The future of banking on the back of reclaiming Discussion Area

Chrysalis

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

This is what annoys people, you keep your account in order then others who just can't be bothered ruin it for the majority.

also to add, you keep ignoring this simple fact.

it doesnt cost banks a great deal of money to block payments.

you are trying to suggest that people who have payments blocked should pay for your banking right?

because it doesnt cost the bank £35 to block a payment, so if the fee is dropped and then you pay for atm etc. You are not subisdising them, you are not paying for their blocked fees, they are still with their nominal £5 fees. Do you understand this yet?

Currently people paying excessive fees are SUBSIDISING YOUR BANKING.

You are against a fairer banking system.

Tootsie_Roll

Chrysalis wrote:

also to add, you keep ignoring this simple fact.

it doesnt cost banks a great deal of money to block payments.

you are trying to suggest that people who have payments blocked should pay for your banking right?

because it doesnt cost the bank £35 to block a payment, so if the fee is dropped and then you pay for atm etc. You are not subisdising them, you are not paying for their blocked fees, they are still with their nominal £5 fees. Do you understand this yet?

Currently people paying excessive fees are SUBSIDISING YOUR BANKING.

You are against a fairer banking system.

I understand perfectly - thank you. :rolleyes:

Subsidies are a part of everyday life as I have mentioned on another thread, are you suggesting they are unfair ? If so we need to completely change the way we govern this country and the world !!

I work with the system as it is currently set up and receive completely free banking - your option means I will be subsidising people who can't manage their finances properly. Out of the two which is the fairer ?

Hereward

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

I understand perfectly - thank you. :rolleyes:

Subsidies are a part of everyday life as I have mentioned on another thread, are you suggesting they are unfair ? If so we need to completely change the way we govern this country and the world !!

I work with the system as it is currently set up and receive completely free banking - your option means I will be subsidising people who can't manage their finances properly. Out of the two which is the fairer ?

True, I believe you mentioned that subsidies in a discussion with me. Why would we need to charge the world? We all existed quite happily until subsidies were introduced, so what can we return to a presubsidy world? Of course you would need some sort of safety net for people who could not work for some reason, but this should only cover basic necessities: food, water and shelter.

Why shouldn't you bear the true cost of your account? It’s hardly fair that you are subsidised by the unfortunate: I bet you object to paying tax to those who receive benefits.

Hereward

Tootsie Roll

One thing you haven't though is what happens if everybody suddenly gets very good at managing their money and incurs no bank charges, who would then subsidise you bank account? Would you be happen then to bear the true cost of your banking?

Chrysalis

Tootsie_Roll wrote:

I understand perfectly - thank you. :rolleyes:

Subsidies are a part of everyday life as I have mentioned on another thread, are you suggesting they are unfair ? If so we need to completely change the way we govern this country and the world !!

I work with the system as it is currently set up and receive completely free banking - your option means I will be subsidising people who can't manage their finances properly. Out of the two which is the fairer ?

How do you work out you would be subsidising them? they would still be charged to cover the banks costs of blocking the payments.

oldwiring

I have been trawling Google and have found that in some countries it is a criminal offence to issue a cheque which bounces, so it is possible for the issuer to get a record as well as a financial penalty, or for bad offenders prison. I wonder which some of those who act cavalierly but object to paying for their acts would prefer. Making boncing a criminal offence would focus the mind just a little:eek:

tellyerworraldowivyer

Some of you with credit cards (like myself) may have had a "revised terms & conditions" from your card issuer(s), stating that minimum payments are increasing, balance transfer fees are increasing and some uncapped and some "benefits" have been dropped.
This no doubt has much to do with the ruling on reduction of fees.
Yes, this is the banks fightback.
Incidentally I have never had a charge on my credit card or bank account but I am certainly not complaining, good luck to ALL campaigners on that.
Personally, I believe that if charges had never been applied to accounts, the banks would have come up with some sort of way of squeezing money off us.
And has anyone answered the question of if the charges are lawful, why haven't the banks defended them with all their legal might?

Tim_L

Would it not also be a reaction to stoozing? BT fees are certainly a direct response to stoozing.

M_Thomson

Tim_L wrote:

Would it not also be a reaction to stoozing? BT fees are certainly a direct response to stoozing.

Increased APRs on credit cards are a response to having to lower charges.

oldwiring

tellyerworraldowivyer wrote:

.....
And has anyone answered the question of if the charges are lawful, why haven't the banks defended them with all their legal might?

This is my opinion that I have already posted in abother thread

Perhaps it is a case of competition or even that the economics are against defending some actions. Winning, if the loser is a person of straw and costs cannot be recovered, could be a deterrent?

Now if a big one comes along, what then?