I would love it even more if they gave me a receipt when I opt out of overdrafts, and then charge the bank an enormous fine when they turn overdrafts back on without my consent. This happened to me repeatedly.
(And every time I mention it, some bootlicker tells me I must have opted out wrong repeatedly. They need to believe the system works and everyone poor deserves it.)
If I try to spend more than I have it just doesn’t work. Nobody charges me for it. But then I can just transfer funds from my account to another, no need for apps and shit, and it costs zero money to do it. You can probably guess I’m not from Murica (where Jesus lives)
Some banks in the US don’t do overdraft, some do, my bank doesn’t charge for overdraft. It really just depends on how scummy your bank is.
Should be expanded to identify any and all predatory fees and burn them at the stake. Feels like the FTC or Bureau of Consumer Protection should take this up as their top priority.
You can’t just tell banks not to abuse their customers! That’s crazy talk!
Well the USA is known to only tackle problems as they arise instead of before they could do damage.
Creates a freedom for companies to exploit and consumers often cant or wont sue them.True, but before we go making a wishlist, let’s remember that it’s not even a possibility if Trump wins in November.
If anyone likes these systemic changes, mundane as they may be, remember that at the voting booth.
Just like all the unfulfilled AND unattempted promises from before the last election, it’s always just another election away!
Almost makes populist Argentine president Javier Milei’s “pack 300 of your ideas into a mega-decree that effectively becomes law with immediate effect until/unless parliament gets around to repealing parts of it with a 2/3 majority” strategy look like the more sensible approach.
Gonna take it you didn’t read the article, because this literally is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:
Under the proposal, banks could continue to charge fees when a customer’s account falls below zero, but either at a price in line with the bank’s actual costs to administer the overdraft or at an established benchmark created by the new rule.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed potential fees of $3, $6, $7 or $14 and is seeking feedback from banks and the public on what would be appropriate. Current overdraft fees often push $30 or more, taking a significant bite out of low-income accounts.
I think they were saying the CFPB should take up stopping all predatory fees as their top priority.
Lol theyre gonna make it $14 and cut it just under half. It helps I guess but Its funny how theyre like $3 (or $14)
There’s a lot of shit the FTC has been slipping on.
BoTH sIdeS ArE tHE saMe!!!11
Leftists love to minimize the huge differences between them, like how much your overdraft fees should be.
But then how will Bank of America make any money?
My Canadian bank just charged me $45 CAD twice and only noticed me a day after the second charge. I didn’t notice because I no longer use it. I wish the limit was $3…
Something like 10 years ago, a Spanish bank charged me 25€ after I didn’t notice a 0.10€ overdraft… but it just happened that I had stopped using that bank, my cards expired, lost online access, so when I finally went to ask about closing the account in person like 5 years later, it had ballooned to over 400€ in the red. The cashier went all aggro on me, even got from behind the counter to shove the statement directly into my face, looked like was going to punch me or something.
I just left and didn’t feel like returning, had no reason to deal with them, so kind of YOLOed it. Then some regulations changed, the bank got “rebranded” (went under and got bought under a similar name)… until last year when I decided to check on things just in case… and it turned out that I’m not a client anymore. Suits me 🤷
As a European. WTF are overdraft fees?
Money the bank changes people for not having any money.
Second sentence in the article: “Under the proposal, banks could continue to charge fees when a customer’s account falls below zero…” – that’s what it is. Back in the day, if you wrote a check for more than you have in your account, the bank would not only bounce the check (refuse to pay so the check holder wouldn’t get your money at all), they’d charge a fee on top of that so your balance would go even lower (sometimes below zero).
Here they just let your balance go below zero (or below the maximum negative balance if you have that enabled on your account), and you get a notification to please make sure your balance is above the limit within X days or they will block any pending payments. The only charge is whatever the interest rate is you pay for a negative balance, so depending on the amount it could be a few cents or so.
Cheques haven’t been a thing in Europe for over 20 years or so, but back when we had them they were guaranteed up to a certain amount. Basically, they would never bounce as long as the amount was under the limit. This also meant that no one would accept a cheque over that limit, in which case you just wrote multiple cheques (the bank would only give you a limited number of them at a time, IIRC it was 10 for a standard account).
A lot of us in the US still pay rent in checks. I get them from my bank in books of a hundred, and there’s no upper limit on how big they can be.
Anything that risks bouncing requires getting a fancy check (certified) where they take the money out before issuing the check.
If it’s exploitation make them give all of it back that they already took.
You’re vastly overestimating the powers of the executive branch.
I actually didn’t make any estimation of anything in my comment. I just don’t want people to think that this is good enough.
“just make them do X” carries an implication that the relevant party actually has the ability to do the thing.
It’s like taking the legal cases against Trump and simplifying them to “just put him in prison lol”
