![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBy now, you've probably heard about Bank of America's plan to begin charging $5/month on the customer side for debit card usage. What you probably haven't heard of is why:
This follows many banks ending free checking in large part to the regulations in the Dodd-Frank bill limiting debit overdraft fees. This will likely not be the last time we see banks making more adjustments, either.
Regulations matter. The negative impact of regulatory action when it's not needed only ends up hurting the rest of us in the long run. In a misguided rush by the left to "protect" the population from evil, predatory banks, all you've done is now made it harder for those who you profess to represent and care about the most to use banking services. Congratulations on another job well done.
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the largest U.S. bank by assets, plans to charge customers a $5 monthly fee for making debit card purchases starting early next year, according to an internal memo sent to bank executives Thursday.
...
Bank of America is trying to cushion revenue losses it expects to incur from new caps on the fees merchants pay when a customer uses a debit card at their stores. In June, the Federal Reserve Board finalized rules capping such fees at 24 cents per transaction, compared with a current average of 44 cents.
...
Other banks have introduced or are testing new fees in response to the debit fee caps, which stem from a provision known as the Durbin amendment in last year's Dodd-Frank financial regulation overhaul legislation.
This follows many banks ending free checking in large part to the regulations in the Dodd-Frank bill limiting debit overdraft fees. This will likely not be the last time we see banks making more adjustments, either.
Regulations matter. The negative impact of regulatory action when it's not needed only ends up hurting the rest of us in the long run. In a misguided rush by the left to "protect" the population from evil, predatory banks, all you've done is now made it harder for those who you profess to represent and care about the most to use banking services. Congratulations on another job well done.
(no subject)
Date: 30/9/11 20:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/9/11 20:16 (UTC)If paying someone less means that he can go somewhere else and make more then he is not being overpaid. If the employer is paying enough that the employee does not quit and go to work for someone else at a higher salary then the employer is not overpaying.
(no subject)
Date: 30/9/11 20:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/9/11 20:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/10/11 01:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/10/11 19:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/10/11 21:07 (UTC)The past two years I work for half the salary I used to make (altho to be fair, I rarely put in more than 50 hours a week instead of the 60+ I used to) We do a lot more small repair jobs than full roofs anymore, but my present employee would rather not work than only work part of a day, if he doesn't get paid for a full day. My other employee, would do that, but he retired.
So yeah, if only (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic)
(no subject)
Date: 1/10/11 07:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/10/11 19:01 (UTC)