this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
259 points (99.2% liked)

People Twitter

4979 readers
1403 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
259
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

They will spin it as oh, people get free checking accounts and the real costs are covered by their fees. So they'll start charging for the free accounts to punish the poors.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

well, duh. Your Bank will just stop allowing you to overdraft, declining your Transactions.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

I have never ever had a transaction that overdrafted where I was happy they didn’t just decline it. Zero desire to pay $38 for the “convenience” when I could have just used a different card.

I’ve asked my bank to not allow it on my account at all and they told me NO, they can’t do that, because it’s “a service we provide our customers for their convenience”. Right. I don’t want that convenience, dicks.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Goooood! No more free money from broke people. Go get a court to force them to pay!

[–] [email protected] 61 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Under very, very limited circumstances, maybe. Like you need gas to get to work now, get paid tomorrow, and have nothing in your account? Yeah, maybe, but that's an expensive tank of gas for someone that's that short on cash.

OTOH, I can't count the number of times where my former bank processed my paycheck last--even though it went in first--and then hit me with overdraft fees for buying groceries, gas, paying bills, etc. (This was National City Bank; they ended up losing a class action lawsuit about it, but they still made more money from their theft than they had to pay back out.)

IMO, there should be zero overdraft fees; if the money isn't in your account, the charge is declined. All of this shit should be done in real-time, instead of waiting for a merchant to post at the end of the day. This is the twenty-fucking-second century, and it's not that goddamn hard.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Blud it's the twenty-first century

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I think the real issue is that dudes living in 2124 and overdraft fees are still around.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

It seems Lemmy is also still around... so, a little bit of good made it?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Or even better, make banks immediately start treating any negative balance as a credit. There can be a low limit, but enforce a low interest rate. For all that banks have done to us, I feel like this is literally the least they can do—and shit, they’d still turn more profit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

This is actually not a terrible idea. Though interest rates in general need to be capped on lines of credit of all varieties. The fact that 45% interest on a credit card is not being brought up on usury charges is insane.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Upsetting to hear banks don't get any better a century from now. Good luck to you future man.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

What's funny is that it looked odd when I read it, but I just quickly brushed it off as a "well you don't see it written often."

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago

Megan is a national treasure.

You can always count on her to selflessly use her to name to publish the most absurdly dog shit arguments to defend corporations and the powerful.

She's also pretty dumb.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Checked what else she has written, the next article along was seriously "How far should we be willing to go to silence Nazis?"

She's worried that if Nazi's can't have their free speech then they'll come for the white supremacists who don't identify as Nazis next...and that apparently sets a very dangerous precedent!!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe she's just a ragebait shill? and everyone angry about her and talking about her are doing exactly as she intended. Occupying your brain space and wasting your time, distracting you from a million more important things you could be doing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Even if that's true, she should be posting on 4chan not Washington Post.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Exactly. That's why I say she's a shill. Shills earn good money from some invisible upper authority to write this shit. For example David Icke is another shill of a different flavor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

First they came for the Nazis, and I didn't speak up, for I wasn't a Nazi.

Then they came for the white nationalists, and I didn't speak up for I wasn't a white nationalist.

Then they came for the fascist insurrectionists, and I didn't speak up for I wasn't a fascist insurrectionist.

Then noone came for me because I wasn't a fucking monster, and by that time, there was no monsters left to whine about culture war bullshit.

Then the country was pretty damn great, actually, and we enjoyed our new found freedom and age of equality and prosperity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

When we start rounding up nazi's and white supremacists, I will absolutely speak up! I will be waving flags and walking the street. I will be shouting and going to gatherings where people will be shouting. And the shouting will sound something like "woohoo!"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Something something most of Europe does not allow you to overdraft your account and people get by just fine something

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I don't see the issue with overdrafting, just why the hell do you guys have a flat fee for it instead of just exorbitant interest rates? Even 50% interest doesn't cost much if it's for overdrafting a few hundred for 3 days because i lost track of how much money is in my main bank account.

The one time overdrafting cost me anything close to significant money is when I thought my account had overdrafting allowed but then my bank reverted a transaction because apparently all previous instances were just them "tolerating it". My PC died and I wanted a new one asap, but the money for that was on my savings account, so I figured I'd just go to like -300 for 1 or 2 days. Nope, bank takes the money back, amazon makes me pay like 20€ of fees, and I have to deal with the bureaucracy of it all. At least I got my PC parts quickly anyway.

Overdrafting with a sane system is just even more expensive credit card debt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

A lot of US banks also have that as an option, people opt in to "overdraft protection" anyway. The banks make it sound like a safer option, instead of the predatory practice it normally is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

people get by just fine

debatable but otherwise the point stands.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

But clearly you guys have less freedom than Americans, because that's what American TV told me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

That heavily depends on the country, but in general you have to ask for permission rather than forgiveness.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The right to be exploited is sacred to us!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If banks are funded by the government (ongoing bailouts and ridiculously beneficial laws for them) then they should be considered a public service and available to everyone, at least at a basic level

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How much are your banking fees? In the UK almost all fees are £12.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wow I wonder what the upper end is. We capped ours at that amount a good while ago now. When I worked at a couple of banks back in 08-14 they weren’t exactly new either.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Here's some context for you.

For most of my life, banks ran an algorithm on overdrafting accounts so that charges would clear in whatever order triggered overdraft protection the most times. It was an open secret, then it came out and companies tried to insist they could do whatever they wanted.

Lots of real world cases of a single unexpected charge coming in and clearing a full day earlier than expected so a bunch of small charges (a pack of chewing gum) would each trigger the fee. $100 total charges, $500+ in overdraft fees.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't transactions have timestamps? Or are you talking about paper cheques? Like I don't trust the big banks in my country either, but I'm pretty sure all transactions are logged in real time and can't be rearranged later.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Again, different countries might have banks work differently. When a debit is being applied (money removed from the account) it has a lifetime. First it is pending, and then it "clears".

It clears when the bank approves that the money transfer is definitely happening, and that is the moment it is removed from your account. Importantly, the debit clearing from your account on a purchase does not mean the other party has fully received the money.

It used to be that a lot of charges would sit pending overnight and then all pending charges apply in the morning. Yes, even small purchases like a pack of gum bought at the corner store. All they did (and I think Wells Fargo in particular got caught and there were lawsuits about this) was decide the order of clearing pending charges with the intent of maximizing overdraft fees.

And how does that work? Let's say I have $1000 in my account but forgot my $900 rent is coming out. ALong with some other transactions, they could clear like:

They could $0.99 gum, $150 car payment, $150 groceries, $900 rent. Overdraft fees = 1

Or

$900 rent, $150 car payment, $150 groceries, $0.99 gum. Same transactions processed at the same moment. Overdraft fees = 3! When that stuff happened to me back around '04, overdraft fees were $35 per overdraft. So that example was a $70 difference. In reality, between billpay and small purchases, the difference might be $500+.

My true story was that I had a dick of a landlord. My Bank's autopay was running slow and despite the bank check already being in the mail and deducted from my account, my landlord insisted I pay immediately, and I was dumb enough to cave. So I cut him a check and asked him to hold it a day or two til the actual check was delivered; he cashed the same day. Double-rent for a 24 year older meant my account went into the red. I had 10 pending transactions (from gas to bill pays) for the next morning. All 10 (despite being already delivered and should've cleared first) waited to clear until the double-paid rent cleared. I was charged $350 in overdraft fees, almost as much as my $500 rent was (cheap back then lol). And despite agreeing the check getting to him late was their fault, my bank refused to refund more than $100 in overdraft fees because that's what their algorithm valued my business at. I got the first rent payment back, fortunately. But was still out $250.

If I recall, the canned defense for this in lawsuits is "we just coincidentally process all transactions large to small instead of old to new because it makes sense to the bank to do so". If I recall, some states (maybe fed?) ended up having to pass laws regulating overdraft fees a bit. It didn't go far, but from what I hear it stopped that particular behavior.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is very sad.

For us the transfer is either near-instantaneous (new system, called UPI) or done in batches every half an hour (old system). I guess this is why banks can't do this trick.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I think it's closer to that way now. There was incentive to banks in the past to process it differently.

That said, my bank's "pay bills" function still takes your cash out before sending the check, despite the check NOT being a cashier's check when not linked to an e-account. They just refund you in 90 days (or so) if it isn't cashed.

load more comments
view more: next ›