Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Banks cave on debit card fees: A victory for Occupy?

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 9:38 p.m. EST by gestopomilly (497)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

so it is working!

90 Comments

90 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by mainstreet (3) 13 years ago

the banks are not the problem. the name of the movement is not occupy the banks, it is occupy wall street. we need to act together using our iras, 401ks, and other similar investments. GET YOUR MONEY OUT OF WALL STREET RIGHT NOW. roll it into an ira at your locally owned bank (yes at your LOCALLY OWNED bank). this will get wall street's attention plus it will give our locally owned banks an infusion of cash. a bank is like any store in that they have to move their product in order to stay in business. you will see an increased desire by these local merchants (banks) to invest (hopefully locally) this cash infusion so they can pay you your guaranteed interest plus return your investment.

nice thing about this is that we can do this from our homes and make much more noise.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

The deniers are so sad.

OWS provided a flood of negative publicity and got everyone talking & complaining.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 13 years ago

More like a victory for the free market. If enough people are willing to leave your bank because of a fee that it resolves as a net loss, then you simply don't apply that fee. Consumers have done well here. Unfortunately, it's a very isolated case of consumer rationality. We should probably dedicate this as a national holiday or something.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

:)(smileyface)

[-] 1 points by whynot (34) 13 years ago

I just got a refund on a coat I bought! Thanks OWS! You guys are awesome!

[-] 1 points by cristinasupes (145) 13 years ago

I think OWS had a huge piece of the puzzle. The fact that share holders didn't like it also helped. And customers were getting ticked off. But if OWS hadn't been the voice of the people, B of A wouldn't have been so scared. The Occupy Movement is allowing people to let their voices be heard.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

OWS is merely jumping on the bandwagon. If you think OWS had anything to do with BoA's decision to ditch the fee you really need to say no to the drugs.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 13 years ago

Voice of the people? There is no clear voice, just shouting and rambling.

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 13 years ago

YES!!! And, the St. Louis Cardinals send a big "thank you" for their victory as well. Perhaps, if you keep this up, I may win the Lotto...

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 13 years ago

Lmfao!

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 13 years ago

YES!!! And, the St. Louis Cardinals send a big "thank you" for their victory as well. Perhaps, if you keep this up, I may win the Lotto...

[-] 1 points by HappyLove (143) 13 years ago

First step.

Let's rock on people!

[-] 1 points by jay1975 (428) 13 years ago

Actually, this was the success of one person who actually got our and did something other than sitting in a park with a sign. But hey, let's give the credit to OWS who has done nothing to date other than get arrested and yell at people.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-31/wall_street/30341269_1_debit-bank-of-america-customers-petition

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 13 years ago

Not to be an anarchist but when their doors are boarded up I'll consider it a victory.

[-] 0 points by l31sh0p (279) from Sand Fork, WV 13 years ago

Nope, that's pretty anarchist-y.

[-] 1 points by littrellb (199) from Hillsboro, OR 13 years ago

Is that even a word. Haha. No I don't think its anarchy, its capitalism. The bank should be closed already. They should have gone bankrupt in the crash. But instead they were bailed out. That anarchy. If this was really a capitalist society they would be gone.

[-] 0 points by l31sh0p (279) from Sand Fork, WV 13 years ago

I agree with you that the bailouts were a bad idea.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 13 years ago

Yes this is what we can accomplish when we focus down on one small corporate policy!!! This is why we are focused on corporations rather than changing Washington immediately. CEOs of companies can change policy overnight. Politics can take years to change. Lets keep the focus on the banks who got us into this mess. GOOD WORK EVERYONE!!! If we keep the politics out and vote with our dollars (or removal of dollars) we will win every issue almost overnight like we did with the bank fees.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

I've got a manager like you who likes to take credit for other peoples work.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

OWS had nothing to do with the eliminating debit card fees. The customers of Bank of America did. They began cancelling their accounts.The bank finally realized they had a duh moment.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 13 years ago

Customers revolted because they were tired of the bank's culture of entitlement, they were tired of every cost being shifted to the middle class so that the top 1% could enjoy unrealistic profits. It may not have been the direct result of OWS, but it is linked to the populace anger that gives OWS its broad support.

[-] 0 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

I think perhaps it has more to do with the fact that their competition ie other banks,didn't/don't want the same $5.00 fee so they don't have it. But trust me....it will just be some place else.

I don't like HSBC. I used to have accounts there. Then they started charging fees just to walk in the door. I closed my accounts. Now when I get a check from an account holder at HSBC it costs ME $3.00 to cash the check at their bank because I don't have an account. If the check is over $100 I get charged $5.00.

Can't win

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 13 years ago

Then bend-over for the banks if that's your attitude. I'm an American and I'll fight for change. We-the-People won one and you don't want to admit it. That's pretty sad. What are you, a paid shill?

[-] 0 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

Well if you are delusional enough to believe that OWS made this happen then that's your choice. I live in the real world. Banks are not scared by any of you.

Also you didn't read what I said about HSBC. I'll give you my shill money for you to go back to school. Now that's being generous isn't it?

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 13 years ago

No. That's being pompous and indifferent. And you are an obvious shill.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

I am????? Prove it. I'd love to know how I did that

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

LOL evidently someone is scared enough to come to this website and argue and insult OWS all day long

If OWS was so insignificant you and the others like you wouldn't even be paying attention.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

Me scared? LMAO

I am really trying to get through the selfishness that is within OWS and see exactly what you all want. Apparently you want the rich to share money with all of you while you don't have to work...to get free food and blankets. I see no drive to make life different which should be the goal.....Not childish spoiled attitudes.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

Again. If something is insignificant, you wouldn't be paying attention.

You don't know me. I'm not camping in the park, I donated toward the food and blankets. I'll assume when you said "you" what you meant was the "you" that is OWS.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

Yes "you" meaning OWS

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

Actually beast it's kind of funny to read the stuff you folks write. I have had some good discussions here but way more bad.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

So you come because it's funny.

I guess I can't relate because I never go to Fox Nation except to read an occasional story & I stay out of the comment area because ultimately it gives me a headache. There are probably some comments I'd find "funny" but I find that going there for amusement would not be a good use of my time.

To each his own.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

i dont think they would have paid any attention to the customers if this hadnot been going on. there is amazing power in propaganda

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

You only wish that were true. Besides this was long before your sit-in even started that they said they were going to do this. Sorry. Maybe next time.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

that was well fargo not bank of america

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 13 years ago

No.......Bank of America made the decision in July. They announced it Sept 29, 2011.

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 13 years ago

But you always had the choice to just change banks; people have been doing this for years. The system the loons rail against provides countless banking choices. People must really really love banking at B of A to go to this much trouble to get them to drop a debit fee.

Makes me wonder what sort of paralysis would ensue if they changed how they made Mini Wheats.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

it wasnt just one bank you crazy thing it was all or most. you couldnt just change banks if every bank in town was doing the same thing. they wouldve started advertising.. 'we only charge 5%,, we only charge 3% and on and on, and no bank ever did this before. never before this year.

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 13 years ago

That's simply not true. Plenty of competition exists, online and in physical banks. Bank of A should be impressed at how desperately many customers want to stay with them. Many times in business, with less loud mouthed and better informed customers, people just leave without saying much.

You should know too that debit cards are a service and it's unreasonable to expect services to be free. And debit cards haven't been free. They've been getting paid by merchants (you) via swipe fees at usage. Government forced that lower so the banks were just looking to charge in a different way. You should occupy Dick Durbin.

Look for banks to gradually restore their ability to get paid for what they're providing. Minimum balances will creep in once the banks have better use for deposits, for example.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

besides, they make enough money to pay people 15 million a year. and they dont have enough money to stay in business unless they can charge you 5 bucks? cant you see whats wrong with that picture?

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

and that is exactly the mind set that has to change. why do you just go along with this and think it is OK? seriously, a charge for what? the electricity it takes to swipe a card? please wake up

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 13 years ago

Sure, you want things for free. It's the Facebook generation. You want to use things, but then expect to not pay for them. Facebook gets paid though, you know. They get paid by collecting data on you. Banks got paid on debit cards by swipe fees. Dick Durbin cut that revenue source by about 3/4. So, banks wanted to charge a fee. If the govt stopped Facebook from charging for its data, it would charge outright for the service too.

It isn't a matter of them staying in business. They provide a valuable service. They know that, you know that. They're looking to get paid for it, you're looking for a way to avoid paying for it. There's nothing wrong with either side per se; that's the free market that OWSers hate. You have a lot of choices in our horrible system. LOL

[-] 1 points by juco (77) 13 years ago

People don't realize that they are paying for infrastructure. And if they don't want to use it, they shouldn't - their choice.

It doesn't mean that banks are good. But many people today would never think of not paying their mobile, Internet, or cable bills (well, actually some would, but...).

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 13 years ago

Agreed. It's the "freeware" mentality. That's right too, it doesn't mean that banks are good. But they've provided a service and people can take it or leave it. If they take it, it'll cost something. Evidence is that people love the service. The OWSers just can't bring themselves to pay for it (or to stop using their cards).

[-] 1 points by juco (77) 13 years ago

The lack of understanding of how banks make money on the retail/consumer side is so rampant here. Banks make the biggest profits on 1) people wiith major deposit balances, who CHOOSE to keep money there (which OWS people don not have), and 2) irresponsible money managers (e.g., overdraft fees) - which is a personal choice/issue. It's just so funny that people join a movement that they don't even understand - and then scream and post about it.

[-] 1 points by cskarlupka (13) from Annapolis, MD 13 years ago

The points being made are that consumers are witnessing Banks changing policy based upon a consolidation of the consumers voice. Debit card fees. Maintenance fees. Minimum balance fees. Online transfer fees.

Consumers acting jointly can function as a lobby group. We are the silent money base for the banking industry. Using your voice and actions can effect change.

[-] 1 points by juco (77) 13 years ago

I have followed the banking industry for a long time. Of course banks have to change to keep revenue pouring in. Of course the consumer voice can lead to change. My point is 1) OWS had completely NOTHING to do with recent BofA changes, this stuff has been in market tests for almost a year (all due to the pending Durbin Amnedment which was finally passed in August), and 2) so many OWS posts about "how to get back at the banks, man" are so ill-informed. That's all.

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 13 years ago

All true. Someone should've gotten to these protesters earlier. After a month of protests, I wouldn't have the heart to tell them that they've always had the right to simply change banks. I swear they're almost like autistics and someone changed how the cup sits on the table.

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 13 years ago

No, it is not OWS that had anything to do with it. It was the consumer pulling out of the banks and going to credit unions. Next you will be taking credit for the sun rise.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 13 years ago

I would say Molly Katchpole had more to do with it. And she didn't sit out in the park or anything. http://www.businessinsider.com/molly-katchpole-petition-leads-ordinary-mans-fight-against-bank-of-america-debit-fees-2011-10

[-] 0 points by getajoblosers (65) 13 years ago

I think it is funny that there was such a huge outcry toward BOA about a small fee, when our federal government is taxing and spending us all into oblivion and neither the mainstream press nor OWS seems to care.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

you are not paying attention. part of the point is that corporations do not pay their taxes, dividends income is tax free. the credit card fee is just another tactic that OWS blocked.

[-] 0 points by getajoblosers (65) 13 years ago

Corporations simply are doing what the law and the feds allow them to do. I do the same thing on my personal income taxes (take whatever credits and deductions will allow me to get the maximum return). I personally am glad that corporations do not have to pay alot of taxes. I would like to see the overall tax burden reduced greatly in this country on those who actually pay them and keep the tax burden low on those who do not. The federal government is too big and it spends too much.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 13 years ago

Where is your proof that its working? Please provide a link to support your view that its working. Do not quote the press as they are being manipulated by the powers that be. Sorry i had to do that because the OWS folks have done it to anyone that makes a point they cannot agree with. I feel better

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 13 years ago

How did they find the time to do this between the rapin'?

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 13 years ago

Thanks for that link! ~heeheee~

[-] 0 points by UPonLocal (309) 13 years ago

I think they planned to give up the $5 when they first announced they would charge it....

a way to keep the rabble appeased!

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

omg.. that is soo true. ha more propaganda.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 13 years ago

well sure, look at the timing..the 5 was announced after OWS started.....

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

It was planned long before.

[-] 0 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 13 years ago

Apparently MAX KEISER from the -KeiserReport- Thinks so too!

occupy movement wins major victory!

Bank Of America Drops $5 Debit Card Fee

http://maxkeiser.com/2011/11/01/occupy-movement-wins-major-victory/

[-] 1 points by Tryagain (300) 13 years ago

Sorry to deflate your "major victory" there Max, but you could've just changed banks. You're proud of kicking a door down that was unlocked.

[-] 0 points by gr57 (457) 13 years ago

OWS had nothing to do with that. You idiots have been camping out in a park, using debit cards. That was al everyone ellses actions

[-] 0 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 13 years ago

yeah, a small victory, but we still gotta fix washington. if we settle for a payout, we are nearly as bad as the congressmen who are being bribed. gotta fix the root of the problem.

[-] 1 points by gestopomilly (497) 13 years ago

you can only get to the root by grinding down from the top so this is great.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 13 years ago

Settle for a payout? OWS protesters are wondering how they should settle their urine disposal issues. They are no where near getting offered a payout.