this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
371 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3613 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Banks call it a service,” the president said. “I call it exploitation.”

The Biden administration unveiled a new rule Wednesday aimed at slashing bank overdraft fees to as low as $3, a move the president said would help end abusive practices by financial institutions.

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.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ekybio@lemmy.world 80 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Biden: Wants to do something good for a lot of people

GOP: "Thats communism and evil and unamerican and unchristian and racist and the West is falling! Quick, do something before he helps the poor!"

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Democrats: "This one thing doesn't go far enough at all! There is no way in good conscience I can support this man!"

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 months ago

Twitter users: I have no idea how government works but Biden didnt do everything i wanted so im not voting

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It doesn’t go far enough. Over draft fees happen on a checking account. Banks know exactly how much is available.

Certain banks are also notorious for charging overdraft fees when there was literally no overdraft.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Certain banks are also notorious for charging overdraft fees when there was literally no overdraft.

There's an explanation for at least one way they do that. Certain transactions end up being "pre-authorized" for a larger amount before they settle. Gas stations are a common place for this: you swipe the card when you first get to the pump, then you pump, and then you pay the bill based on how much you pump. When the card is swiped, a "hold" gets put on your account for a large amount, perhaps $150, and then the charge goes through for the actual amount you paid.

When you pay by credit card, this hold goes against your available credit, and since most people are nowhere near their limit this ends up not being that big a deal. However, when you pay by debit this hold "freezes" actual cash in your bank account, which then can't be used for anything else and can cause you to overdraft while there is still money in your account. Tnis "freeze" may not actually be listed on your account anywhere. What's even worse is that the hold can last for days, and you may not even realize it.

Allow an overdraft fee to exist, and banks will find ways to make them happen. Period. There's no need for paragraphs of explanation for a concept so brutally simple, that furthermore has been proven.

Hell, obama addressed their predatory practices in the consumer protection act (iirc the acts name).

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 18 points 8 months ago

Voter: "I don't see how Biden's any different"

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, don't take input from banks. That's stupid. That is who you're regulating. You don't ask the wolves how to best protect the sheep

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 8 months ago

its better to do that otherwise you get banks suing and the supreme court siding with the banks

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's unfair that a bank can make 3 dollars off me for not having 3 dollars to pay. I have to have thousands of dollars in the bank to make 3 dollars. So I think the overdraft should be the exact amount over drafted plus the interest per the amount overdrafted. That's fair.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's not fair because of the risk of total loss. You giving money to the bank earning interest, there's no risk the bank is just going to stop responding to you and keep your money. There's a chance someone who owes the bank money is just gonna stop going to that bank and they'll have to write off the full amount as a loss.

But, I believe this is essentially what they do in Canada. It's two different rates, because a negative balance is essentially taking out a non-collateralized loan. But you don't have to ask extra permission on small amounts, you just owe the interest.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

do away with "account maintenance fees"for not having a big enough balance too

(also things like these are why i don't take the people who say biden is a conservative or he doesn't do anything seriously)

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

All poor people taxes while we're at it. Inertia is fucked up.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

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.

And they will listen to banks and not the public.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wait so Biden introduces a plan to at LEAST halve overdraft fees and we're whining before anything even happens? Is it not reasonable to at least take input from the industry you're regulating? Don't you want to know how they will respond and what impact they foresee, biased or not?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wait so Biden introduces a plan to at LEAST halve overdraft fees and we’re whining before anything even happens?

Until it happens, it's the same as BBB, the minimum wage increase, and the public option. Something Democrats say they want to do. Now they just need an excuse to not do it.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago

The main obstruction to min wage increases and public healthcare is certainly not Dems, right? Who fucked up Obamacare? Who's repealing child labor laws? What party controls states with min wages at the federal minimum? I agree we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch, but one party is supplying the eggs here and the other is stomping on them gleefully...

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

If they only listened to the banks they wouldn't propose the rule at all.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

banks are the ones implementing them and they don't have to listen to the cdpb, thanks to the supreme court, so it's best to work with them

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

If they don't have to listen to it, it's not a rule.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'll take your cynicism a step further.

The bureau with consumer protection in its name didn't even come up with a zero number. It's not even in the cards. From the protection bureau.... Fuck me

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

because a) republicans deeply oppose it and b) republicans already gutted the powers that the cfpb has under trump

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Like 99/100 times the answer to "why haven't Democrats done more" is "GOP fuckery".

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

Isn't it already the case that you can just set it so overdrafts won't work and if you try to spend money you don't have it just rejects? I'd rather have the rule be that by default with an opt-in for overdrafts that cost money.

Just seems weird to set hard dollar numbers in a rule, they're going to get outdated and not worth it to the banks so they'll just turn it off themselves, I'd rather have the option.