It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jobless hit with bank fees on benefits

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 03:01 AM

Jobless hit with bank fees on benefits

For hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs during the recession, there's a new twist to their financial pain: Even as they're collecting unemployment benefits, they're paying bank fees just to get access to their money.
Thirty states have struck such deals with banks that include Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase and US Bancorp, an Associated Press review of the agreements found. All the programs carry fees, and in several states the unemployed have no choice but to use the debit cards. Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 — even though they could decline charges for more than what's on the card.
"It's a racket. It's a scam," said Rachel Davis, a 38-year-old dental technician from St. Louis who was laid off in October. Davis was given a MasterCard issued through Central Bank of Jefferson City and recently paid $6 to make two $40 withdrawals.
The banks say their programs offer convenience. They also provide at least one way to tap the money at no charge, such as using a single free withdrawal to get all the cash at once from a bank teller. But the banks benefit from human nature, as people end up treating the cards like all the other plastic in their wallets.
The fees are raising questions from lawmakers who just recently voted to infuse banks with taxpayer money to keep them afloat.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 03:01 AM
Well this is another gift to the taxpayer in return for filling their coffers. I cannot believe there are still people out there that think bailout are necessary. I can't believe that there are still people out there that think more government is the answer to this mess. The events of the last 15 years are the final verdict of a decades old economic philosophy. Creating an entire generation of Americans holding onto false wealth. And now here we are. Getting nailed. Again.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 03:53 AM
It is a shame that the banks are setting up a system of hoops,
to pick our pockets in still Another way

but, to be honest, the debit card holders/users need to wake up...
they should absolutely know that they cannot walk-drive up to any
ATM and draw out cash (for free) there are warnings & prompts
in the ATM menu that tell the user there are going to be FEES
deducted from the account balance !

see the OP link:

In Missouri, for instance, 94,883 people claimed unemployment benefits through debit cards from Central Bank.
Analysts say a recipient uses a card an average of six to 10 times a month.
If each cardholder makes three withdrawals at an out-of-network ATM, at a fee of $1.75, the bank would collect nearly $500,000.
If half of the cardholders also dial customer service three times in any given week (the first time is free; after that, it's 25 cents a call), the bank's revenue would jump to more than $521,000.
That would yield $6.3 million a year ...

I underlined the important fact ; An Out-Of-Network ATM...

On rare occasion, I have to consider carefully if it would be acceptable to use the local & convienient ATM (fee $2)
and then be billed another $2 from my own account for using that 'out-of-network' ATM machine.

If one is unemployed... the first order of business would be to preserve
the cash available, to stretch the money as far as it will go...
and being cavalier with using ~non bank~ ATMs, is a No No

My own BoA, is only 4 more miles away to use my banks ATM for free,
But in a real pinch it isn't worth the trouble, so i accept the Fees to access
cash at the bank ATM inside the local grocery store, and be on my merry way

[edit on 20-2-2009 by St Udio]

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:06 AM
Banks always do this though it doesn't matter if you are unemployed or rich.
They charge for convenience.
If people are stupid enough to use the convenience than that's there problem.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:14 AM

Originally posted by BorgHoffen
Banks always do this though it doesn't matter if you are unemployed or rich.
They charge for convenience.
If people are stupid enough to use the convenience than that's there problem.
This is true, people should know better. But at the same time, they are banking(pun intended) on people's habits and making a profit without lifting a finger. Are we really going to perpetuate and bailout this kind of greedy philosophy? Give people a break! They sure as hell gave the banks one!!

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:59 AM
reply to post by Gigatronix

they need to pay for the Big bonuses somehow
every little helps

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 05:36 AM
This is not just a problem in the USA, in Britain my sister lost her job more than 4 weeks ago, she receives £50 or so a week in benefits, when she lost her job, she cancelled all her direct debits that were set up in her bank account, she forgot about 1 which hadn't shown on her account yet.

Now because of bank charges after she didn't have enough funds to cover the £28, she is over £400 in debt with the bank, first charge £32, was for insufficient funds to cover the bill, which wasn't paid by the bank BTW, then more charges were added because she couldn't cover the bank charges of £32, a further £40 which made her over £72 in debt with the bank, now it has spiralled out of control, the bank has closed the account which has stopped more charges, but £400 plus for a £28 over sight, now thats what you call bare faced cheek and theft.

The above figures are close to the amounts charged but not exact, the final total she owes however is £417 exactly, the bank have told her she has to find the money, or a county court application will be made, she could end up losing her furniture when the bailiffs come.

It really pisses me off, it's happening to people everywhere, I refuse to pay any bills by standing order or direct debit any more, and I advise anyone with a concern over their job, dump those bills right now, and go back to cash, they the banks will rip you up one side and down the other, and they don't care if your unemployed, they just want their money, if you try and claim the charges back, they scream poverty at you saying it covers their overheads, £400 overheads for a none paid £28 ? it's so unreal, and legal apparently.

So many people are being forced into this kind of debt, and nothing is being done at all, VIVA LA REVOLUTION, looking like the only way out, either that or give these bastards to the peoples prosecutors, lets stick them all in prison for crimes against mankind, lets stop giving them money, and use all this bailout money to start feeding the world, let those who do this do without for a change.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 05:46 AM
Here's another little tidbit:

Why You Can't Get a Loan

Banks say they are lending. But many consumers and small business owners disagree. So where's the disconnect?

Bankers say they are lending but try telling that to consumers having difficulty getting approved for mortgages, credit cards or auto loans.
In recent weeks, politicians have accused financial institutions of failing to extend credit, despite taking in billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds during the past few months.

But financial executives, including the CEOs of eight banks that testified before Congress last week, have maintained that they are making new loans and that the nation would face an even more severe credit crunch had the government not thrown the industry a lifeline.

Still, it's hard to deny that credit is tighter. One reason, experts said, is that many non-banking entities that provide credit, often referred to as the so-called "shadow-banking system", have withdrawn massive amounts of financing from the broader economy.

Money-market funds and insurance companies, for example, have typically been big buyers of debt from companies looking to raise quick cash, notes Rick Spitler, managing director at the New York City-based consultancy Novantas, which focuses on financial institutions. That's no longer the case, forcing corporations to look to banks for credit.

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:23 AM
if i get an unexpected bank fee of like $1.20 and that drives me into the red .. like $1.01 ...

then i get a $30 fee from my bank.
then if i can't pay that $30.01 in the red.. i get fined another $30.00

don't you think this is a "hint"..

to be completely unreliant on money?
TOTALLY self-reliant?
then again.. there's the land-ownership issue....

damn if you think about it...
and you don't pull in big $$$..
no matter if your soul is more pure than the richest banker a$$hole...

this aims to be eventally ..

less good caring souls...
more evil "intellectual animals" surviving...

I hope that when they're the only survivors of all this..

a galactic race come down and trick them somehow.. and anihilate them all..

and press the reboot button.


[edit on 20-2-2009 by prevenge]

new topics

top topics


log in