ATM and overdraft fees: Should banks be limited on the amount of fees they can charge?

  • Banks should be limited on fee amount.

    Banks make money, that is all they do. The fees we pay are just padding for them. Why should we pay for that? As soon as our money is deposited into their accounts they immediately start playing with it, hedge funds, stocks, bonds, gold and silver. This is the reason there are guarantees of insurance of our funds up to so much money, in case they loose their shirt in the markets, the government will step in and pay us back up to that amount. Fees are nothing but extra money for them and less for us.

  • Yes they should

    There is no reason not to limit this. Banks don't need to take in billions every year on overdraft fees. All that is doing is hurting more people. Banks need to be more socially responsible. This shows a lack of care for people. I think these fees need to be capped and controlled.

  • Overdraft fees should be high so people will smarten up

    Yes, I think there should be stricter regulations as to the fees banks are allowed to charge their customers. However, I do think that overdraft fees are acceptable. Why do people seem to think it is okay to use money that they do not have, just because it is available at the bank? High fees teach people a lesson in this regard.

  • Yes. All of the fees are ridiculous.

    I put money in the bank to keep it safe and hopefully accumulate more money. When I am forced to buy back my own money with ATM fees, it's hard to save money and accumulate more money. I admittedly don't know much about banking and financial things, but these fees seem like a way for the banks to make money.

  • No, banks are businesses.

    Nothings forcing you to bank with one bank over another. If a bank has outrageous fees , enough of its customers will raise a stink, switch banks, take their business elsewhere, the bank will be forced to lower its rate or go out of business. If a government entity enforces a "maximum limit" rest assured that all banks will rise to that maximum, and compete in some other aspect.

    Banks are in the business of making money. Of course they are going to structure fees to maximize their profits. If they offer a service that no one else in town can offer, then they should charge whatever they want for that service. But very rarely is there only one bank in a decent sized town, and if you shop around, you can find a bank that better meets your needs. Wells Fargo, for example, does not charge for transactions at Wells Fargo ATMS. But generally, fees associated at ATMs are not associated with your bank at all, just the ATM you use.

    Banks offer a lot of free services that we often take advantage of. For people who store hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings at that institution, the bank is getting a sweet deal, because they get to borrow large amounts of money at virtually no interest. For people who use banks solely for their checking accounts, and very rarely have a running balance in the bank, the bank doesn't often make money off of those people, unless it's from overdraft and account service fees. But the bank provides things like free online bill-pay (which is fabulous by the way), free debit/credit card fraud and theft protection, as well as the convenience of just having a debit card (without which, online shopping would be nearly impossible).

    So no, banks should not be limited. The free market will naturally drive prices down if people just shop around. Third party interference with free market has a track record with actually raising costs, especially to the consumer.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.