Wow...for once I agree with something the NDP is saying [ATM's}

[IN HOC SIGNO]

cash in the bank is not representative of how much they have...
They make OODLES of cash by charges.  I don't have the figures, but they certainly made their fair share off of me in addition to whatever they make by investments, loan charges, etc....

But he's right they make their money off mortgages and investments....crap for my little mortgage alone last year they made 7500 in interest and I only got about $5000 in principle paid down. they are into me for another 23 years......that's where they make their cash....Bank fees are a pittance.

 

[Rodders]

If service charges are a pittance, and they may very well be, than it shouldn't be a big problem for the banks to do away with them.

 

[vonGarvin]

the only reason they have those charges, which may be a pittance in Bank terms (who make bazillions annually), but they certainly aren't a pittance to people who pay more in ATM charges than in interest (average joe).
But, as I've said, if people will pay it, then they will charge it.

 

[NL_engineer]

I'll try to find the statements my economics prof showed me.
Almost all money these days is electronic. That's why you can email money etc.  ;D

 

[x-grunt]

As much as I hate service charges - and I think they are nothing more then a rip-off, to be polite - I have to agree with Hauptmann Scharlachrot. Mind you, if  it happens the charges are banned, I'm not crying for the banks. As has been stated, the Banks make the bulk of their bucks elsewhere.

However I do think we can vote with our feet with this one. The Big Five can safely say that they have the banking market locked up, at least in the minds of the Canadian consumer. Our job as consumers is to prove to them they can be replaced.

There are places that charge no fees or will even give interest. There are reliable alternatives to the Big Five. Heck, even the Big Five themselves create alternatives, look at  PC Financial For instance. I am completely happy to do all my banking with them - no fees, good rates, free cheques, and they actually pay me interest!

Why would anyone pay $5 to $20 a month for services they can get for free? Yet that's what they do, even while other options are available. So I can see why the banks aren't rushing to change.

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree with the side that says Government should not regulate ATM fees. Its a private business venture between people and the banks they deal with.

Lets be real, how many Canadians wake up in the morning and say "Oh my, I couldn't sleep with the thought of all those ATM charges..."

Come on Jack Layton, live in the real world.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My monthly fees are routinely <$10 and are waived because I retain a minimum balance.  For the lefties here who like to guide people's behaviour, think of it this way: fees encourage people to keep a few months' expenses saved up, and thus encourage financial security.  The banks are promoting a social good (whether they intend it or not).

If you pay fees, it should be a clue you could manage your finances more efficiently.  I have no more sympathy for someone who pays fees than for someone who pays interest on outstanding credit card debt or leaves a slice of a paycheque with a cheque-cashing service.  You're just not gripping your finances as well as you could.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Nice blanket statement but not always the case...IMHO.

 

[NL_engineer]

If you pay fees, it should be a clue you could manage your finances more efficiently.  I have no more sympathy for someone who pays fees than for someone who pays interest on outstanding credit card debt or leaves a slice of a paycheque with a cheque-cashing service.  You're just not gripping your finances as well as you could.

Not always the case, I can have liquid investments that earn 5-10% intrest, or I can keep the same money in my account for 0% intrest.

Lets see the difference

1 year in chequing account (Min balance $4000) at the end of the year if you did not go below that minimum balance, you will still have $4000

Investment of $4000 compounded monthly intrest of O say 5% for 1 year, gives you an end result of $4,204.65

This is how the banks make a lot of there money.  So with that you have $204.65 that you never had before.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Fine.  Let's consider the specific point: can you evade ATM fees, or can't you?  The answer to anyone who did banking in the pre-ATM era is conclusive.  Those who feel they can't live without the use of ATMs aren't on very firm ground to demand a free lunch.

 

[NL_engineer]

Fine.  Let's consider the specific point: can you evade ATM fees, or can't you?  The answer to anyone who did banking in the pre-ATM era is conclusive.  Those who feel they can't live without the use of ATMs aren't on very firm ground to demand a free lunch.

Theres a difference between living with and liking.  Its like paying taxes, everyone loves forking over part of there pay to the government :.

 

[rmacqueen]

Theres a difference between living with and liking.  Its like paying taxes, everyone loves forking over part of there pay to the government :.

Ah, but you choose to use the ATM's, you are not forced to use them...unlike taxes.

 

[NL_engineer]

Ah, but you choose to use the ATM's, you are not forced to use them...unlike taxes.

You got a point there  ;D

 

[Cronicbny]

Your own bank does not charge you to use the ATM, don't like service fees? Don't use private or other bank's ATM's.

Still don't like service fees? Keep your cash in your mattress. It's called capitalism everyone...can't get anything for free anymore.

Whats next Taliban Jack? Banning extra fees for pizza delivery, because..you know..its unfair to make people pay for being lazy? Banning tipping, because, well.....it's their job to serve you and they get paid, why should you be gouged by being 'forced' into giving them a tip?

The NDP is right outta 'er.

While I agree ATM fees are the last thing we should be worrying about - the fact is this is a VERY valuable political commodity. NO ONE can argue FOR the fees and not look like a heartless person. We all (well, okay, not all, but most) know that it's ridiculous to even worry about it. But it will attract a following only because it's something that few people (besides the banks) will argue against. Smart politics really - even though changing the bank act to accomodate it is out to lunch

 

[vonGarvin]

I think I could present an argument "for" banking fees without coming off as heartless


"Banks and other financial institutions provide financial services for people.  They do this in a competitive market: there are several banks, trust companies and so forth, all of which compete against each other for customers.  For their services, they charge certain fees.  Be it for the convenience of withdrawing money from an ATM at 3 in the morning or to provide chequing services so that people can pay their bills without having to make other arrangements with their debtors.  The NDP is suggesting that charging fees for ATM services should be banned.  This would be restrictive to banks, who do not have a mandate to provide ATMs or other services: they do it to attract customers.  To ban financial institutions from charging for any of their services is not the Canadian way.  If people feel that any rates that banks charge are too high, they will find other ways to conduct their financial transactions.  To dictate what services financial institutions can or cannot charge for is to prevent them from competing fairly.  In the interest of a free-market, the notion of which Canada conducts its business, it is therefore not in the best interest of the government of Canada to ban banks from charging fees for any of their services."

 

[NL_engineer]

I brought this topic up to a friend, and he said it is definitely not in the governments intrests, as they (yes the Government) will loose money.  This is because the banks are in/around 50% corporate tax bracket, so in other words, the government takes 50 cents per dollar  :-[.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>NO ONE can argue FOR the fees and not look like a heartless person.

No one I have read (so far) has argued "for" the fees.  The argument is "against" a price control - an unnecessary interference in the free market.

No one gripes about high profit margins in many enterprises.  I hazard a guess: the more absolutely unnecessary the crap you sell, the more you can stiff customers for any amount you please; the greater the utility of what you provide, the more you'll be a target of bitter public envy and complaints for earning a profit.  If you were an investor, over the long term would you rather provide unnecessary crap for high returns or be vilified publicly and repeatedly while earning smaller returns (or have the returns legislated away at whim)?  Over the long term, will this sort of attitude lead to the "invisible hand" providing more things that we need, or more entertaining but unimportant tripe?

The more we gripe about and restrict the profits of those who provide necessary or useful services, the fewer necessary or useful services we'll receive while other, more lucrative and less publicly maligned services dominate our economic activity.  Then we'll b!tch about "market failure" because not enough of the things we need are available.  Retarded.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well as many of the machines are not "owned" by the banks but by shell companies, they will still be able to charge fees. We make a habit of keeping $1,000 in our account on top of the regular amounts, which wipes out most fees and rarely every use non-credit union bank machines. Generally cheaper to go to superstore buy some food and take out the cash then. My wife is a pit bull for anyone owing us money or charging us extra, kinda of nice having your own semi-tame lawyer!!!!  ;D

 

[gaspasser]

I see that Taliban Jack has been grandstanding again for the little people?! {supposededly??}  For the sake of saying something in the media.
I pay a monthly fee at my bank, unlimited ATM usages and cheque writing.  But, they do charge me extra for using other banks ATMs, SO, we don't use other ATM.  We try to "stay loyal" to our one bank.
It's Jack not finding anything esle to bark about and making himself look good to the "little guy".
My 0.02

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well it is a harmless diversion and keeps him from saying silly things about the rest of the world.