President Biden announced a crackdown on “junk fees” like this, but the earliest known recorded laws of Urukagina, king of Lagash in the 24th century BC attempted similar reforms. The earliest (known) recorded laws against usury date to 7th century BC India but similar laws were written into texts of most or all of the major religions in ancient times. Zoroastrians, or perhaps more properly Ahura Mazda worshipers, recorded (or rather chanted - because the Avesta was an oral tradition) the most basic of legal objections as the breaking of a contract because, after all, breaking of a contract is a form of theft. Banks, along with most other modern businesses that make you accept page after page of small-type legal conditions in order to conduct business with them, would have their lawyers argue that they did not break a contract, but I’m sure Zarathustra would have them lashed for violating his basic call for “good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” Usury and “junk fees” amount to theft by a different name. Moses brought down 10 Commandments and nearly all of them amount to admonitions against specific forms of theft. A lie is theft of truth, murder is theft of life, etc. But the high priests of our society in temples of Wall Street have spoken, “the Investors are the highest gods, your Individual Retirement Account places you among the Investors like the stars in the sky, Profit is a tribute to our lords and is therefore inviolable. Blessed be the Investors.”
Sadly it is an opportunity to make money on those who don't have enough to keep a high balance in their checking account. It is also a way to make money on those who choose to pay them monthly not to have this happen-$5 per month for protection from this sort of thing. Another example of how those with a lot of $ avoid those silly little expenses like interest payments over time, student loans, mortgages, etc. What a world!
Reading your newsletter, I totally agree with you and am cheering you on. I would have acted the same way. But rethinking the situation, at a less emotional moment, I start asking just how do credit unions make their money and do they have to make so much off me? Most particularly, should people who cause a cash making opportunity through no fault of their own be hammered hard? Credit Unions are a business, so I expect them to make a reasonable profit, but they’ve pushed themselves for a long time as being the lower cost alternative to banking. We almost feel like a family member, and a family member would not gouge another family member, right? The real problem here is the lack of transparency. We don’t think of credit unions being profit making institutions that view bad checks as a good way to generate a profit. I belong to a credit union and find that their charges sometime make me angry. But I believe a transparent balance sheet and salary statistics such as salary and distribution changes would go a long way to easing my angst.
You should also accept that lying is supposed to be accepted.. all the Credit Union people were lying to you.. If you say on the phone long enough, you will realize the things people say to you are them lying, often because they don't know the answer.
And that isn't it and done, no there is a string of lies.
The two people writing these columns are retired.. and are probably often addressing the money they don't have, as much as the money they do. I am retired and I do that.
Let's point out another lie.. it is related to 'accepting a check'.
When someone pays you. It doesn't have to be a check. You should not automatically be part of a criminal act.
Say you deposited a $100 bill that you were given for a payment. If that was a counterfeit bill, you would not be charged $28, you would not be considered the counterfeiter.
Add to this, the person who did not have the funds -- s/he is also charged... as perhaps they should be for writing a check that the funds are not there to cover. They are likely also charged something like $28. If it was the same bank or credit union they would have just made $56, and be sure whatever the check was for --- it will have to be paid.
The worst thing in this scenario --- if you were cashing a $1 check without sufficient funds, you and the writer of the check would still be charged $28.
This brings us back to the arbitrary amount. It is a lie for the bank/CC to act like the amount they charge
And let me bring up the retiree factor. I know of many retirees that live from social security check to social security check.. who live in subsidized housing.. And the rent still goes up. In fact when SSA raised checks for a Cost of Living increase every subsidized housing rent when up.
As a retiree, I hope Will and Ken will reflect back on when they were working
When they had a mouth piece much bigger than an online newsletter... and ask themselves.. how many articles a day did they publish calling out these travesties ?
I loved this article. I once challenged my bank for this unfair charge, but got no satisfaction.
I cannot see how a bank loses any money then they returned a check to you without crediting it to your account. The check is sent to the issuing bank electronically and returning electronically. With the number of checks being transferred, it can’t believe it cost a penny per check round-trip.
I think this is what Biden is calling “frivolous charges.” They serve no purpose but to make the charger more profit. Banks do it, airlines do it, and insurance companies do it.
These are like insurance company late charges. You can’t pay until you receive the bill from the insurance company. The bill is sent to arrive less than a week before it is due. If you pay the bill the minute you receive it, it will usually be late. More profit for the insurance company.
The Consumer Protection Agency was suppose deal with things like this, but Trump weakened that agency. Fighting these big outfits is exhausting. And little guys just get tired.
I too have spent some extended periods non the phone and years previous in a bank office asking about such fees. It always seemed counter-intuitive to charge an aggrieved party because someone gave them a bad check. Charge the issuer or the issuer’s bank. Good job Will.
This is how banks make some of their money and keep their shareholders happy.... Thing is... in many cases some of the people paying the fees are their shareholders. Just not the major ones.
President Biden announced a crackdown on “junk fees” like this, but the earliest known recorded laws of Urukagina, king of Lagash in the 24th century BC attempted similar reforms. The earliest (known) recorded laws against usury date to 7th century BC India but similar laws were written into texts of most or all of the major religions in ancient times. Zoroastrians, or perhaps more properly Ahura Mazda worshipers, recorded (or rather chanted - because the Avesta was an oral tradition) the most basic of legal objections as the breaking of a contract because, after all, breaking of a contract is a form of theft. Banks, along with most other modern businesses that make you accept page after page of small-type legal conditions in order to conduct business with them, would have their lawyers argue that they did not break a contract, but I’m sure Zarathustra would have them lashed for violating his basic call for “good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” Usury and “junk fees” amount to theft by a different name. Moses brought down 10 Commandments and nearly all of them amount to admonitions against specific forms of theft. A lie is theft of truth, murder is theft of life, etc. But the high priests of our society in temples of Wall Street have spoken, “the Investors are the highest gods, your Individual Retirement Account places you among the Investors like the stars in the sky, Profit is a tribute to our lords and is therefore inviolable. Blessed be the Investors.”
Sadly it is an opportunity to make money on those who don't have enough to keep a high balance in their checking account. It is also a way to make money on those who choose to pay them monthly not to have this happen-$5 per month for protection from this sort of thing. Another example of how those with a lot of $ avoid those silly little expenses like interest payments over time, student loans, mortgages, etc. What a world!
Thank you Will.
Reading your newsletter, I totally agree with you and am cheering you on. I would have acted the same way. But rethinking the situation, at a less emotional moment, I start asking just how do credit unions make their money and do they have to make so much off me? Most particularly, should people who cause a cash making opportunity through no fault of their own be hammered hard? Credit Unions are a business, so I expect them to make a reasonable profit, but they’ve pushed themselves for a long time as being the lower cost alternative to banking. We almost feel like a family member, and a family member would not gouge another family member, right? The real problem here is the lack of transparency. We don’t think of credit unions being profit making institutions that view bad checks as a good way to generate a profit. I belong to a credit union and find that their charges sometime make me angry. But I believe a transparent balance sheet and salary statistics such as salary and distribution changes would go a long way to easing my angst.
You should not know this is new.
You should also accept that lying is supposed to be accepted.. all the Credit Union people were lying to you.. If you say on the phone long enough, you will realize the things people say to you are them lying, often because they don't know the answer.
And that isn't it and done, no there is a string of lies.
The two people writing these columns are retired.. and are probably often addressing the money they don't have, as much as the money they do. I am retired and I do that.
Let's point out another lie.. it is related to 'accepting a check'.
When someone pays you. It doesn't have to be a check. You should not automatically be part of a criminal act.
Say you deposited a $100 bill that you were given for a payment. If that was a counterfeit bill, you would not be charged $28, you would not be considered the counterfeiter.
Add to this, the person who did not have the funds -- s/he is also charged... as perhaps they should be for writing a check that the funds are not there to cover. They are likely also charged something like $28. If it was the same bank or credit union they would have just made $56, and be sure whatever the check was for --- it will have to be paid.
The worst thing in this scenario --- if you were cashing a $1 check without sufficient funds, you and the writer of the check would still be charged $28.
This brings us back to the arbitrary amount. It is a lie for the bank/CC to act like the amount they charge
And let me bring up the retiree factor. I know of many retirees that live from social security check to social security check.. who live in subsidized housing.. And the rent still goes up. In fact when SSA raised checks for a Cost of Living increase every subsidized housing rent when up.
As a retiree, I hope Will and Ken will reflect back on when they were working
When they had a mouth piece much bigger than an online newsletter... and ask themselves.. how many articles a day did they publish calling out these travesties ?
I loved this article. I once challenged my bank for this unfair charge, but got no satisfaction.
I cannot see how a bank loses any money then they returned a check to you without crediting it to your account. The check is sent to the issuing bank electronically and returning electronically. With the number of checks being transferred, it can’t believe it cost a penny per check round-trip.
I think this is what Biden is calling “frivolous charges.” They serve no purpose but to make the charger more profit. Banks do it, airlines do it, and insurance companies do it.
These are like insurance company late charges. You can’t pay until you receive the bill from the insurance company. The bill is sent to arrive less than a week before it is due. If you pay the bill the minute you receive it, it will usually be late. More profit for the insurance company.
The Consumer Protection Agency was suppose deal with things like this, but Trump weakened that agency. Fighting these big outfits is exhausting. And little guys just get tired.
Thanks for the blog
Cliff Bruce
Good article. I agree.
I too have spent some extended periods non the phone and years previous in a bank office asking about such fees. It always seemed counter-intuitive to charge an aggrieved party because someone gave them a bad check. Charge the issuer or the issuer’s bank. Good job Will.
This is how banks make some of their money and keep their shareholders happy.... Thing is... in many cases some of the people paying the fees are their shareholders. Just not the major ones.
Spot on, Will!