Banks charge fees to jobless

Banks charge fees to jobless

There are 71 comments on the The Morning Call story from Feb 20, 2009, titled Banks charge fees to jobless. In it, The Morning Call reports that:

First, Arthur Santa-Maria called Bank of America to ask how to check the balance of his new unemployment benefits debit card.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Morning Call.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Devak Otel

Wood Dale, IL

#65 Feb 22, 2009
Kinder and Gentler Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a liberal.
You, however have the intellectuaol capacity and debating style of a 5 year old.
Good luck to you.
What don't you get a job? You'll find it's a lot harder to pull the wagon, especially when you have to listen to the people riding on it complain all the time.

No luck to you.
Common Sense

United States

#66 Feb 23, 2009
Kinder and Gentler Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but grocery stores, harware stores, theaters, restaurants and wal-mart dont get to enter into exclusive contractual agreements with the state in order to take advantage of, and profit soley from the ranks of the unemployed.
It has nothing to do with Obama-nation. Try to look at things once in a while objecively rather than through your partisan hack glasses - you might find it to be a nice change.
Phil, your grasping the facts correctly, but then blaming the wrong person. If the states enter into this type of contract with the banks, it is not fault of the banks, but of the states.

I guarantee you that these contracts is set up so that banks pay the states for the right to this business. The fees are put in place to offset these costs, and to make a reasonable profit on the contract. If a state wanted banks to provide more generous terms to customers, the amount that they are paid by the banks for this contract would go down, and might even get to the point where the state would pay the bank for providing its services.

“Illegitimi non carborundum”

Since: Jan 09

Scenic Manitowoc County WI

#67 Feb 23, 2009
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Phil, your grasping the facts correctly, but then blaming the wrong person. If the states enter into this type of contract with the banks, it is not fault of the banks, but of the states.
I guarantee you that these contracts is set up so that banks pay the states for the right to this business. The fees are put in place to offset these costs, and to make a reasonable profit on the contract. If a state wanted banks to provide more generous terms to customers, the amount that they are paid by the banks for this contract would go down, and might even get to the point where the state would pay the bank for providing its services.
I was not blaming anybody. The banks have the right to make a profit however the law allows.
And I am sure that the banking industry has more ability to lobby state legilatures than unemployed people.

That is the system and I am fine with it. However, I do understand why some people would find it a little bit distatseful to lobby the state in order to deceive, profit and kick people when they are down - all on the taxpayers dime.
nooneuknow

Chicago, IL

#68 Feb 23, 2009
Devak Otel wrote:
Grocery stores charge fees to the jobless too. As do hardware stores, movie theaters, McDonalds, and Walmart.
I guess in Obama-Nation, if you don't have a job, everything is free.
Your comment doesn't make sense
Just an American

Tampa, FL

#71 Feb 23, 2009
I still can't believe what I just read. Thank you lawmakers for making this deal. This is completely unacceptable.

“de la frontera de Pennsyltucky”

Since: Jan 08

Pittsburgh, Penn.

#72 Feb 23, 2009
A note to PA folks who file unemployment apps and don't have the patience to keep hitting redial on your phone to file initial claim...do your initial online and do the direct deposit immediately that day. My first payment was done to my bank account, hell I never even got a state debit card! It's about reading the fine print and reading the TAC...

“Illegitimi non carborundum”

Since: Jan 09

Scenic Manitowoc County WI

#73 Feb 23, 2009
Just an American wrote:
I still can't believe what I just read. Thank you lawmakers for making this deal. This is completely unacceptable.
Howdy neighbor
Human Being

Allentown, PA

#74 Feb 23, 2009
Robery is the American Way. Look at gas and food prices. "I'm not making an ever increasing profit, therefore, I'm jacking prices."
Common Sense

United States

#75 Feb 23, 2009
Kinder and Gentler Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not blaming anybody. The banks have the right to make a profit however the law allows.
And I am sure that the banking industry has more ability to lobby state legilatures than unemployed people.
That is the system and I am fine with it. However, I do understand why some people would find it a little bit distatseful to lobby the state in order to deceive, profit and kick people when they are down - all on the taxpayers dime.
Phil, again you missed the point. The reason that the bank fees are in place is because the states want them to be. They want the contract to be as profitable as possible for the banks, so that the banks pay them as much as possible for the contract.

Totally making up numbers...if the bank pays the state $10 million dollars for the contract, it's reasonable to guess that they must make $15 million from it for it to be profitable, once you factor in their costs (labor, facilities, etc.) in dealing with the accounts. They will then construct a fee schedule to allow them to make at least this amount ($15m), plus a reasonable profit. If the state instead only takes $5 million from the banks, they may only need to make $10 million, and will adjust their fees downward accordingly.

The same thing works in reverse - if the state puts the contract out to bid, and will only allow certain fees, they will not get as much money back from the banks. The state sets the parameters for the contract, and the banks work within those parameters.

This the way business works - banks are not charitable organizations. The bailout money that went to them was to allow them to survive as engines of the economy, and not as some sort of goodie giveaway agency.

“Illegitimi non carborundum”

Since: Jan 09

Scenic Manitowoc County WI

#76 Feb 23, 2009
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Phil, again you missed the point. The reason that the bank fees are in place is because the states want them to be. They want the contract to be as profitable as possible for the banks, so that the banks pay them as much as possible for the contract.
Totally making up numbers...if the bank pays the state $10 million dollars for the contract, it's reasonable to guess that they must make $15 million from it for it to be profitable, once you factor in their costs (labor, facilities, etc.) in dealing with the accounts. They will then construct a fee schedule to allow them to make at least this amount ($15m), plus a reasonable profit. If the state instead only takes $5 million from the banks, they may only need to make $10 million, and will adjust their fees downward accordingly.
The same thing works in reverse - if the state puts the contract out to bid, and will only allow certain fees, they will not get as much money back from the banks. The state sets the parameters for the contract, and the banks work within those parameters.
This the way business works - banks are not charitable organizations. The bailout money that went to them was to allow them to survive as engines of the economy, and not as some sort of goodie giveaway agency.
I am not missing any point. I said I was fine with it.
I am a capitalist.
Sound Reasoning

San Jose, CA

#77 Feb 23, 2009
Common Sense wrote:
Ok...I'm going to be unpopular here! I'm actually going to defend the banks involved in this case - and, before anybody accuses me of being a bank executive, I'll state that I have nothing to do with the bank industry!
I am into that mind set too.

None of this is new. Banks charge fees, or wave them, based on your account balance. I assume that people who are unemployed tend to have lower account balances; possibly for the first time in their adult lives.

Yea, checking the balance on a debit card costs a fee. Yea, for their better customers, the bank might wave that fee. Yea, it doesn't matter how you are checking the balance, that fee applies.

People who are poor, are simply use to these fees.

Another example, Walmart charges $3.00 to cash a check; even a low-risk one like one from the government. Now, if my bank attempted to charge me, a VERY GOOD customer,$3.00 to cash a check, I would be outraged.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Russ Carnahan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News A Democratic politician goes to jail, now advoc... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Cat74 12
News Democrats Say Federal Budget Cuts Will Hurt Col... (Jan '06) May '15 chris 2
News Pelosi tells grads diplomacy should mark U.S. f... (May '07) Dec '13 Shinichiro Takizawa 2
News Jobless hit with bank fees on benefits (Feb '09) Oct '12 Retired Sargent 16
News Missouri GOP 7-1 map: Cracking Kansas City (Jan '12) Jan '12 Doc 1
News Obama raising with Missouri stimulus beneficiary (Sep '11) Sep '11 Will Dockery 2
News Missouri Congressman Carnahan picked to attend ... (Sep '11) Sep '11 Doc 1
More from around the web