![Stealing from the Poor. They have no shame. [1024x900 - 92KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/9lIwDv.jpg){kind=link}
What exactly is the bank supposed to do? People are spending money they don’t have. It’s pretty sad that we have so many people who are hooked on consumption/consumerism that they run their account so low.
As for for the banks, legitimately, would the better alternative be that they simply have the purchases declined? Give a bit more leeway before the charges hit?
At the end of the day it’s people not managing their own shit.
They can not layer transactions so they maximize fees. If you have $800 and write a check for $750, buy groceries for $60, and a sandwich for $6 they will order the transactions to collect two overdraft fees instead of just one. A simple example but when you get more complex you are talking many more fees.
Our entire society is based on spending beyond our means - even though we are the richest country to ever exist. It's called usury/credit/debt.
When the banks spend beyond their means, the government bails them out and gives them a break. It's a farce.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. My question, though, is whether or not the fees for people spending money they don’t have is worse than simply declining the transactions. I’d say just decline, but from the banks’ perspective, that would be considered racist or some nonsense.
The banks can decline the transaction. If these people don't spend money they don't have, they're less likely to end up as debt slaves.
Refuse the transaction. And don't deliberately re-order transactions during processing to cause "overdrafts" that wouldn't have happened if the transactions were processed in chronological order. (((Bankers))) engage in all kinds of schiestery behavior and don't deserve the benefit of the doubt you're giving here.
(post is archived)