babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
No. You play the game on their terms so of course they win. Thats like going to the casino. You ain't gonna win.
To beat them, you have to make the effort to be fee-free.
Like the poor people forced to go to the Money Mart? God loves their freedom.
http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportbanking/reportbanking_e.htm
From your link
BMO has the "practical plan" which gives ten transactions for $4.00 per month.
Well, consider this: MoneyMart will cash your paycheque the first time you walk in there, knowing much less about you than a bank you had an account with would. No hold. And ...
They don't lose money. Doing just fine. So ...
Why do multi-billion dollar corporations like the national banks require five days? The banker who posted is right, kinda; they will drop holds, EVENTUALLY. Over TIME. And they'll need you to put in a lot of your own time to convince them to get their grubby mitts off your money.
Here's the other thing; some low income person's $400 paycheque is a pittance to the banks. A pittance. If it bounces, they really aren't hurt by it. But the guy who needs his money that day sure is. People who live paycheque to paycheque can't wait five days for the bank decide what they already damn well know; the money is good.
I could live with this system:
Release immediately all cheques up to $1000 - no questions asked. That way pretty much nobody's funds they actually need like, TOMORROW, are under hold. Scope left for teller discretion on cheques worth more than that.
If someone's cheque bounces, then and only then, apply a more stringent hold to all further cheques from the same person/company if/until satisfactory "trust" is again established.
Remember, in Canada, it is your right to have a bank account with one of the major banks. That is their burden as a monopoly under the Bank Act. It's not your job to make them money and it's too bad for them if you don't.
Again, not that they don't make money hand-over-fist.
I will tell you a personal story I'm still mad about. I tried to cash a paycheque for $186 when my "entitlement" was only at the minimum $100 once. The teller told me she could only give me $100. If I wanted it all, perhaps I should go to MoneyMart. So there I was, Royal Bank telling me to take my peonic needs to the scam artists who exist to vulture the poor saps the banks don't want. I was not happy. I refused to do that. I argued with her until she cashed it all, knowing she would but she was just being a bitch. The cheque didn't bounce. I resolved to switch banks.
Speaking of stupidity, you don't even know what "negative reinforcement" is.
Sorry that my lack of phychological training got in the way of you understanding my basic point.
[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]
Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior.
Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior.
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/proj/nru/nr.html
[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: Caissa ]
Tax cuts benefit the rich. Service charges hurt the poor.
In a past article from Consumer Reports, the average American family can pay as much as $10K in bank service charges annually - I believe these would include credit card interest charges.
Back in ~1995, the then Royal Bank CEO, John Cleghorn defended bank service charges as stating they only comprise of 4% of the overall revenue. If this were the case, then indeed the banks don't need the service charge component of the revenue and would continue to do very well without it.
If the banks so adamantly defend the service charges as justifiable recovery of cost of doing business, how is it that in Britain and other parts of the world, the banks remain healthy without this component of revenue?
On the faulty theory of competition, PC Financial and ING have been around for quite a while now and we are not seeing the big six buckling under the competition. That's namely because PC Choice and ING are lacking what consumers still require from the big banks - ING with chequing and PC Choice with same-day transfers from savings to chequing as well as live-teller contact. How available is internet access to a poor person looking to cash in his welfare or minimum-wage cheque?
IT'S THE ENVIRONMENT, STUPID!
And that's exactly what Jack's been telling the two old line parties who failed to do anything about CO2 emissions between them, "It's the environment, stupids!" It's always something, but in this particular case, it's profiteering banksters.
Thank you, Heywood, for explaining the election of Stephen Harper.
Yup, it's that too.
If Joe Customer can use the CIBC machine he's already standing in front of for free instead of driving across town to find a Royal Bank machine to save $3 as the Canadian Bankers' Association advises him to do, that's good for the environment.
Jack is trying to "get it done" with the environment with the CPC and Liberals blocking it all the way.
And he is also looking out for the average low income family/person, as opposed the CPC's lack of interest in that demographic, with something very real.
I guess heywood does not like the fact that Jack can actually multi-task and get something done other than make attack ads against the Liberals.
Heywood, you gotta get out of your middle class box. I've got clients who don't have 4 bucks left in their account by halfway through the month. I've got a client who I had to get the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to seriously lean on her bank to let her keep her account open. Most people don't have advocates like that.
And if you even think of saying anything like...
or...
I will (edited to remove remarks contrary to my usual even tempered nature)
You're probably not a bad guy, but like so many CPC supporters, not to mention Liberal, you just don't have a clue.
[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
So I fixed it. And with how bad I am with money if I can do it then anyone can.
It was called 'Walking in the Shoes', I think.
Progress and results were reported in the mainstream media, and - big surprise - no one could stick to the budget, even the financial wizards who have a lot to do with setting and controlling budgets.
So, yes. This is one of those cases you have to experience to really understand.
$4 is about all people on welfare have to spend on food per day (actually I think the figure is $4.36 now), and many walk around for 2/3 on the month with only pocket change. For families, it is a case of do I feed the kids or pay the rent.
Edited to respond tO;
That's the right wing conservative response in a nutshell. Missing the point that we are pretty much all a missed paycheque or two, a personal life crisis (sickness, divorce, accidents) away from being there ourselves.
If you did it, you are one of the lucky ones, but even you do not have insurance against tragedy.
Have some compassion, man!
[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]
I'm afraid that's the part where you don't have a clue. That's a good part of the box you're in.
However, this isn't who Jack is aiming at with his proposal.
He's aiming for the average schmuck who uses a white-label machine at the gas station because they're too lazy to get to a branch of their own bank or too inept at managing their money to realise that the burning sensation from their wallet can be ignored.
Yes, you have noted this over and over.
It is aimed at everyone who pays millions in user fees while being low income peoples and families. Saying it is not is nonsense.
No, I do not think so, thsi is aimed at banks charging user fees, not independants.
WOW!!!!! BTW you own bank charges user fees that is who Jack is speaking of.
Investment maxicashus.