This puts me out of business...I'm F*CKED
05-13-2010, 11:28 PM
#1
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MPLS, USA
Posts: 5,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 10 Honda Fit Sport, 10 Honda Pilot Touring
Harkin Financial Reform Amendment Protects Consumers from Unfair ATM Fees
As Congress moves to rein in Wall Street, measure will eliminate banks' double-dipping
"WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Today, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced an amendment to help consumers facing rising fees at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). The amendment came as the Senate began debate on the financial reform bill.
?In recent years, Congress has acted to protect consumers by setting appropriate limits on the types of fees that financial institutions can charge consumers. However, one area that lacks these sensible restrictions is the fees charged to consumers for using Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). Consumers are being charged ATM fees that are well in excess of the cost of providing services, in some instances, as much as $5 per withdrawal. These fees are outrageous, are anti-consumer, and they need to be reigned in,? said Harkin.
Senator Harkin?s amendment would require the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that fees charged to consumers at ATMs bear a reasonable relation to the cost of processing the transaction. The best data available suggests that the cost of processing a transaction is no more than 36 cents today. For this reason, the amendment also sets a reasonable upper limit of 50 cents per transaction - ensuring that banks can continue to offer this service while protecting consumers from unfair fees.
?Under the current structure, banks charge consumers fees for using ATMs while also collecting fees from other banks. This amendment restricts the double-dipping that benefits banks and costs consumers,? said Harkin. ?Our mission in financial reform is to level the playing field for the average Joe. My amendment goes to the heart of that mission, ensuring consumers are no longer victimized by unfair fees.?
Prior to 1996 some card networks actually prohibited financial institutions from charging consumers a fee for using an ATM. Instead, the costs associated with ATM transactions were paid between banks and the processing networks. However, those restrictions were removed in 1996, and the Federal Reserve now estimates that nationwide, consumers pay an average of $2.66 to use ATMs.
The amendment is particularly relevant to Harkin?s home state of Iowa. Prior to 2002, Iowans did not pay fees for using ATMs. But in 2002, this law was pre-empted by federal banking regulators, who have since not put any restrictions on the amount of fees that banks can charge.
The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Schumer and Sanders and is supported by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, Consumers Union and the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients."
************************************************** ************************************************** ********************************
GUYS, I own an ATM company. I have friends that own ATM companies. To pass this bill would put ME, my friends & thousands of other small ATM companies out of business.
It would be impossible to have my business on .50 per transaction. Senator Harkin and others need to remember that we have many fees to run our businesses: We buy the ATMs, buy the modem/phone line, pay monthly modem/phone fee, pay the store owners the split agreed to, pay for gas, mileage, vehicles, insurance, computers, internet access, office space, employees, stickers for locations, bigger signage for locations, receipt paper, paper, ink, printer for contracts, paying service people, paying interest to borrow the money for the machines, etc.
68% of all of the ATMs in America are owned by independent owner operator who put thier lives and property on the line to provide a service. Put all of those people out of business and you will a greater downward spiral in the economy as manufacturers, suppliers, and other related service companies start to shut down and lay off their employees.
Sen Harkin does not take into account the actual costs in operating an ATM. To state that it costs .36 cents to "process" a transaction does not account for the cost of the ATM; the costs of porviding the cash for the ATM; parts, maintenance and repair; costs of reciept paper; providing a dedicated phone line; commissions to the merchant that the ATM is located; automotive expenses for service personel such as gas, maintenance, insurance, etc; payroll expenses for service personel including health insurance.
The only ATMs left will be the ones owned by banks. The only ATMs banks will continue to operate are the ATMs at their branches. It costs a bank $1.10 per transaction to pay armored car to put $ in the ATMs that are not at their branches. No one can keep an ATM running for fifty cents, not even the banks.
They will charge their own customers to use the ATMs at the branches and they will charge to use a live person in the bank. The Banks will own and operate every ATM in America. They will add new fees and increase non-ATM fees to make up for their loss of income.
Do we really want the Banks to own all the ATMs?
Senator Harkin is wrong. His logic is flawed. He is NOT protecting consumers. He is protecting Big Banks. He is putting tens of thousands of middle class Americans out of work. He is giving all of the ATM ownership to the Big Banks.
Ask yourself a question: Why are the Big Banks so quiet about this? Uh, it's because they get to own it all and screw us even further than they already have.
I cannot operate an ATM that only does 100 to 200 transactions a month with just 50 cents per transaction. That's only $50 to $100 a month to pay for a $50 phone line, pay $1.00 per transaction to the convenience store owner, pay for armored car to put money in the ATM, pay for insurance, pay employees, and all the other things a small business has to pay to run a business. All of us mom and pop ATM management companies are out of business if this passes and all of our atms will be shut down. This will put tens of thousands of middle class families on welfare.
I'm wondering when Senator Harkin is going to put a cap on coffee that Starbucks sells or a cap on hambugers that McDonald's sells...it's only a matter of time.
We ALL have choices, the choices are:
a) plan better and go to your bank and make a withdrawal or use your banks atm so you don't have to pay a surcharge
b) when you're at the atm press the button on the screen that says you do NOT agree with the fee and then go use another atm or
c) when you're at the atm press the button on the screen that says you DO accept the fee and take out MY money that is on loan to you, until your bank wires your money into my account with a surcharge fee for the convenience of you using MY money to buy what you want throughout the day.
As Congress moves to rein in Wall Street, measure will eliminate banks' double-dipping
"WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Today, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced an amendment to help consumers facing rising fees at Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). The amendment came as the Senate began debate on the financial reform bill.
?In recent years, Congress has acted to protect consumers by setting appropriate limits on the types of fees that financial institutions can charge consumers. However, one area that lacks these sensible restrictions is the fees charged to consumers for using Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). Consumers are being charged ATM fees that are well in excess of the cost of providing services, in some instances, as much as $5 per withdrawal. These fees are outrageous, are anti-consumer, and they need to be reigned in,? said Harkin.
Senator Harkin?s amendment would require the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that fees charged to consumers at ATMs bear a reasonable relation to the cost of processing the transaction. The best data available suggests that the cost of processing a transaction is no more than 36 cents today. For this reason, the amendment also sets a reasonable upper limit of 50 cents per transaction - ensuring that banks can continue to offer this service while protecting consumers from unfair fees.
?Under the current structure, banks charge consumers fees for using ATMs while also collecting fees from other banks. This amendment restricts the double-dipping that benefits banks and costs consumers,? said Harkin. ?Our mission in financial reform is to level the playing field for the average Joe. My amendment goes to the heart of that mission, ensuring consumers are no longer victimized by unfair fees.?
Prior to 1996 some card networks actually prohibited financial institutions from charging consumers a fee for using an ATM. Instead, the costs associated with ATM transactions were paid between banks and the processing networks. However, those restrictions were removed in 1996, and the Federal Reserve now estimates that nationwide, consumers pay an average of $2.66 to use ATMs.
The amendment is particularly relevant to Harkin?s home state of Iowa. Prior to 2002, Iowans did not pay fees for using ATMs. But in 2002, this law was pre-empted by federal banking regulators, who have since not put any restrictions on the amount of fees that banks can charge.
The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Schumer and Sanders and is supported by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, Consumers Union and the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients."
************************************************** ************************************************** ********************************
GUYS, I own an ATM company. I have friends that own ATM companies. To pass this bill would put ME, my friends & thousands of other small ATM companies out of business.
It would be impossible to have my business on .50 per transaction. Senator Harkin and others need to remember that we have many fees to run our businesses: We buy the ATMs, buy the modem/phone line, pay monthly modem/phone fee, pay the store owners the split agreed to, pay for gas, mileage, vehicles, insurance, computers, internet access, office space, employees, stickers for locations, bigger signage for locations, receipt paper, paper, ink, printer for contracts, paying service people, paying interest to borrow the money for the machines, etc.
68% of all of the ATMs in America are owned by independent owner operator who put thier lives and property on the line to provide a service. Put all of those people out of business and you will a greater downward spiral in the economy as manufacturers, suppliers, and other related service companies start to shut down and lay off their employees.
Sen Harkin does not take into account the actual costs in operating an ATM. To state that it costs .36 cents to "process" a transaction does not account for the cost of the ATM; the costs of porviding the cash for the ATM; parts, maintenance and repair; costs of reciept paper; providing a dedicated phone line; commissions to the merchant that the ATM is located; automotive expenses for service personel such as gas, maintenance, insurance, etc; payroll expenses for service personel including health insurance.
The only ATMs left will be the ones owned by banks. The only ATMs banks will continue to operate are the ATMs at their branches. It costs a bank $1.10 per transaction to pay armored car to put $ in the ATMs that are not at their branches. No one can keep an ATM running for fifty cents, not even the banks.
They will charge their own customers to use the ATMs at the branches and they will charge to use a live person in the bank. The Banks will own and operate every ATM in America. They will add new fees and increase non-ATM fees to make up for their loss of income.
Do we really want the Banks to own all the ATMs?
Senator Harkin is wrong. His logic is flawed. He is NOT protecting consumers. He is protecting Big Banks. He is putting tens of thousands of middle class Americans out of work. He is giving all of the ATM ownership to the Big Banks.
Ask yourself a question: Why are the Big Banks so quiet about this? Uh, it's because they get to own it all and screw us even further than they already have.
I cannot operate an ATM that only does 100 to 200 transactions a month with just 50 cents per transaction. That's only $50 to $100 a month to pay for a $50 phone line, pay $1.00 per transaction to the convenience store owner, pay for armored car to put money in the ATM, pay for insurance, pay employees, and all the other things a small business has to pay to run a business. All of us mom and pop ATM management companies are out of business if this passes and all of our atms will be shut down. This will put tens of thousands of middle class families on welfare.
I'm wondering when Senator Harkin is going to put a cap on coffee that Starbucks sells or a cap on hambugers that McDonald's sells...it's only a matter of time.
We ALL have choices, the choices are:
a) plan better and go to your bank and make a withdrawal or use your banks atm so you don't have to pay a surcharge
b) when you're at the atm press the button on the screen that says you do NOT agree with the fee and then go use another atm or
c) when you're at the atm press the button on the screen that says you DO accept the fee and take out MY money that is on loan to you, until your bank wires your money into my account with a surcharge fee for the convenience of you using MY money to buy what you want throughout the day.
05-13-2010, 11:31 PM
#2
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MPLS, USA
Posts: 5,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 10 Honda Fit Sport, 10 Honda Pilot Touring
Senate backs curbs on credit raters, card fees
By Kevin Drawbaugh and Andy Sullivan, Reuters
7 hours ago
Loading... Share No Thanks Must Read?Thank YouYes 69 //
The U.S. Capitol building is seen before the start of President Barack Obama...Share |
WASHINGTON ? The Senate on Thursday voted to limit fees charged on credit and debit card transactions, and separately moved to overhaul the credit-rating business as part of a widening Wall Street reform bill.Both votes handed stinging defeats to the financial services industry, with the political climate in Washington increasingly hostile to the army of lobbyists that has been working for months to weaken and delay proposed reforms.
Final approval of the Senate bill was widely expected next week. It would be the biggest overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression, coming more than a year and a half since the worst financial crisis in generations.
President Barack Obama strongly backs tighter rules for banks and capital markets in the wake of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, which tipped the economy into a deep recession and led to huge taxpayer bailouts of banks.
Still to come are big battles over consumer protection and how to regulate the unpoliced $650 trillion derivatives market. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said he was concerned about a part of the bill that could force banks to spin off their swaps desks, adding pressure to allow Wall Street involved in a business that earns them billions annually
http://www.comcast.net/articles/fina...AL-REGULATION/
05-13-2010, 11:36 PM
#3
Contributors
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: FT. Bliss Texas
Posts: 2,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 528i, Space Grey, Nav, PDC, Premium, Sports, Grey Leather, Xenon, Cornering...
Bro I am sorry to hear this man. I really hope t all works out for you and your fam. Why don't you try to put up a pettition against it? I would sing man. Everyones got to eat you know.
05-14-2010, 12:01 AM
#4
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MPLS, USA
Posts: 5,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 10 Honda Fit Sport, 10 Honda Pilot Touring
Thanks T. It's absolutely devastating. I haven't slept in over a week. If this gets signed into law, the majority of independent ATM Management guys like me will be out of business. Here's a link to the online petition: PETITION AGAINST ATM FEE CAP
05-14-2010, 12:09 AM
#5
Contributors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MPLS, USA
Posts: 5,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 10 Honda Fit Sport, 10 Honda Pilot Touring
Here's a great article by Brookings on why this amendment is a bad idea. http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010...atm_litan.aspx
Proposed Limits on ATM Fees and Credit Card Interest Rates: Counter-Productive Punishment That Goes Too Far
May 13, 2010 ?
Now that the comprehensive financial reform bill is close to passing, there are disturbing signs of counter-productive piling on going on. Two examples are a proposal by Senator Harkin to limit ATM fees to 50 cents per transaction and other proposals to impose interest rate ceilings on credit cards (or to let the states do so). Both seem to be pro-consumer while ostensibly adding to the punishment of the banking industry. But both are bad ideas on economic grounds, and would in fact harm consumers by cutting access to ATMs and further reducing the availability of consumer credit. Furthermore, each idea has nothing to do with rectifying the causes that led to the crisis.
Of course, banks are highly unpopular these days, especially the largest ones that look to be too big to fail and are now making money again while the nation continues to suffer the after-effects of the Great Recession. The public and policy makers are justifiably upset over having to front money (via the Troubled Asset Relief Program) to the big banks, even if most of it will be paid back. They rightly want assurances that regulation of banks will be improved so that something like this doesn?t happen again. Both the comprehensive reform bill already passed by the House and the broad contours of the bill that passed the Senate Banking Committee that is now being debated on the Senate floor would do a reasonably good job of reducing the likelihood and possibly the severity of future crises.
But in the effort to accomplish this critical important objective, it is also tempting to punish banks ? even those that did not contribute to the crisis ? for unrelated things. After all, large reform legislation like the bill about to be adopted only comes along once every 10 or 20 years. This affords unique opportunities for elected officials to add bells and whistles that have nothing to do with the purpose of the legislation or worse, would have damaging or counterproductive economic consequences.
Especially dangerous are proposals that appeal to popular distrust or anger, but on closer examination, are misguided. The proposed caps on ATM fees and credit card interest rates fall into this category.
Of course, no one likes paying ATM fees or interest rates on credit cards. In fact, if we could get away with it, everyone would like all products and services that we now pay real money for to be free.
But that?s not how things work in a market economy. As the expression goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Goods and services cost money to produce or deliver, and the prices their providers charge are the incentives firms have to offer them. (This is true even on the Internet, where so many things appear to be free, but only because they are advertiser-supported, and eventually all of us, as consumers, pay those who pay the advertisers).
Government has cause to intervene in the price-setting process only under two conditions: when markets are monopolized by a single provider (think of your local electric utility) or when providers collude to set prices (which the antitrust laws punish). Neither condition applies to the banking system, despite the growing concentration of deposits nationwide among banks and the consolidation of many banks.
But why, you might ask, should banks charge you to take your own money out of your account through an ATM? Seems unfair, doesn?t it? But on second thought, it turns out that you don?t pay any transaction fee to take money out of your own bank, as is true with more than half of all ATM transactions. You only get charged if you are not near a branch of your bank and you want the convenience of taking money from another bank?s ATM, or an ATM owned by a third party (such as a grocery store, gas station or airport). If Congress caps what those third parties can charge, there won?t be as many ATMs and consumers will have fewer alternatives for getting cash.
It is not an accident that since ATM owners were permitted to charge for convenience, the numbers of ATM have exploded, from about 150,000 to over 400,000 nationwide. The Harkin amendment, if adopted, would reverse this progress, and lead to a shrinkage ? most likely a massive one ? in the numbers of ATMs deployed. This will only hurt consumers, not help them. [1]
Two different proposals that would have the effect of capping credit card interest rates would also hurt consumers. Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, Durbin, Sanders, Levin and Burris have circulated a proposed ?Consumer Credit Amendment? that would reverse a Supreme Court ruling of more than 30 years ago (Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Corporation) and authorize states to set maximum credit card interest rates (even on credit cards issued by nationally chartered banks) for their residents. Senators Sanders and Leahy also have an amendment that would authorize the new consumer financial regulatory agency to impose a 15 percent limit on the credit card interest rates. This proposal is even tighter than the 18 percent limit once proposed by former Senator D?Amato in the early 1990s. [2]
Like the proposed limit on ATM fees, a cap on credit card interest rates may seem like it is pro-consumer. But lending interest rate limits of any form inevitably would cause issuers of credit cards to further ration credit, at a time when many issuers have already cut credit lines because of concerns over the creditworthiness of borrowers in the wake of the recession. Of course, some consumers are over-extended and shouldn?t be borrowing any more money. But enacting laws which induce banks to further tighten credit ? not only to consumers, but to many businesses and entrepreneurs who rely on credit cards for financing -- at a time when the economy is just beginning to show some life runs great risks of snuffing out the recovery.
I am old enough to remember when President Jimmy Carter merely suggested in 1980 that consumers not spend so freely with their credit cards, and government regulators then followed up with tighter rules on credit card issuance. The economy quickly dropped like a stone at an unprecedented 10 percent annual rate for a quarter. It goes without saying that our economy doesn?t need a rerun of anything even remotely close to that experience.
The proposal by Senator Whitehouse and his co-sponsors to permit states to set their own interest rate ceilings seems less threatening, since it would not apply nationwide. That?s one small comfort. But this particular amendment could lead to a crazy quilt system where consumers living in different states, but otherwise with the same or similar credit records, could be charged very different interest rates. As a result, consumers and businesses in states with tighter caps would lose business to states that more sensibly choose not to regulate credit card rates or regulate them less aggressively. One would think, therefore, that voters and elected officials would realize this and refrain from imposing tight credit card interest rate limits. But in the current anti-bank political environment, anything is possible anywhere. If Congress is truly interested in not curtailing credit at this critical time, it should not overrule what the Supreme Court so wisely decided a generation ago: a national market in credit card lending is preferable to one that is potentially balkanized and much more restrictive.
Finally, the proposed ATM and credit card amendments have nothing to do with the main thrust of the comprehensive reform bills, which is to prevent future financial crises. The amendments are unrelated ornaments that may appear sensible on the surface but in reality would hurt the consumers (and possibly many businesses) they are ostensibly designed to protect.
Robert E. Litan is a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and the Vice President of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
Proposed Limits on ATM Fees and Credit Card Interest Rates: Counter-Productive Punishment That Goes Too Far
May 13, 2010 ?
Now that the comprehensive financial reform bill is close to passing, there are disturbing signs of counter-productive piling on going on. Two examples are a proposal by Senator Harkin to limit ATM fees to 50 cents per transaction and other proposals to impose interest rate ceilings on credit cards (or to let the states do so). Both seem to be pro-consumer while ostensibly adding to the punishment of the banking industry. But both are bad ideas on economic grounds, and would in fact harm consumers by cutting access to ATMs and further reducing the availability of consumer credit. Furthermore, each idea has nothing to do with rectifying the causes that led to the crisis.
Of course, banks are highly unpopular these days, especially the largest ones that look to be too big to fail and are now making money again while the nation continues to suffer the after-effects of the Great Recession. The public and policy makers are justifiably upset over having to front money (via the Troubled Asset Relief Program) to the big banks, even if most of it will be paid back. They rightly want assurances that regulation of banks will be improved so that something like this doesn?t happen again. Both the comprehensive reform bill already passed by the House and the broad contours of the bill that passed the Senate Banking Committee that is now being debated on the Senate floor would do a reasonably good job of reducing the likelihood and possibly the severity of future crises.
But in the effort to accomplish this critical important objective, it is also tempting to punish banks ? even those that did not contribute to the crisis ? for unrelated things. After all, large reform legislation like the bill about to be adopted only comes along once every 10 or 20 years. This affords unique opportunities for elected officials to add bells and whistles that have nothing to do with the purpose of the legislation or worse, would have damaging or counterproductive economic consequences.
Especially dangerous are proposals that appeal to popular distrust or anger, but on closer examination, are misguided. The proposed caps on ATM fees and credit card interest rates fall into this category.
Of course, no one likes paying ATM fees or interest rates on credit cards. In fact, if we could get away with it, everyone would like all products and services that we now pay real money for to be free.
But that?s not how things work in a market economy. As the expression goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Goods and services cost money to produce or deliver, and the prices their providers charge are the incentives firms have to offer them. (This is true even on the Internet, where so many things appear to be free, but only because they are advertiser-supported, and eventually all of us, as consumers, pay those who pay the advertisers).
Government has cause to intervene in the price-setting process only under two conditions: when markets are monopolized by a single provider (think of your local electric utility) or when providers collude to set prices (which the antitrust laws punish). Neither condition applies to the banking system, despite the growing concentration of deposits nationwide among banks and the consolidation of many banks.
But why, you might ask, should banks charge you to take your own money out of your account through an ATM? Seems unfair, doesn?t it? But on second thought, it turns out that you don?t pay any transaction fee to take money out of your own bank, as is true with more than half of all ATM transactions. You only get charged if you are not near a branch of your bank and you want the convenience of taking money from another bank?s ATM, or an ATM owned by a third party (such as a grocery store, gas station or airport). If Congress caps what those third parties can charge, there won?t be as many ATMs and consumers will have fewer alternatives for getting cash.
It is not an accident that since ATM owners were permitted to charge for convenience, the numbers of ATM have exploded, from about 150,000 to over 400,000 nationwide. The Harkin amendment, if adopted, would reverse this progress, and lead to a shrinkage ? most likely a massive one ? in the numbers of ATMs deployed. This will only hurt consumers, not help them. [1]
Two different proposals that would have the effect of capping credit card interest rates would also hurt consumers. Senators Whitehouse, Merkley, Durbin, Sanders, Levin and Burris have circulated a proposed ?Consumer Credit Amendment? that would reverse a Supreme Court ruling of more than 30 years ago (Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Corporation) and authorize states to set maximum credit card interest rates (even on credit cards issued by nationally chartered banks) for their residents. Senators Sanders and Leahy also have an amendment that would authorize the new consumer financial regulatory agency to impose a 15 percent limit on the credit card interest rates. This proposal is even tighter than the 18 percent limit once proposed by former Senator D?Amato in the early 1990s. [2]
Like the proposed limit on ATM fees, a cap on credit card interest rates may seem like it is pro-consumer. But lending interest rate limits of any form inevitably would cause issuers of credit cards to further ration credit, at a time when many issuers have already cut credit lines because of concerns over the creditworthiness of borrowers in the wake of the recession. Of course, some consumers are over-extended and shouldn?t be borrowing any more money. But enacting laws which induce banks to further tighten credit ? not only to consumers, but to many businesses and entrepreneurs who rely on credit cards for financing -- at a time when the economy is just beginning to show some life runs great risks of snuffing out the recovery.
I am old enough to remember when President Jimmy Carter merely suggested in 1980 that consumers not spend so freely with their credit cards, and government regulators then followed up with tighter rules on credit card issuance. The economy quickly dropped like a stone at an unprecedented 10 percent annual rate for a quarter. It goes without saying that our economy doesn?t need a rerun of anything even remotely close to that experience.
The proposal by Senator Whitehouse and his co-sponsors to permit states to set their own interest rate ceilings seems less threatening, since it would not apply nationwide. That?s one small comfort. But this particular amendment could lead to a crazy quilt system where consumers living in different states, but otherwise with the same or similar credit records, could be charged very different interest rates. As a result, consumers and businesses in states with tighter caps would lose business to states that more sensibly choose not to regulate credit card rates or regulate them less aggressively. One would think, therefore, that voters and elected officials would realize this and refrain from imposing tight credit card interest rate limits. But in the current anti-bank political environment, anything is possible anywhere. If Congress is truly interested in not curtailing credit at this critical time, it should not overrule what the Supreme Court so wisely decided a generation ago: a national market in credit card lending is preferable to one that is potentially balkanized and much more restrictive.
Finally, the proposed ATM and credit card amendments have nothing to do with the main thrust of the comprehensive reform bills, which is to prevent future financial crises. The amendments are unrelated ornaments that may appear sensible on the surface but in reality would hurt the consumers (and possibly many businesses) they are ostensibly designed to protect.
Robert E. Litan is a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and the Vice President of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.
05-14-2010, 12:57 AM
#6
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Zoo York
Posts: 9,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: Alpine White 2006 530Xi (SLD)
Hope you figure it out and stay in bizz, John! Don't hang your head - keep on keepin' on, brother!
I'm sort of in a similar boat, but at least I stand to lose a job - not a business, that's easier.
Anyway, hang in there, keep us posted
I'm sort of in a similar boat, but at least I stand to lose a job - not a business, that's easier.
Anyway, hang in there, keep us posted
05-14-2010, 02:30 AM
#7
Super Moderator
Join Date: May 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 18,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: F02 LCI Individual
Model Year: 2013
I am speechless...
Here is the Senators Homepage: Sen. Tom Harkin (D), Iowa
Anyone from Iowa (or anywhere in the US), contact your Senator: Contact form
Here is the Senators Homepage: Sen. Tom Harkin (D), Iowa
Anyone from Iowa (or anywhere in the US), contact your Senator: Contact form
05-14-2010, 04:25 AM
#8
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: new york
Posts: 5,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2011, E90 M3 Sedan. Alpine White.Competition package, Keyhole cover, fender reflectors in Alpine white, RPI Exhaust, 19
i signed it, sorry for what your going through John.. Try not to stress too much 
05-14-2010, 04:30 AM
#9
Contributors
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There should be exceptions for those minimum fees, in exactly the type of case where a third-party company is providing the service in a location where there wouldn't be a bank ATM.
Convenience has a price.
When I go to my own Bank's ATM, I don't expect to get (and I'm not) charged. I'm doing my bank a favour by not bothering one of their bank tellers. It would cost them more to pay someone to hand over my cash than it does for the ATM to do the same thing, over time.
When I go to another bank's ATM, unless my bank has some kind of reciprocal agreement with them, then I expect to be charged a small fee. Maybe it's $1.00 or so, or 1% capped at $5. It's my choice though whether to drive around to find my own bank or accept a convenience fee.
In the situation where there's no direct bank ATM's, and some independent company has gone to the trouble of managing an ATM there (with all the service costs mentioned earlier in the thread), it's only fair to pay for that convenience. We have a choice.
Whenever I'm faced with a charge for ATM use, I always take a larger amount of cash out as it minimizes the fee in terms of a percentage. If I was going to take out $300 and expected to take out $500 a week or two later, I'd take out $800 now and spread the charge.
Convenience has a price.
When I go to my own Bank's ATM, I don't expect to get (and I'm not) charged. I'm doing my bank a favour by not bothering one of their bank tellers. It would cost them more to pay someone to hand over my cash than it does for the ATM to do the same thing, over time.
When I go to another bank's ATM, unless my bank has some kind of reciprocal agreement with them, then I expect to be charged a small fee. Maybe it's $1.00 or so, or 1% capped at $5. It's my choice though whether to drive around to find my own bank or accept a convenience fee.
In the situation where there's no direct bank ATM's, and some independent company has gone to the trouble of managing an ATM there (with all the service costs mentioned earlier in the thread), it's only fair to pay for that convenience. We have a choice.
Whenever I'm faced with a charge for ATM use, I always take a larger amount of cash out as it minimizes the fee in terms of a percentage. If I was going to take out $300 and expected to take out $500 a week or two later, I'd take out $800 now and spread the charge.
05-14-2010, 05:08 AM
#10
Senior Members
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: e60
Its quite unfortunate we all cant live our lives through without someone else fucking with it.
Be creative and find a way to turn this massive lemon into a shit load of lemonade; it sounds like your heavily invested into this business; let me tell you the first ones to act correctly and adapt to this will survive the culling.
Maybe group a bunch of your colleagues together and lobby against this or start a website for petitions and resistance.
Be creative and find a way to turn this massive lemon into a shit load of lemonade; it sounds like your heavily invested into this business; let me tell you the first ones to act correctly and adapt to this will survive the culling.
Maybe group a bunch of your colleagues together and lobby against this or start a website for petitions and resistance.