Banks Hit Jobless with Fees on Unemployment Comp

[Andy9o8 0]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6917758

Quote

Jobless Hit With Bank Fees on Benefits

More pain for unemployed as banks turn profit on new debit card jobless benefits
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD
The Associated Press

First, Arthur Santa-Maria called Bank of America to ask how to check the balance of his new unemployment benefits debit card. The bank charged him 50 cents.

He chose not to complain. That would have cost another 50 cents.

So he took out some of the money and then decided to pull out the rest. But that made two withdrawals on the same day, and that was $1.50.

For hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs during the recession, there's a new twist to their financial pain: Even when they're collecting unemployment benefits, they're paying the bank just to get the money — or even to call customer service to complain about it.

Thirty states have struck such deals with banks that include Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase and US Bancorp, an Associated Press review of the agreements found. All the programs carry fees, and in several states the unemployed have no choice but to use the debit cards. Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 — even though they could decline charges for more than what's on the card.

"They're trying to use my money to make money," said Santa-Maria, a laid-off engineer who lives just outside Albuquerque, N.M. "I just see banks trying to make that 50 cents or a buck and a half when I should be given the service for free."

The banks say their programs offer convenience. They also provide at least one way to tap the money at no charge, such as using a single free withdrawal to get all the cash at once from a bank teller. But the banks benefit from human nature, as people end up treating the cards like all the other plastic in their wallets.

Some banks, depending on the agreement negotiated with each state, also make money on the interest they earn after the state deposits the money and before it's spent. The banks and credit card companies also get roughly 1 percent to 3 percent off the top of each transaction made with the cards.

[jerryzflies 0]

Hey, haven't you been paying attention? The banks need money. Who better to pay for the banks' bad investments than the people who lost their jobs because of it.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[TheAnvil 0]

What the hell makes you think banks should allow free use of their equipment and services? Should unemployed get free big macs too? ATMs cost $$ to install and maintain. I have no issue with banks charging usage fees to either their own members or non-members for their use. $.50 is a rather small fee.

Unfair? Bullshit. VERY fair.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What the hell makes you think banks should allow free use of their equipment and services? Should unemployed get free big macs too? ATMs cost $$ to install and maintain. I have no issue with banks charging usage fees to either their own members or non-members for their use. $.50 is a rather small fee.
Unfair? Bullshit. VERY fair.

- It's less fair for those whose states give them no option but to take their benefits in debit cards - they can't even opt out and just get an old-fashioned cashable/depositable check.

- People choose their own banks in part based upon the bank's fee structure. For most banks, if you use an ATM at your own bank, you don't get charged a fee, and you can use the ATM as many times per day as you need. There seems to be less of that option in some states that use this program.

- Getting charged a fee just to call with a question or make a balance inquiry? Now THAT'S bullshit.

- Let's not forget that banks make money on deposits even on no-fee-charged accounts. In banking, that's what it's all about. (Are the banks PAYING interest on these accounts? Ha! - not likely!) So this really isn't about the cake; it's about the extra-thick, extra-rich icing, on the backs of people who are already down. Way to kick 'em, guys!

[diablopilot 2]

As my father said while I was growing up and continues to say to me "Cash is king."

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

What the hell makes you think banks should allow free use of their equipment and services? Should unemployed get free big macs too? ATMs cost $$ to install and maintain. I have no issue with banks charging usage fees to either their own members or non-members for their use. $.50 is a rather small fee.

Unfair? Bullshit. VERY fair.

I'd agree with you if the people receiving the benefits have some sort of option available to them other than the banks, but many don't. They have been promised these benefits by the state, paid their own money into them without choice, and now are not being given the opportunity to collect them in the governments own legal form of payment.

Bullshit. Borderline illegal.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[TheAnvil 0]

Again, bullshit. Phone inquiries cost money - irrefutable fact. It's a service provided, fee charged. No brainer.

Instead of going to an ATM a benefit recipient could go to the bank and withdraw all the $$ and use it at the bank of their choice.

Your assertion that in a State program giving $$ to a person via a bank, the bank should absorb costs out of their pocket in the execution of said program, is absurd. Service provide, fee charged. In this case, it's $$ the person would not have had.

Their/your problem is with the State, not the bank. The banks are an easy target these days - hence the inane article from ABC. Billingsgate, balderdash, and bullshit. The banks are correct here. If the State has a problem with their fees, the State should agree to reimburse the bank on a cost basis or use another mechanism to get $$ to their constituents.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

The govt should make it a "free" service - no bank fees - and lower the benefit by $10.00 per month.

Then there will be no complaints!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Yeah? Well, your "bullshit" is bullshit.
-People generally don't just cash out the account as soon as it's direct-deposited; they leave the money in there and use it a bit at a time. Thus, the bank benefits from that the same way my bank benefits from the money I keep in my no-fee checking account: for as long as that money floats in the account, the bank gets the use of that money - interest-free - to make more money.

-Saying banks should charge for phone inquiries is a total crock. You think most banks charge their regular account-holders for phone or in-person inquiries about their accounts? Of course not, or those customers would be ex-customers right quick. So that's a prime example of a powerless captive clientele who can afford it the least (the jobless) getting fucked right up the ass. The morality of this is absolutely putrid. And it's shit like this which turns swing-voters and soft-Republicans into Democrats.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

He chose not to complain. That would have cost another 50 cents.

That had to be the funniest part.

Banks could balance their books by charging everyone that complains!

But overall, the blame here is on the laziness of the states who make deals with banks that are not in the best interests of their unemployed.

[penniless 0]

Quote

What the hell makes you think banks should allow free use of their equipment and services? Should unemployed get free big macs too? ATMs cost $$ to install and maintain. I have no issue with banks charging usage fees to either their own members or non-members for their use. $.50 is a rather small fee.

Unfair? Bullshit. VERY fair.

Since the banks were the biggest players in the fiasco that led inexorably to massive layoffs, and then took taxpayer money to bail themselves out while continuing to pay bonuses to their execs, I think forgoing the $0.50 is the least they should do.

[freethefly 6]

Would you call this bullshit?
http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/01/17/bank-of-america-gets-138-billion-bailout-as-merrill-takeover-backfires/

People should take their money out of these crappy banks and take them to the smaller "home town" banks. Let the huge banks fail. Their officers should be held 100% accountable and made to pay back every dime they lost due to their inability to manage the money that was intrusted to them. Why should they pass the cost of a phone call, that did not cost 50 cents to begin with, on to the people who invested money in the bank? That is gouging in its pure form.
Bank of America was the worst bank that I have ever used. Their fees were outrageous. In 2001, I got fed up with being charged for every thing that other banks did not charge for. The people at BofA were rude and ignorant. I went to withdraw more than $3000.00 and wanted it all in cash. It took near all day to get it. They balked at giving me my money in cash and said they would mail me a bank check in 10 to 14 business days. Bullshit! It was my money and I wanted it right then and now. Not two weeks later. One of the many reasons they gave was that I should had gave them prior notice that I intended to close my account. Bullshit! I do not need to give anyone prior notice of my intention to close an account. The longer they took, the louder I got. They asked me to leave. I refused. They threaten to call the police. I said, "go ahead and call, I want my money". In the end, I got my money. I now use a small bank where the service is personal. Everyone knows each others name. They wave and talk to you when you come in. They even sent out a gift cerificate to all of their customers for a free family portrait last month. Nice folks. Side note; The president of the bank, his son was the "skydiver" in the budweiser commercial that aired a year ago or so.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Krip 2]

Quote

Yeah? Well, your "bullshit" is bullshit.
-People generally don't just cash out the account as soon as it's direct-deposited; they leave the money in there and use it a bit at a time. Thus, the bank benefits from that the same way my bank benefits from the money I keep in my no-fee checking account: for as long as that money floats in the account, the bank gets the use of that money - interest-free - to make more money.

Quote

agree except you missed the fee the bank collects from the retailers everytime someone uses their card for a debit.

Some states negotiated a poor deal with the banks. Directt deposit should have been the only way to administer the program

One Jump Wonder

[mpohl 1]

And let's not forget: THIS IS AMERICA!

Not some fucking low-life country w/ adequate health care, housing, and food for ALL!

Quote

Hey, haven't you been paying attention? The banks need money. Who better to pay for the banks' bad investments than the people who lost their jobs because of it.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

And it's shit like this which turns swing-voters and soft-Republicans into Democrats.

What does that have to do with the banks charging fees? All the banks are Republican and all the jobless are Democrats?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[TheAnvil 0]

The decision not to withdraw the cash from whatever bank the State places the money into is a personal one. The individual's decision to make - not the bank.

Phone inquiries do cost money. The person or machine on the end of the line costs $$ to pay for and/or maintain. Use a service, charged a fee. Very, very fair.

Your problem lies with the State and individuals - not the bank.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Buying and selling of debt securities and insurance policies based upon debt has nothing to do with the simple concept of 'use a service, pay a fee'.

Apples and oranges.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The fact is most that have regular banking services will do the one free transaction to move the money from their unemployment card to their regular current accounts. The people who do not have regular bank accounts will not. These people are generally a dead loss to banks. The province of British Columbia set up a "Peoples" bank for those who didn't have regular banking access in the worst neighbourhood of Vancouver many years ago. Not even the socialist government of the day could continue to fund it for long.
Banks are in business to make money. I don't know why people should expect them to behave any differently.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Phone inquiries do cost money. The person or machine on the end of the line costs $$ to pay for and/or maintain. Use a service, charged a fee. Very, very fair.

Wrong - it's planned-for overhead. If the banks needed to do it, they'd do it to all customers. Instead, they just do it to those most vulnerable to the rape. You're just repeating the tired argument that's already been rebutted.

Quote

Banks are in business to make money.

Yes, and the principal means through which banks make money is by earning more income on the banks' investment of money deposited with them by their customers, and by collecting more interest on the loans they make out than the interest they pay to their depositors. In the case of no-interest accounts, like checking accounts or these unemployment comp accounts, it's already a win-win for the bank because they don't pay out interest on deposits (unlike savings accounts, where banks do pay interest, but at lower rates than they charge on loans - so they still make money). And the fact is, most comp accounts do let their money float in the account, and then use it incrementally for purchases via their debit card. So the bank makes money off the float.

The fact that banks don't do this exploitive shit to "regular" customers is revealing: the banks know that they'd never get away with it with any other than a captive clientele that is least able to vote with their feet and take their business elsewhere.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

And it's shit like this which turns swing-voters and soft-Republicans into Democrats.

What does that have to do with the banks charging fees? All the banks are Republican and all the jobless are Democrats?

Not all fees; exploitive fees.
And the answer is: because, historically, Democrats tend to be perceived as protecting the little guys against the more powerful who would screw them, while Republicans tend to be perceived as protecting those that would screw the little guy.

[TheAnvil 0]

Incorrect again. The person or machine that takes inquiries over the phone costs money to pay/maintain. IF the bank budgeted for that as part of its 'overhead' as you put it, then it would be for regular customers. Your assertion that a bank allow use of its services and equipment to non-customers who receive funds through its accounts as part of a gov't program for free, is absurd. Use a service, charged a fee. Very, very simple. Very very fair.

This bullshit about 'banks use the $$ in those accounts to make money! It's unfair to the unemployed' is more liberal horse-shit. So what? Banks are in business to make $$. They SHOULD make $$ on any funds funneled through their systems. They are not a social program. This money of which you speak is taxpayer $$ sent to unemployed citizens. It's free $$ to them, basically. If they want to transfer that $ to an interest bearing account elsewhere, they're free to do so. Your inane paradigm has banks adding a miniscule amount to an unemployment account - a slight kicker to a social program at private industry expense. Bullshit. Government pays for social programs. Banks are in business to make $$, not give it away. Individual choice is your issue here. Not the bank.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Buying and selling of debt securities and insurance policies based upon debt has nothing to do with the simple concept of 'use a service, pay a fee'.

Apples and oranges.

So screwing people twice over is OK with you as long as the two screwings have "nothing to do" with each other.

Maybe the local supermarket should charge me $0.50 for use of the checkout, and the gas station should charge me $1.00 for use of the pump.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Buying and selling of debt securities and insurance policies based upon debt has nothing to do with the simple concept of 'use a service, pay a fee'.

Apples and oranges.

So screwing people twice over is OK with you as long as the two screwings have "nothing to do" with each other.

Maybe the local supermarket should charge me $0.50 for use of the checkout, and the gas station should charge me $1.00 for use of the pump.

The way that righties see the world, the answer to your idea would be "yes", IF they can get away with it.
Even better would be for all of the supermarkets and gas station to get together into "trade groups", aka, price fixing consortiums, and collectively decide together to implement such charges all at once.
That would be a righties version of "good and ethical business practices" that require no government intervention. If the customers don't like it, they are free to take their business elsewhere.

There is no such thing as the common welfare or the greater good, the way righties see things.
It is all about greed, selfishness, and profits. No person, business, or government has any responsiblility to act in a moral or ethical manner. Profits rule all. Even when it comes down to taking money from the unemployed during the worst economic times in generations. Way to go, Vinny. Kick them while they are down. What a great example of the moral bankruptcy of the right. There is no such thing as the common welfare or the greater good, in righty world.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It is all about greed, selfishness, and profits.

Oh, please - look up statistics about charity and see who gives the most broken down by political party. I'll give you a hint - it doesn't start with a "D".

Now - care to contribute something BESIDES hyperbole?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Quote

Oh, please - look up statistics about charity and see who gives the most broken down by political party. I'll give you a hint - it doesn't start with a "D".

Can you point me to what statistics you are relying on? I'm curious to see for myself.

- Dan G