfdd]

<3 7-11. No ATM fee for Credit Unions. At least here in California that's the case. My bank isn't to far from me either I generally just sweep by there. Really the only time I get hit with an ATM fee is when I use the ATM at the mmj clinic I go to, it's like 2 bucks or something.

 

[umbrella39]

<3 7-11. No ATM fee for Credit Unions. At least here in California that's the case.

It's the same here in Michigan. I honestly can't remember the last time I had to pay a fee to use an ATM. Good old CU's.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The net effect of such legislation is simply going to be that you won't be able to withdraw money from another bank's ATM. Why would they let you use their equipment if they can't profit from it? But instead, we have a bunch of idiots who think they can wave their magic wand and "fix" a non-problem.

Or the net effect will be that every bank will start charging capped ATM fees no matter what ATM you use in order to make up the difference in lost revenue. This is a likely outcome of the Fed waving their magic wand of fail where before a person could avoid many if not all ATM fees if they just rubbed 2 brains cells together.

 

[Moonbeam]

Or the net effect will be that every bank will start charging capped ATM fees no matter what ATM you use in order to make up the difference in lost revenue. This is a likely outcome of the Fed waving their magic wand of fail where before a person could avoid many if not all ATM fees if they just rubbed 2 brains cells together.

If people rubbed 2 brain cells people would buy a tenth of what they buy and the economy would collapse. You seem to be under the impression that folk aren't trained to be stupid by mosquitoes who want to suck their blood. Mosquitoes inject drugs when they feed to numb you and then come the itchrest charges.

 

[IronWing]

Sounds like another populist crumb to throw to the masses. I remember the early days of ATMs when you could only use your own bank's machines. If you dealt with a locally owned bank, you couldn't use an ATM while traveling. The fees made it possible and desirable for banks and others to make ubiquitous access to your funds possible. Anyone one remember buying travelers' checks and the fees on those? When is the last time you bought them?

Meanwhile, the feds paid billions to the banks to cover "losses" from synthetic derivatives. If I could get that deal I'd take up gambling too.

 

[dmcowen674]

Or the net effect will be that every bank will start charging capped ATM fees no matter what ATM you use in order to make up the difference in lost revenue. This is a likely outcome of the Fed waving their magic wand of fail where before a person could avoid many if not all ATM fees if they just rubbed 2 brains cells together.

Good, everyone should be paying. Damn elitists

 

[BoberFett]

Good, everyone should be paying. Damn elitists

You want to pay for using your own banks ATMs?

You're even dumber than we all thought.

 

[nageov3t]

I never quite got the justification behind being charged a fee both by the ATM *and* my own bank, especially when I'm saving my bank money by conducting 99.9&#37; of my banking transactions via atm.

 

[Red Dawn]

I never quite got the justification behind being charged a fee both by the ATM *and* my own bank, especially when I'm saving my bank money by conducting 99.9% of my banking transactions via atm.

The justification is the banks making more money off of their customers.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

The justification is the banks making more money off of their customers.

yup, like obama says, you've made enough money.

 

[Modelworks]

Being charged for a transaction at your normal bank should not be happening, if it does then you are letting them do it by keeping your account with them. The fee that other ATM charge for non member customers I think should be up to the ATM owner. Every ATM I have used has clearly displayed the extra fee and usually makes me press accept to go to the next step. I can pay it or walk away, my choice.

 

[nageov3t]

Being charged for a transaction at your normal bank should not be happening, if it does then you are letting them do it by keeping your account with them. The fee that other ATM charge for non member customers I think should be up to the ATM owner. Every ATM I have used has clearly displayed the extra fee and usually makes me press accept to go to the next step. I can pay it or walk away, my choice.

the fees that your own bank charges you for using outside ATM's is typically buried in the fine print, though.

I get charged $1 by my bank every single time I use an out of network ATM or use my card as a debit card in a store.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

This thread is LOL worthy

 

[spidey07]

the fees that your own bank charges you for using outside ATM's is typically buried in the fine print, though.

I get charged $1 by my bank every single time I use an out of network ATM or use my card as a debit card in a store.

Wow. Time to switch banks.

 

[CycloWizard]

Why not? Why should a business' desire for profits be the only consideration (especially when actual experience has shown it's possible to provide universal service and maintain good profits)? Government is supposed to represent the People too, you know.

In all seriousness, I'd be more on your side of the issue if we truly had robust competition in banking. The fact of the matter is we don't. In banking, as in so many major industries these days, the field is dominated by a small number of mega-corps who jointly control what consumers are offered and at what prices. Though we may have an illusion of choice, especially from small players, the choices usually come with enough baggage to preclude any significant market penetration.

In such a market, I think it is reasonable for government to impose constraints and force certain levels of customer service. In banking this used to be done at the state level, but once again, as is so often the case, heavy bank lobbying persuaded (i.e., bribed) our so-called "representatives" into taking away yet another facet of state authority in favor of federal non-regulation.

The inevitable result is consumers got screwed, ever-degrading service and ever-higher prices. Harkin is just trying to balance this ever so slightly, yet the usual knee-jerk partisans are predictably outraged at any suggestion government should represent people instead of profits.

The government is supposed to protect my rights, not make impositions on companies on my behalf. If a company infringes on my rights to life, liberty, or property, then legislation against their action is appropriate. Otherwise, it's none of the government's business. You are simply suggesting that the government be used as a weapon against banks because you think it would be a neat thing to do.

Well first of all, it's not free. According to the OP, the 50 cent fee was calculated to cover actual costs and preserve a decent, though not exorbitant profit margin.

Since when is it the job of the government to set a limit on profit margin?

Second, even if it were free, so what? As I pointed out originally, the whole promise of ATMs was they would reduce overall bank costs by reducing tellers and check-handling expenses. This was, in fact, exactly what happened.

Why then are banks somehow entitled to make additional profit on something that already saves them money? Because the market will bear it? Bullshit. That's a reasonable argument in a truly free market with healthy competition ... which is exactly what we don't have today thanks in great part to the federal government taking away states' authority at the behest of the very banks who now stand to profit from it. Screw them. Let them reap what they've sown. If they don't like it they can always go back to letting states set regulations individually.

They're entitled to charge whatever people are willing to pay. ATMs offer convenience to the customer. Whether they also reduce operating expenses for the bank is completely immaterial here. If you find a way to innovate in your business which offers better customer service and saves you money, good for you. Why should the government step in and say, "We see what you did there. It's great for both the customer and the company, but we just feel like you're making too much money from your innovation"? That's absurd. The bank is "entitled" to profits to the extent its customers are willing to pay for its services.

 

[nageov3t]

Wow. Time to switch banks.

yeah. I signed up with this bank because it was the closest to where I lived at the time and it was before I had a license... I keep meaning to switch but haven't felt like changing my direct deposit (and every bank that reimburses ATM fees seems to require a minimum balance of $2,500 which I'd meet but still, what if I needed a lot of cash for something and took a chunk out of my savings?).

haven't used my bank card for store transactions in forever, though. I use my amex for everything that I'd use a debit card for (groceries, gas, etc)

 

[Modelworks]

the fees that your own bank charges you for using outside ATM's is typically buried in the fine print, though.

I get charged $1 by my bank every single time I use an out of network ATM or use my card as a debit card in a store.

Wow, close the account and find a better bank.
I get charged nothing every month for any services except for when I use a different ATM for cash. I can get around that fee by selecting cash back when buying something.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

The government is supposed to protect my rights, not make impositions on companies on my behalf. If a company infringes on my rights to life, liberty, or property, then legislation against their action is appropriate. Otherwise, it's none of the government's business. You are simply suggesting that the government be used as a weapon against banks because you think it would be a neat thing to do.

Since when is it the job of the government to set a limit on profit margin?

They're entitled to charge whatever people are willing to pay. ATMs offer convenience to the customer. Whether they also reduce operating expenses for the bank is completely immaterial here. If you find a way to innovate in your business which offers better customer service and saves you money, good for you. Why should the government step in and say, "We see what you did there. It's great for both the customer and the company, but we just feel like you're making too much money from your innovation"? That's absurd. The bank is "entitled" to profits to the extent its customers are willing to pay for its services.

my sentiments exactly.

 

[Bowfinger]

The government is supposed to protect my rights, not make impositions on companies on my behalf. If a company infringes on my rights to life, liberty, or property, then legislation against their action is appropriate. Otherwise, it's none of the government's business.

Agreed, those are government's most critical responsibilities. Government has many responsibilities, however. Moreover, in a democracy, those responsibilities evolve over time as the will of the people changes.

I said in my first post that I agree this shouldn't be a high priority. It is not nearly so out of line as many are suggesting, however. The sky is not falling.

You are simply suggesting that the government be used as a weapon against banks because you think it would be a neat thing to do.

One would think an educated person such as yourself would be able to present others' arguments reasonably honestly and accurately. Your sentence above does neither.

Since when is it the job of the government to set a limit on profit margin?

Since a handful of mega-banks have corrupted the free market through consolidations and acquisitions. In general, I believe government regulation in a free and open market should be relatively light, just enough to protect the public safety and prevent predatory and deceptive business practices. The less free and open the market, the more government regulation becomes not only justified, but necessary.

They're entitled to charge whatever people are willing to pay. ATMs offer convenience to the customer. Whether they also reduce operating expenses for the bank is completely immaterial here. If you find a way to innovate in your business which offers better customer service and saves you money, good for you. Why should the government step in and say, "We see what you did there. It's great for both the customer and the company, but we just feel like you're making too much money from your innovation"? That's absurd. The bank is "entitled" to profits to the extent its customers are willing to pay for its services.

I agree ... in a free and open market. As I explained in the post to which you replied, that's distinctly NOT what we have today. Would you care to address that point instead of slaying straw men?

 

[CycloWizard]

Agreed, those are government's most critical responsibilities. Government has many responsibilities, however. Moreover, in a democracy, those responsibilities evolve over time as the will of the people changes.

I said in my first post that I agree this shouldn't be a high priority. It is not nearly so out of line as many are suggesting, however. The sky is not falling.

Saying that the sky isn't falling is simply a diversion from the fact that the government was never intended to have this sort of authority, nor should it. If I owned a company and a bunch of people decided that they should have free (or nearly free) access to my services simply because my services are ubiquitous, then I would simply stop offering that service. This would give them a reality check and realize that if they want a service, they should pay for it. Using the government as a weapon to take something from someone else is morally reprehensible at best, yet this is exactly what you're proposing.

One would think an educated person such as yourself would be able to present others' arguments reasonably honestly and accurately. Your sentence above does neither.

Your argument, to the best of my ability to understand it, is that it's ok for the government to demand a service from any company without offering any payment in return simply because that's what some people want. In fact, that is the exact opposite of what the government is supposed to do. If you think I'm misrepresenting your argument, tell me how I'm wrong.

Since a handful of mega-banks have corrupted the free market through consolidations and acquisitions. In general, I believe government regulation in a free and open market should be relatively light, just enough to protect the public safety and prevent predatory and deceptive business practices. The less free and open the market, the more government regulation becomes not only justified, but necessary.

You're contradicting yourself. You're claiming to have faith in a free market solution to most problems, all the while supporting a government mandate on a completely transparent, fee-based service model for a service which is completely optional. That doesn't make any sense, and you've hardly provided a compelling case for why the real free market solution won't work here.

I agree ... in a free and open market. As I explained in the post to which you replied, that's distinctly NOT what we have today. Would you care to address that point instead of slaying straw men?

Except you never explained anything - you simply made an unsupported statement. Why is this measure necessary? If you want to infringe on someone's rights, you need to supply a pretty good reason. As yet, you haven't even attempted to do so.

 

[kalrith]

1. May 2010: Government caps ATM fees for using other banks' ATMs to 50 cents, thus reducing them an average of $2.
2. July 2010: Government places $2 tax on ALL ATM fees, even if you use your own bank.
3. ...
4. Government profit.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, it would not surprise me in the least.

 

[ElFenix]

1. May 2010: Government caps ATM fees for using other banks' ATMs to 50 cents, thus reducing them an average of $2.
2. July 2010: Government places $2 tax on ALL ATM fees, even if you use your own bank.
3. ...
4. Government profit.

:thumbsup: