Bank of America to charge customers monthly fee for using debit cards, could spark trend among banks

[Urbanfortitude]

TF is this crap? I go to sleep for an afternoon and wake up to find the banks are acting stupid again. B)

 

SubwayGuy's lessons in wise finance.

 

Stop using debit cards.

 

-They take money directly out of your account immediately.

-If you allowed yourself to be duped into signing up for "overdraft protection", you'll be charged a large fee if you exceed your balance, even if it's only over by a few cents. Fees for this type of incident typically run between $35 and $40, plus interest on the "borrowed" money.

-If your debit card information is skimmed by a device or other reader, the identity thief has direct access to YOUR BANK ACCOUNT.

-If your identity is stolen, purchases made with a debit card WILL go through and you will lose your money. You will have to fight to get it back, all the while living without the money that's rightfully yours. Most debit cards are not protected with "no questions asked" reimbursement or removal of fraud items upon a report - you will likely be on the hook for the damage caused by identity theft.

 

Tell the banks NO YOU WON'T PAY THEIR FEES.

 

I've never paid a bank fee, and when they fought me I've fought back and won every time. All of you should do the same. RESPONSIBLE SPENDERS SHOULD NEVER SUBSIDIZE IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDERS.

 

Oh and f*** the banks. Had to throw that in there too.

 

^^ This times 10! Hurry up and become legal age to run for president!!!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Uh, what? I never said I was in favor of the bank fees. But I take real issue with you saying that things can simply be cut. Real family budgets don't work that way.

 

Let me paint you a picture: Say you have a family of four with both kids in college. That's lots of student loan debt. The parents make approximately $75k combined annually, which, in NYC hardly anything. Then one of the parents loses his job due to downsizing. In order to make up for the lost income he gets a credit card. He uses it to pay his other bills such as power, taxes, student loans, food, gas, car payments, car insurance, transportation costs (like monthly commutation passes), and the biggie: rent. He struggles to pay his bills once his credit dries up. Then food prices go up which causes him to make difficult choices. Survival of him and his kids is way more important than a little bad credit. Thus he spends what little cash he has on food, because you have to eat to survive.

 

The long-tern financial stability is only available for the rich who have income to dispose on debt. The poor family who can't make it until the next paycheck only thinks as far as the next paycheck.

 

How would you fix that problem? Tell them to cut rent? Car insurance? Power? Perhaps we should all just live in the 1800s and grow our own corn in the non-existent backyard.

 

Oh please! The problem is that people in this country LIVE BEYOND THEIR means. Why does he need a car if he's buying a friggin' commuter pass? Take public transportation if you can't afford a car. As far as tuition goes, everyone isn't meant to afford NYU and Columbia, so there are SUNY and CUNY schools that are reasonable and if it were me and I was barely making it, my kids would have to work a side job to pay for the allowance and books and such. I didn't burden my parents with college. I took out student loans where necessary, got grants when I could and had my little side jobs (tutoring Italian and Spanish, worked as a skate guard at the hockey rink and worked in the mailroom in my dorm here and there) and I had more than enough pocket money for my expenditures and such. During the summer I worked my summer jobs which gave me more money, so yes, certain things certainly can be CUT. You don't live paycheck to paycheck. You're supposed to have a minimum of 8 months of an emergency, this way you're not living off of credit cards if you lose your job or something happens.

 

I went to a SUNY school for part of my education here in the states, and then finished my students in Europe at a private school, all on my own dime, so it can certainly be done and I only have about 30k worth of student loans and locked those up at a 2% interest rate.

[Tokkemon]

Normal people don't have emergency funds. That's the reality of this new economy.

[B35 via Church]

The problem is that people in this country LIVE BEYOND THEIR means.

 

This....

 

....and I'll even go as far as to say women tend to live beyond their means to impress other women.... men tend to live beyond their means to impress women....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Normal people don't have emergency funds. That's the reality of this new economy.

 

That's a load of crap. If folks weren't overspending during the good times, they would have something left. Sure I buy expensive things, however, I still get deals. For example, I may shop at Nordstrom or Neiman Marcus and spend $200.00 on a shirt or on a pair of pants, but I save by not having to pay taxes. Same thing when I buy jeans at the True Religion store in NJ. I also look around for sales too and I have good credit so I don't pay interest on my purchases and just pay my Amex off in full each month, even though I can carry some charges over if I so please.

 

My laptop bag I paid just $60.00 for and it is pretty good quality and Made in USA, which I especially like. I use my charge card for just about everything and many folks with good credit do it, but there are some that don't realize that a credit card or a charge card is not free money. I treat my Amex and other cards like real cash and in fact I prefer using my Amex because it offers me far more protection than cash does. Use your credit and use it to your advantage and that's how you get a credit score near 750 like I have. :cool:

 

I've been overcharged several times this year by a few bucks here and there and all I have to do is make a phone call to Amex and the problem is resolved.

[Grand Concourse]

Total BS, these banks gets bailed out on our tax dollars and they still have the nerve to 'spit on us' by pulling shit like this? How the f**k do they get the idea they can charge us for basically having a prepaid card? It's our money unlike credit cards where people are using borrowed money and then having to pay high interests on late fees...

 

The governement should sue those banks for that bailout money back plus interest to put them in their place. Let the banks go under. Not my problem they made poor investment choices.

[Urbanfortitude]

Total BS, these banks gets bailed out on our tax dollars and they still have the nerve to 'spit on us' by pulling shit like this? How the f**k do they get the idea they can charge us for basically having a prepaid card? It's our money unlike credit cards where people are using borrowed money and then having to pay high interests on late fees...

 

The governement should sue those banks for that bailout money back plus interest to put them in their place. Let the banks go under. Not my problem they made poor investment choices.

 

Or since they're like the government and all they can just take their money back and haul in some of these dogs like the criminals that they are.

[Grand Concourse]

Totally agreed. Lock those greedy bastards in 'common' prisons. No special treatment for them. Let the 'common' people in prison deal with them.

[SubwayGuy]

Uh, what? I never said I was in favor of the bank fees. But I take real issue with you saying that things can simply be cut. Real family budgets don't work that way.

 

Yes they do. All budgets work that way. Funny that someone (you) who believes that government can cut waste and get out of a massive deficit simply through "cutting spending" without taxing the rich, suddenly believes the American family, with lesser debts as a proportion of their version of GDP (earnings) can't do the same.

 

Let me paint you a picture: Say you have a family of four with both kids in college. That's lots of student loan debt. The parents make approximately $75k combined annually, which, in NYC hardly anything. Then one of the parents loses his job due to downsizing. In order to make up for the lost income he gets a credit card. He uses it to pay his other bills such as power, taxes, student loans, food, gas, car payments, car insurance, transportation costs (like monthly commutation passes), and the biggie: rent. He struggles to pay his bills once his credit dries up. Then food prices go up which causes him to make difficult choices. Survival of him and his kids is way more important than a little bad credit. Thus he spends what little cash he has on food, because you have to eat to survive.

 

Ah yes, always hyperbole and a sob story to illustrate a point. Let me paint you a picture. A family of four with parents who make $75K COMBINED annually does not exist in NYC paying Manhattan rents unless one of the parents does not work.

 

If the kids are in college, both parents will work to support the kids in college. If both parents are working, the total income will be - conservatively - $100K combined a year.

 

Let's say this is a Manhattan family living in a 2 bedroom apartment - the kids have lived together through college and are now moving out, and the parents sleep in the other, and the rent runs $2500/ month. So instantly $60,000 (approx.) is wiped out on rent and taxes.

 

REMAINING: $40,000

 

Another $8,000 goes out the door on family healthcare.

 

REMAINING: $32,000

 

Another $5,000 goes out the door on cell phones, internet, cable, and television. (discretionary spending)

 

REMAINING: $27,000

 

Another $1,500 goes out the door on electricity

 

REMAINING: $25,500

 

Food runs approx. $100 a week, so $5,000 on food

 

REMAINING: $20,500

 

Clothing and other discretionary purchases occur sporadically throughout the year and run, we'll say conservatively, at $5,000

 

REMAINING: $15,500

 

Retirement savings for the family are also a good idea. 10% of gross earnings is a good amount to save, but let's go with 9% because that's more realistic = $9,000 into a tax deferred account (reducing the taxes proportionally), creating a net cash outflow of $6,000.

 

REMAINING: $9,500

 

That leaves $9,500 in money that can be saved each year. Since this family lives in the city, they don't need a car.

 

No one is that disciplined, but this couple can, in addition to their tax deferred retirement savings mentioned above, save or spend this money as it chooses.

 

Now if they've been saving since the first kid (we'll say the two kids are twins were born) - $7,000 a year for 18 years (leaving $2,500 in additional discretionary income over and above what's already been set aside) - they will have invested $126,000 in the market. Assuming a conservative, annual 3% return in the market on the investment, that investment would be worth $168,818 at the end of 18 years, when both kids are ready to go to college...enough to pay both of their tuitions at state universities, one kid's tuition at a private university, or half of both their tuitions in private universities.

 

There's no law that says kids have to go to private college. If the kids are good students, they'll become eligible for scholarships which reduce the cost of their education. Or, they'll go to state schools which reduces the burden on their parents. Or, if their parents won't pay for college, the kids themselves can pay with savings from jobs held in high school and by borrowing money from the government at a fixed rate - investing in their own education without using a fee based credit card. Or, the parents can give the kids a boost, and between the parents and the kids, take out federal loans to cover the difference since with savings to cover a good amount of the tuition, the debt will not be astronomical, will be fixed rate, and will be to the federal government, not a private-for profit bank.

 

Your posts reek of elitism and an unfamiliarity with the system.

 

There will be those that are constantly burdened by bills and live paycheck to paycheck. Your family example is not one of them. And the best thing to do when in that situation is AVOID FURTHER DEBT.

 

There is plenty of discretionary spending mentioned in the budget I gave above. Likewise, the savings rate could and would be smaller for someone in that situation, but it's possible to reduce the balance on a card by paying down principal. If not, the person is LIVING ABOVE THEIR MEANS, and needs to locate more affordable housing, cut discretionary spending, and do more "budget" things. Food budgets can be reduced to, in dire straits, as little as a couple of dollars a day per person. People don't need to eat out, don't need to get fancy meals.

 

When you are in debt, you need to get out of it.

 

The long-tern financial stability is only available for the rich who have income to dispose on debt.

 

Pretty much the only thing I agree with you on, but it's not because of budget. It's because of inflation devaluing American wealth and the corporate and elitist accumulation of wealth that deprives everyone else of same that you seem to find so romantically capitalist and admirable.

 

The poor family who can't make it until the next paycheck only thinks as far as the next paycheck.

 

How would you fix that problem? Tell them to cut rent? Car insurance? Power? Perhaps we should all just live in the 1800s and grow our own corn in the non-existent backyard.

 

-Get a less expensive cell phone plan

-Stop eating out, and buy generic brand groceries.

-Cut discretionary spending. There are always things that don't need to be bought right away. New shoes can wait. New clothes can often wait.

-Cut utility costs. Don't run the air conditioner so much in summer, or turn lights down.

-Reduce retirement savings contributions during periods of financial turmoil...but do not early withdraw those funds already set aside.

-Enroll the kids in a state school, or require them to pay or finance some of their education costs.

 

These are all things the "other half" does regularly to make ends meet. Which adds up. When the kids are in high school if you give them $5 a day for lunch that adds up fast - $5 x 2 kids x 5 days/week x 4.5 weeks/month x 9 school months/year = ~$2,000.

 

That's how I would fix "that problem". What needs to be done to fix "the system" I've already discussed in the other thread.

[SubwayGuy]

Totally agreed. Lock those greedy bastards in 'common' prisons. No special treatment for them. Let the 'common' people in prison deal with them.

 

Put them all in an arena and let them kill each other for sport. The winner gets a chicken dinner.

 

Hey the Romans had something right!

[Tokkemon]

The problem with the cut, cut, cut, mentality is that it doesn't account for things out of one's control. Say the rent goes up, or the parent loses their job. Then what? Soon there is nothing left to cut. Just to survive and live day-to-day, the family can't make ends meet.

 

There's also the big elephant in the room of standard of living. Should the person automatically accept a lower standard of living because something happens to him that he can't control (i.e. very high food prices, or a medical emergency etc.)? Does that seem fair to you? Its not simply about numbers, its a moral question too.

 

BTW, I never said that family lived in Manhattan, though families like that do exist in Harlem and Washington Heights. Take a stroll through there one day and you'll see what I mean.

[Tokkemon]

To get slightly back on topic:

 

The US Government should take note from their friends up north as to how to run a proper banking system. The Canadian Banking system is run by five large crown corporations (called the Big Five). Each is heavily regulated as to their procedures and interaction with the consumers but the government gives enough freedom to allow the banks to compete off of each other to allow for lower prices of financial transactions.

 

Some of the most interesting features of this system are the fundamental inter-connectivity of the system so that money can flow freely. Through Interac (similar to NYCE but far more widespread throughout Canada), consumers can access their deposits anywhere from any named ATM, and use their debit card freely without worries of fees like Bank of America is doing. Also, if one goes to their own bank's ATM, they can get a full printout of all recent transactions, not some dinky recepit-sized printout, but a full-size paper version, with all the details listed. Things like that, where you're allowed to access your own banking information on your time is something people take for granted in the States.

 

Also interesting is the fact that banks cannot have a shareholder with more than 20% ownership. How's that for democracy?

 

Usually I'm not a fan of deep government regulation, but this is a case where it works, and it works incredibly well.

[SubwayGuy]

The problem with the cut, cut, cut, mentality is that it doesn't account for things out of one's control. Say the rent goes up, or the parent loses their job. Then what? Soon there is nothing left to cut. Just to survive and live day-to-day, the family can't make ends meet.

 

There's also the big elephant in the room of standard of living. Should the person automatically accept a lower standard of living because something happens to him that he can't control (i.e. very high food prices, or a medical emergency etc.)? Does that seem fair to you? Its not simply about numbers, its a moral question too.

 

BTW, I never said that family lived in Manhattan, though families like that do exist in Harlem and Washington Heights. Take a stroll through there one day and you'll see what I mean.

 

I'm aware of that. And the budget I outlined is very reasonable. It's not about what's "fair", it's about what makes financial sense.

 

Going deep into debt to banks and paying bullsh*t fees solves nothing. If debt is a necessity, there are better ways to do it than credit cards and fees - and definitely better ways than debit cards.

 

There's a reason I want to tax the wealthy. Those tax dollars are used for financial aid, educational grants, subsidies to state universities, and scholarships that HELP the family in the situation above.

 

There's a reason I rail against Wall Street. It contributes nothing to the economy and has free license to gamble with other people's money and still get paid. It doesn't pay it's fair share of taxes because even profits by hedge funds and investment banks created from "incentive fees" when the market does go up are taxed at the capital gains rate, even though the financial institution making that money is using other people's money to do it.

 

Maybe now you're starting to see what some of the real issues are in this country today.

[Shortline Bus]

Subway Guy great points. Right before the current global recession hit prior to 2008, i am sure most of us knew of friends/family members who would buy expensive cars/homes through loans that was way out of their price range.

Thus when sadly some of them got laid off, they also got booted from their homes and cars as well.

 

It's one thing to try to get a baisc KIA or Chevy(no offense to their owners)but another to try to get a new Lexus or Jaguar on only a $30,000 annual salary. With that said Subway Guy, Tokemon makes a good point also that unexpected crisis can occur i.e family member going to the hosptial after an accident that not their fault. There is a difference between say a MC Hammer (remember him lol)becoming bankrupt less than 15 years after making $50 Million dollars in a year from being a 1-hit wonder and an average joe like us that has bad luck i.e being laid off, someone in hosptial, etc . Celebrities like Hammer i agree should be at fault for wasting their monies.

 

Also Tokemon discussing about banking regulations in Canada sounds intresting. I doubt it will happen here in US since Wall Street is in the pockets of both major political parties.

 

 

 

 

Yes they do. All budgets work that way. Funny that someone (you) who believes that government can cut waste and get out of a massive deficit simply through "cutting spending" without taxing the rich, suddenly believes the American family, with lesser debts as a proportion of their version of GDP (earnings) can't do the same.

 

 

 

Ah yes, always hyperbole and a sob story to illustrate a point. Let me paint you a picture. A family of four with parents who make $75K COMBINED annually does not exist in NYC paying Manhattan rents unless one of the parents does not work.

 

If the kids are in college, both parents will work to support the kids in college. If both parents are working, the total income will be - conservatively - $100K combined a year.

 

Let's say this is a Manhattan family living in a 2 bedroom apartment - the kids have lived together through college and are now moving out, and the parents sleep in the other, and the rent runs $2500/ month. So instantly $60,000 (approx.) is wiped out on rent and taxes.

 

REMAINING: $40,000

 

Another $8,000 goes out the door on family healthcare.

 

REMAINING: $32,000

 

Another $5,000 goes out the door on cell phones, internet, cable, and television. (discretionary spending)

 

REMAINING: $27,000

 

Another $1,500 goes out the door on electricity

 

REMAINING: $25,500

 

Food runs approx. $100 a week, so $5,000 on food

 

REMAINING: $20,500

 

Clothing and other discretionary purchases occur sporadically throughout the year and run, we'll say conservatively, at $5,000

 

REMAINING: $15,500

 

Retirement savings for the family are also a good idea. 10% of gross earnings is a good amount to save, but let's go with 9% because that's more realistic = $9,000 into a tax deferred account (reducing the taxes proportionally), creating a net cash outflow of $6,000.

 

REMAINING: $9,500

 

That leaves $9,500 in money that can be saved each year. Since this family lives in the city, they don't need a car.

 

No one is that disciplined, but this couple can, in addition to their tax deferred retirement savings mentioned above, save or spend this money as it chooses.

 

Now if they've been saving since the first kid (we'll say the two kids are twins were born) - $7,000 a year for 18 years (leaving $2,500 in additional discretionary income over and above what's already been set aside) - they will have invested $126,000 in the market. Assuming a conservative, annual 3% return in the market on the investment, that investment would be worth $168,818 at the end of 18 years, when both kids are ready to go to college...enough to pay both of their tuitions at state universities, one kid's tuition at a private university, or half of both their tuitions in private universities.

 

There's no law that says kids have to go to private college. If the kids are good students, they'll become eligible for scholarships which reduce the cost of their education. Or, they'll go to state schools which reduces the burden on their parents. Or, if their parents won't pay for college, the kids themselves can pay with savings from jobs held in high school and by borrowing money from the government at a fixed rate - investing in their own education without using a fee based credit card. Or, the parents can give the kids a boost, and between the parents and the kids, take out federal loans to cover the difference since with savings to cover a good amount of the tuition, the debt will not be astronomical, will be fixed rate, and will be to the federal government, not a private-for profit bank.

 

Your posts reek of elitism and an unfamiliarity with the system.

 

There will be those that are constantly burdened by bills and live paycheck to paycheck. Your family example is not one of them. And the best thing to do when in that situation is AVOID FURTHER DEBT.

 

There is plenty of discretionary spending mentioned in the budget I gave above. Likewise, the savings rate could and would be smaller for someone in that situation, but it's possible to reduce the balance on a card by paying down principal. If not, the person is LIVING ABOVE THEIR MEANS, and needs to locate more affordable housing, cut discretionary spending, and do more "budget" things. Food budgets can be reduced to, in dire straits, as little as a couple of dollars a day per person. People don't need to eat out, don't need to get fancy meals.

 

When you are in debt, you need to get out of it.

 

 

 

Pretty much the only thing I agree with you on, but it's not because of budget. It's because of inflation devaluing American wealth and the corporate and elitist accumulation of wealth that deprives everyone else of same that you seem to find so romantically capitalist and admirable.

 

 

 

-Get a less expensive cell phone plan

-Stop eating out, and buy generic brand groceries.

-Cut discretionary spending. There are always things that don't need to be bought right away. New shoes can wait. New clothes can often wait.

-Cut utility costs. Don't run the air conditioner so much in summer, or turn lights down.

-Reduce retirement savings contributions during periods of financial turmoil...but do not early withdraw those funds already set aside.

-Enroll the kids in a state school, or require them to pay or finance some of their education costs.

 

These are all things the "other half" does regularly to make ends meet. Which adds up. When the kids are in high school if you give them $5 a day for lunch that adds up fast - $5 x 2 kids x 5 days/week x 4.5 weeks/month x 9 school months/year = ~$2,000.

 

That's how I would fix "that problem". What needs to be done to fix "the system" I've already discussed in the other thread.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm aware of that. And the budget I outlined is very reasonable. It's not about what's "fair", it's about what makes financial sense.

 

Going deep into debt to banks and paying bullsh*t fees solves nothing. If debt is a necessity, there are better ways to do it than credit cards and fees - and definitely better ways than debit cards.

 

There's a reason I want to tax the wealthy. Those tax dollars are used for financial aid, educational grants, subsidies to state universities, and scholarships that HELP the family in the situation above.

 

There's a reason I rail against Wall Street. It contributes nothing to the economy and has free license to gamble with other people's money and still get paid. It doesn't pay it's fair share of taxes because even profits by hedge funds and investment banks created from "incentive fees" when the market does go up are taxed at the capital gains rate, even though the financial institution making that money is using other people's money to do it.

 

Maybe now you're starting to see what some of the real issues are in this country today.

 

Quite frankly I don't see the big deal with them making a profit. Those that don't like them making what they do can find other ways to avoid dealing with them. While I'm not a big fan of banks, I'm also not a big fan of this notion to "punish" those who earn well because we live in a capitalist society. I get tried of folks demonizing others who earn well or have come into money as if it is a crime to have money while others have less.

 

I don't hear you commenting very much on the folks who give back tons of money and their time to communities across the US. For what it's worth, yes these banks earn a ton, but they also give back quite a bit to communities as well, putting together funding or loans so that facilities can be built in what would be otherwise dilapidated communities. You don't hear much about that at all. I think you're getting a bit carried away with this whole "let's bash the banks nonsense" as if they're the sole guilty party. What about the millions of irresponsible Americans who have lived beyond their means for years? There is no law that says that those with more automatically must give back their money to those with less. Yes, poverty is on the rise and it's unfortunate, but putting the finger solely on the rich is just ridiculous. Part of the real problem is that everyone wants to make MORE and MORE and MORE and they cry that everything is going up up up, and what do they think is causing that? You can't cry for higher salaries and not expect to have to pay more for everything else. It's just like the unions. They want more pay because their cost of living is going up. Okay, fine, but those higher costs are not going to vanish. They will be passed on by way of higher costs for the consumer, so this endless cycle will continue.

 

One of the main reasons that we're in this mess is that Americans are becoming less and less educated everyday. I am amazed at how poorly folks read, write and speak. Everyone wants a high paying job with great benefits and many of them are NOT qualified for these good paying jobs, so they end up working in a supermarket or in some other low paying job. Is that the banks' fault too? Part of it is the government's fault I suppose, but I place most of the blame on the American family. Today's parents just don't care enough to see that their kids get the proper education needed and the kids are too busy wanting to be too damn popular to get a good education.

[Shortline Bus]

Here an intresting NY Times article from Saturday (10/1/11)that explains how already some BOA customers are closing out their accounts. While other 'national' banks such as Wells Forgo may soon also start charging a monthly fee on debit cards.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/your-money/bank-fees-on-debit-cards-have-some-customers-looking-to-switch.html

[SubwayGuy]

Quite frankly I don't see the big deal with them making a profit. Those that don't like them making what they do can find other ways to avoid dealing with them. While I'm not a big fan of banks, I'm also not a big fan of this notion to "punish" those who earn well because we live in a capitalist society. I get tried of folks demonizing others who earn well or have come into money as if it is a crime to have money while others have less.

 

They need to be punished because what they did to allow them to "earn well" was ILLEGAL. It sends a statement that such ILLEGAL acts in violation of financial and securities laws will NOT GO UNPUNISHED and the punishment will EXCEED THE CRIME.

 

They are not innocent and they deserve to be demonized. If they did their job the way within the rules it was supposed to be done and the markets were going up, NO ONE WOULD BE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR EARNINGS.

 

They have failed to show up and do the job which they were assigned, they have lied and stolen, and gotten away with it...and people want to blindly look the other way and say that they've "earned" it? Get the f*ck out of here.

 

I don't hear you commenting very much on the folks who give back tons of money and their time to communities across the US. For what it's worth, yes these banks earn a ton, but they also give back quite a bit to communities as well, putting together funding or loans so that facilities can be built in what would be otherwise dilapidated communities. You don't hear much about that at all.

 

So are you saying if I walk into a bank with a gun, blow the heads clean off 15-20 bank employees, illegally steal $7 million dollars and donate $2 million to charity, that by your standards I am an upstanding American citizen who has demonstrated admirable community involvement?

 

Actually by my standards I might be an upstanding citizen for eradicating 15-20 of this country's problems.

 

I think you're getting a bit carried away with this whole "let's bash the banks nonsense" as if they're the sole guilty party.

 

They are the biggest guilty party, nothing has been done about them. They are more powerful and larger than ever. And they're still raking in the dough while Main Street suffers. Even though the market is going down they are still getting their commissions.

 

What do you think's going to happen when the market crashes again in the near future and the banks are "definitely too big to fail because they've gotten bigger"????

 

What about the millions of irresponsible Americans who have lived beyond their means for years?

 

They are stupid and must learn to live within their means, or go bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, it's the fault of the banks for lending to them. That's why mechanisms like credit checks exist.

 

When you're in grade school, you don't loan money to the kid who never brings his lunch and sucks at paying people back on time.

 

The banks decided it's better to loan the kid who never brings his lunch a little bit of money, and charge a high interest rate. Once or twice the kid paid it back, so they decided to loan him a LOT of money with a high interest rate, then they act all surprised when it doesn't get paid back. Then they asked the government for a bailout and GOT IT.

 

If you loan to that kid, and he doesn't pay you back...you don't get your money. Ever. That's life. Make smarter loans. Amazing that lessons learned in the schoolyard are not learned by the so called "best and brightest" who run the banks. All they see is dollar signs and they chase anything that resembles money NO MATTER THE COST because, well, it's not their money if they're wrong...it's YOURS!

 

There is no law that says that those with more automatically must give back their money to those with less.

 

No, there isn't. But there are tax laws and financial laws that maintain an even distribution of wealth in this country, fostering a healthy economy. Without that, when you allow the rich to keep everything, they will control a greater and greater share of the economy until everyone else has nothing. And then they'll be dead, because the "peasants" with nothing to lose, will kill them and take the illicitly gotten monies back in a spat of lawlessness that I, and some of the other reasonable posters around here, would rather avoid through PUNISHING THE FINANCIAL CRIMINALS and restoring (note I said the word restoring, implying it was once there in the first place) tax policy that maintains a healthy distribution of wealth in this country LIKE THE USA USED TO HAVE.

 

Yes, poverty is on the rise and it's unfortunate, but putting the finger solely on the rich is just ridiculous.

 

Biggest group to blame.

 

Part of the real problem is that everyone wants to make MORE and MORE and MORE and they cry that everything is going up up up, and what do they think is causing that?

 

And which economic class has seen the largest increase in earnings relative to inflation over the past 35 years? The rich.

 

You can't cry for higher salaries and not expect to have to pay more for everything else.

 

Things are going up because the currency value is going down to Ben Bernanke's printing press. I am DEMANDING tax policy that forces better distribution of income among social classes:

 

EXAMPLE - TOTAL COUNTRY WEALTH: $204M

Example 1: There's a country with 20 CEO's and 80 employees. The CEOs make $10 million/year, the employees make $50,000/year.

CEO's make $200M, employees make $4M. CEO's make 98% of the money.

 

Example 2: There's a country with 20 CEO's and 80 employees. The CEOs make $5 million/year. With the same pool of earnings the employees could make as much as $1.3 million a year.

 

Which society has a better quality of life??? Which society promises a better OPPORTUNITY (which is what America is about - opportunity...NOT f*cking greed)???

 

It's just like the unions. They want more pay because their cost of living is going up. Okay, fine, but those higher costs are not going to vanish. They will be passed on by way of higher costs for the consumer, so this endless cycle will continue.

 

Unions fight for workers. Worker pay has remained stagnant adjusted for inflation since 1985. Executive pay has gone up by hundreds of times. So what's to blame here? Workers are keeping pace with inflation. Executives are beating it. If anyone is to blame for a spike in the cost of living, it's executives.

 

One of the main reasons that we're in this mess is that Americans are becoming less and less educated everyday. I am amazed at how poorly folks read, write and speak.

 

Yes, and it especially shows when people defend the banks, executives, and the wealthy.

 

Everyone wants a high paying job with great benefits and many of them are NOT qualified for these good paying jobs, so they end up working in a supermarket or in some other low paying job.

 

But amazingly, the incompetent jerkoffs who were asleep at the switch and allowed the financial crisis to occur on their watch somehow *were* qualified for these same jobs? Why...because of some degree? Because of who they knew???

 

Is that the banks' fault too? Part of it is the government's fault I suppose, but I place most of the blame on the American family. Today's parents just don't care enough to see that their kids get the proper education needed and the kids are too busy wanting to be too damn popular to get a good education.

 

That I can agree with you on. But you don't need a proper education to get a job manufacturing something. You need basic training in how to work the machine you need to use, and a government to protect the product that you make so that the sh*t from china doesn't price you out of a job.

[SubwayGuy]

Subway Guy great points. Right before the current global recession hit prior to 2008, i am sure most of us knew of friends/family members who would buy expensive cars/homes through loans that was way out of their price range.

Thus when sadly some of them got laid off, they also got booted from their homes and cars as well.

 

It's one thing to try to get a baisc KIA or Chevy(no offense to their owners)but another to try to get a new Lexus or Jaguar on only a $30,000 annual salary. With that said Subway Guy, Tokemon makes a good point also that unexpected crisis can occur i.e family member going to the hosptial after an accident that not their fault. There is a difference between say a MC Hammer (remember him lol)becoming bankrupt less than 15 years after making $50 Million dollars in a year from being a 1-hit wonder and an average joe like us that has bad luck i.e being laid off, someone in hosptial, etc . Celebrities like Hammer i agree should be at fault for wasting their monies

 

I'm aware of that, and that's why the first thing I said that hypothetical couple should have set aside was emergency funds BEFORE THE KIDS WERE BORN.

 

I'm a 25 year old single guy and already have an emergency fund. That was the first thing I set aside, even before beginning retirement savings.

 

The financial literacy (read: illiteracy) in this country is staggering and it shows in these threads because people don't even understand that you can't spend what you don't have, and always have a backup. Two of the most basic concepts in money management.

 

People can be more responsible yes, but banks are still responsible for bad loans because they don't have to make them. That's why there are supposed to be credit checks, etc.

 

Separating lending from investment makes sense because it prevents creating an incentive for banks to make more loans (including bad ones) to cover losses from the investment sector due to volatility in the stock market. Allowing the two activities to be performed in unison by the same entity is like hiring a single person to manage the payroll for a company - they can pay themself what ever they want since no one is looking. Which is what the banks have done since the late 1990s.

[Tokkemon]

And if you can't have an emergency fund, what then?

[youngblaze]

I'm aware of that, and that's why the first thing I said that hypothetical couple should have set aside was emergency funds BEFORE THE KIDS WERE BORN.

 

I'm a 25 year old single guy and already have an emergency fund. That was the first thing I set aside, even before beginning retirement savings.

 

The financial literacy (read: illiteracy) in this country is staggering and it shows in these threads because people don't even understand that you can't spend what you don't have, and always have a backup. Two of the most basic concepts in money management.

 

People can be more responsible yes, but banks are still responsible for bad loans because they don't have to make them. That's why there are supposed to be credit checks, etc.

Separating lending from investment makes sense because it prevents creating an incentive for banks to make more loans (including bad ones) to cover losses from the investment sector due to volatility in the stock market. Allowing the two activities to be performed in unison by the same entity is like hiring a single person to manage the payroll for a company - they can pay themself what ever they want since no one is looking. Which is what the banks have done since the late 1990s.

 

With all due respect but as an individual one has to realize that they must live within their means. Some one with a salary of 30K who gets approved for a loan for lets say 90k for BMW M3...should use their common sense that, that loan is far beyond what they can reasonably pay back after rent, food etc... Sure the banks may propose a bad situation but their not putting a gun to the consumer's head forcing them to sign. At the end of the day people need to use their common sense (even though it's not so common lol)

[SubwayGuy]

With all due respect but as an individual one has to realize that they must live within their means. Some one with a salary of 30K who gets approved for a loan for lets say 90k for BMW M3...should use their common sense that, that loan is far beyond what they can reasonably pay back after rent, food etc... Sure the banks may propose a bad situation but their not putting a gun to the consumer's head forcing them to sign. At the end of the day people need to use their common sense (even though it's not so common lol)

 

The consumer would be stupid to sign that. Their inability to pay would harm them in the sense that they would have to go through bankruptcy, possibly be forced to sell certain assets, and ultimately have a lowered credit rating for quite some time.

 

However, that does not absolve the bank of responsibility. It does not allow the bank to take taxpayer money as a "bailout". It does not allow the bank to charge fees to customers who have NOT lived beyond their means.

 

The reason the financial crisis snowballed so badly is customers signed Adjustable Rate Mortgages for houses with payments they could afford. Then, when the banks made suprime loans to those with bad credit, and those loans predictably were not paid back, the banks raised the payments on the people who had been making them, who had ARM's, who could no longer pay them.

 

People should have common sense but it is the responsibility of the BANK in all cases, to act properly...and it does not fall on responsible bank customers, nor the taxpayers to subsidize the bank's "mistakes" or to subsidize the bank's continued profits in the wake of the bank's incompetence.

 

Which is exactly what has been occurring in this country.

[SubwayGuy]

And if you can't have an emergency fund, what then?

 

Then there are government programs, which some people around here seem to want to "cut", that allow people to maintain some flow of income from the federal government until they can find a new job and get back up on their feet.

 

Programs that are funded with tax dollars, which in our nation's history of taxation, have always disproportionally come from the wealthy based on the belief that society itself was what created the opportunities for the wealthy to amass their fortunes - and that because of their success they owe the greatest debt to society for making that possible.

 

When tax dollars are cut, those things get de-funded.

 

I don't look to make excuses for anyone. There are certain programs that should be kept because of human decency. Allowing the banks to continue profiteering off everyone - including now, the good customers - is counterproductive to this nation's economy and recovery.

 

The global bankers need to be put in their place, and the era of profiteering needs to end. Their stolen wealth needs to be redistributed BACK where it belongs - with the working and middle classes - which will stimulate the US economy, and the world economy, far better than allowing the rich to continue hoarding...using the banks as the vehicles of their thievery to live a life of excess beyond all measure while hundreds of millions do without.

[Tokkemon]

Then there are government programs, which some people around here seem to want to "cut", that allow people to maintain some flow of income from the federal government until they can find a new job and get back up on their feet.

 

And what if you're not eligible for said government programs, i.e. immigrants like me who are not citizens nor permanent residents, but legally in the US.

 

What about people who are poor but not "poor enough" to make the cut for the poverty line? There are documented cases of people specifically *not* getting a job because it would increase their income beyond what the government considers "poor." What's stupid about the poverty line is that it is a national standard despite drastic differences in cost of living. It costs a lot more to live in New York than Ohio, for example.

[SubwayGuy]

And what if you're not eligible for said government programs, i.e. immigrants like me who are not citizens nor permanent residents, but legally in the US.

 

What about people who are poor but not "poor enough" to make the cut for the poverty line? There are documented cases of people specifically *not* getting a job because it would increase their income beyond what the government considers "poor." What's stupid about the poverty line is that it is a national standard despite drastic differences in cost of living. It costs a lot more to live in New York than Ohio, for example.

 

Unemployment insurance (different than welfare) is determined based on previous income, and has no limits on eligibility due to previously "making too much money."

 

Welfare is fraught with problems, but unemployment insurance is a great program that has given many people a hand up (not a hand out) during periods of unemployment.

 

I agree with you that the poverty line should not be a national standard - it should be set at the state level.

[youngblaze]

And what if you're not eligible for said government programs, i.e. immigrants like me who are not citizens nor permanent residents, but legally in the US.

 

What about people who are poor but not "poor enough" to make the cut for the poverty line? There are documented cases of people specifically *not* getting a job because it would increase their income beyond what the government considers "poor." What's stupid about the poverty line is that it is a national standard despite drastic differences in cost of living. It costs a lot more to live in New York than Ohio, for example.

 

Ha so true, I call those who earn b/w 25-35k (myself included ATM) the working poor...we make to much to qualify for any gov't assistance...but too little to actually fend the world on our own. It's a catch 22.

 

I agree with you that the poverty line should not be a national standard - it should be set at the state level.

 

Agreed, as the cost of living in NY is not the same as..let's say GA...