[konanoileaski]

Is it really that ****ing hard for Americans to keep up with how much money they have in thier account?

[DoctorTentonyya]

Why can't the point of sale machine just ask at the time of purchase? The bank decides if the amount requested is within the their overdraft limit for that account and if so, asks the POS to prompt the user to decide if they want to cancel or accept a fee of $x. Then they can still make money on fees and people can't ***** about not knowing.

[Loxaeed]

Why can't the point of sale machine just ask at the time of purchase? The bank decides if the amount requested is within the their overdraft limit for that account and if so, asks the POS to prompt the user to decide if they want to cancel or accept a fee of $x. Then they can still make money on fees and people can't ***** about not knowing.

Because the main ABS and the carding system cannot have online synchronisation of the data due to the volumes involved. You use your card to withdraw some ccash, but the account balance will not get updated till the following day.

[Vomekayafboke]

Its easy to run afoul of them if you are a complete idiot with no grasp of your financial resources. Seriously, are you that much of a consumer whore that you even come close to bottoming out you checking account?

$40 is a bit excessive for a fee, but I see nothing wrong with the idea of charging a penalty for you putting the bank in the hook for funds they never agreed to provide you with. In the end the bank is doing you a favor by not denying the charge. But as was stated I guess we can all suffer for the stupidity of some.

Actually, banks are quite good at manipulating the accounts of many of their poorer members in order to force overdraft fees. For middle to upper class, this isn't really a problem.

[ImmimiFruff]

Why can't the point of sale machine just ask at the time of purchase? The bank decides if the amount requested is within the their overdraft limit for that account and if so, asks the POS to prompt the user to decide if they want to cancel or accept a fee of $x. Then they can still make money on fees and people can't ***** about not knowing.

Realistically this could easily be done but the bank wants those over draft charges so they intentionally don't do it. I mean, if they wanted to, the bank's ATM could also have a completely accurate account balance since even using a debt card as a credit card must be authorized so they know exactly how much in charges are pending. They don't do it on purpose because they make money do it just as they don't charge purchases in the order they are made and instead ring them up each day in the order which will occur the most over draft charges.

For instance. Let's say we have a balance of $20 and we charge $2, $1, $5, and $18. If the charges are rang up in the order they occurred then just one over draft charge would be applied but the bank will ring them up high to low so that it is $18, $5, $2, $1 so that three over draft fees are charged. Since each over draft is $40 that means the bank makes $120 in fees instead of the more logical and fair $40.

[baskentt]

But BofA is talking about ending them altogether. They are sacrificing a portion of the fees they could collect if they gave people the option to accept the fee. Sure, they likely wouldn't accept a $30 cup of coffee, but they would probably accept the fee for a weekly grocery run. I suppose it might be too expensive to force all the POS manufacturers and ABS to change their interface, but the mechanisms seem to be in place to give consumers a choice rather than one extreme or another.

Kang: Abortions for all.
[crowd boos]
Very well, no abortions for anyone.
[crowd boos]
Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]
-- American politics in its simplicity, The Simpsons: "Treehouse of Horror VII"

[Sapremolz]

Personally, I don't understand why they would let you take out more then you have. Makes no sense to me.

[Nypbscao]

That I understand. The bank I have up here has never done that kind of crap. Surprising, usually we are behind you folks instead of ahead of the game.

[Tapupah]

Pattycakes, Bullshit. I know for a fact that banks will often do charges from high to low because it has been in multiple reports for years now. That you don't know this is happening exposes you as the intellectually lazy numbnut we've all known you to be.

Not only does my bank not do what you described above, but it also doesn't charge overdraft fees for the first two times a month. And if you are really in danger of doing so more than that, for a $3 a month fee you overdraft as much as you want (they only let you go negative once, so you have go back into the black before you can overdraft again). Not that it matters to me, unlike you I am not a moron living at the edge of my finances.

However, if you are buying a cup of coffee, a porno mag, or paying your rent which of the three would you want the bank to process first in order to ensure payment?

If you really want to avoid what you describe, simply avoid large national banks. Using something like BoA is stupid, I am sure you are a loyal customer.

[mikefertynnz]

No, most banks have an overdraft limit and will just deny charges after that point (and if they are BoA charge you for that too probably).

[marcusdexz]

It is not always denied on the spot, and even if it is if it is an auto draft directly from a checking account for say mortgage/rent/power/water/cable/whatever you won't know until you check your account/the company contacts you.

Which do you think is a greater concern to you in addition to the question I asked earlier, paying the fees for an overdraft or accepting the consequences of a late mortgage payment?

[lisualsethelp]

I've never come close to having an overdraft, so I can't really understand people falling foul of these charges from a practical point of view, nor do I have much sympathy. I thought most bank accounts gave you a nominal $100 overdraft precisely to avoid this kind of thing. Guess not - or maybe they do and it's that limit that people are going over.

The banks in the UK recently won a case justifying the charges (well that's not what the Court said, but that's how people read it).

[MoreEndotte]

I've never come close to having an overdraft, so I can't really understand people falling foul of these charges from a practical point of view, nor do I have much sympathy. I thought most bank accounts gave you a nominal $100 overdraft precisely to avoid this kind of thing. Guess not - or maybe they do and it's that limit that people are going over.

Many banks do, especially the local ones. However, idiots simply count that $100 as part of their balance instead of using that as a margin for safety. Again, this affects idiots.

[netamargr]

You clearly don't understand the Canadian banking system. Canada is behind the USA in most consumer goods, including banking. I don't see why this is considered to be a controversial statement.

While the US and most of the world was imploding with their ****ed up banking system, Canada stood out as a nation of reason with a stable banking system. Mostly because we are behind the curve. There's something to be said for being Conservative wrt to our banking system.

Just because the US does something doesn't mean they're ahead. They sometimes step out in the wrong direction and don't realize it til it's too late. That's part of being the trendsetter.

[RichardHaads]

Oh good. You can then give an example.