765
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The cost to overdraw a bank account could drop to as little as $3 under a proposal announced by the White House, the latest effort by the Biden administration to combat fees it says pose an unnecessary burden on American consumers, particularly those living paycheck to paycheck.

The change could potentially eliminate billions of dollars in fee revenue for the nation’s biggest banks, which were gearing up for a battle even before Wednesday’s announcement. Exactly how much revenue depends on which version of the new regulation is adopted.

Banks charge a customer an overdraft fee if their bank account balance falls below zero. Overdraft started as a courtesy offered to some customers when paper checks used to take days to clear, but proliferated thanks to the growing popularity of debit cards.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Trollception@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

What happens if you have $5 in your account and visit two stores and purchase something for $4 in each store? Not all stores process transactions immediately. Is the store supposed to just accept the loss and the bank doesn't honor the transaction? I think if it's a credit based debit card overdraft has to be a thing in order for this to work.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

Frankly, yes. The company should just absorb that.

When you accept a credit or debit card, and decide to process the transaction later on, you are incurring a risk. Sometimes that risk will be realized. If you don't like it, don't incur that risk.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 9 months ago

Exactly. They can always just take cash.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

So this will just make sure they put either extra charge on credit cards or disallow it entirely, fucking over everyone, not just those who overdraft

When you accept a credit or debit card, and decide to process the transaction later on, you are incurring a risk. Sometimes that risk will be realized. If you don't like it, don't incur that risk.

Could easily be turned around, "when you get a credit card, you are incurring a risk. Sometimes that risk will be realized. If you don't like it, don't incur that risk." Don't spend more than you have and you won't get a charge.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Yes exactly. Either side could incur the risk. The government can set the rules. I prefer when they say the rules to protect people first and companies second.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Should make it so that you can't overdraft by default. That way people aren't accidentally fucked over by fees since you can't overdraft. Give the option to overdraft to those who want to have the option, but then also they are taking the risks.

Penalizing companies accepting cards will needlessly fuck over everyone.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yup, that would also be a good approach.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 11 points 9 months ago

Not all stores process transactions immediately.

They can, if they choose to do so. You say not all process transactions immediately, but I don't know of any that process offline card transactions.

Is the store supposed to just accept the loss and the bank doesn't honor the transaction?

If they choose not to process the transaction immediately, yes, pretty much. They can retry the transaction periodically until it goes through, or they can use the payment information they have to identify the buyer and demand payment.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Would be insanely risky to process a day's worth of transactions offline, precisely because of the risk that transactions would bounce. Hell, the whole reason credit cards exist is to defer this risk. Businesses pay 2-3% of the transaction value to avoid this risk.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago

Not particularly risky. I mean, they did it all the time back in the day, with both cards and checks. You had all the information you needed to send the buyer to collections, and/or make a criminal complaint.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

I mean, they did it all the time back in the day, with both cards and checks.

Writing a bounced check is incredibly easy, and a big reason why lots of businesses refused to accept checks even at the height of their popularity.

Same with early credit cards.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

What happens if you have $5 in your account and visit two stores and purchase something for $4 in each store?

Then your bank sees the first transaction, does some very rudimentary math, sees the second transaction and says "Not enough in account to complete purchase" and bounces the card.

This already exists for bank cards in the form of a maximum line of credit. If you have a $500 line of credit and you try to purchase two $300 widgets on credit, I guarantee you that the second transaction will fail to go through. But if you have a $500 bank balance and try to do the same thing, you get an Overdraft Fee instead.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

When I make a purchase using a debit card, it goes through this machine that accesses the debit network and my bank, on the other end, says "yes, the pin is correct and the chip looks good, and they have enough funds". Similar process for credit cards. Why wouldn't the transaction be processed at that point other than to create the deliberate risk that the person might overspend if you allow them to?

[-] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 5 points 9 months ago

Brazil, 20 years ago, I was a student on a shoestring budget. I set my debit card so that I'd get an SMS after any purchase so I'd be on top of things in case shenanigans happened. I go to the small grocer on the corner, slide my card and type my pin. Before I can put my wallet back in my pocket, my phone dings. My bank was telling me where I purchased, when, how much it was, and how much was left in my account.

Are you telling me first world banks can't do this today? Is it Brazil that's so ahead technologically or is it greed preventing the banks from getting such a basic system in place?

[-] Skyketcher@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

This might be one of the unintended side effects of the law. If you have a low balance account or a 'bad' credit rating. Banks might simply stop offering debit cards that work on credit card stations.

This probably won't happen unless overdraft fees are underwriting the risk of unpaid overdrafts. I'm not sure how many people just cancel or abandon accounts that go negative. I'd guess that it's low but only banks would have the actual numbers.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I’m not sure how many people just cancel or abandon accounts that go negative.

in the USA at least the CHEX system largely prevents this. Essentially if you abandon a checking account that is negative, you get put into the CHEX database. When you go to a new bank to open a new account, the new bank looks at CHEX and sees what you did, then won't give you an account until you go back to the first bank to get cleared. Nearly all banks use CHEX or something like it. So unless you're just writing off the option to do retail banking, you won't be able to abandon accounts.

this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
765 points (98.7% liked)

News

23267 readers
1153 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS