Why I hate banks !!!!

[TrevorW]

The introduction of ATM machines was a means to reduce bank overheads by cutting the number of branches needed to support their customers.

Thus the cost of maintaining and providing these machines was more than offset by the reduction in bank branches and staff

The $384 million that banks already receive annually from customers fees some by the way illegally is now compounded by the additional $1.00-2.00 charge for ATM usage.

Now working on say 10 million bank customers in Oz only 1/2 million may access a ATM daily thats $1million a day in additional fees.

Just another bank rip-off

:mad2:

[FredSnerd]

Couldnt agree with you more Trevor. The thing is what are the bull**** Government regulators doing about it where there is illegal taking of customers $$$$. You gots to hate Governments too is what I'm saying

All the best

regards

Claude

[toryglen-boy]

i find it bizzarre that i get charged for having a bank account !!!

its the only place in the world i have seen it happen.


:mad2:

[pgc hunter]

The pinnacle of vomit is how phone, water, gas etc companies charge you $1-2 just so you can pay their bloody bills at the post office :mad2: They slug you not only if you're overdue, but for PAYING the bloody thing on time :mad2:

That is just sick and demented. To the hell with the lot of 'em :mad2:

[GrahamL]

I don't think they have changed much over the years , 20 years back
I got sold some loan insurance , I didn't claim against it , but did chance a read of the fineprint when I was cleaning out some old papers
It wasn't even valid in the state it was sold to me in :whistle:

[PCH]

Some of the utility companies are charging a $ or more now if you want a paper bill/invoice. Booo !:mad2:

[Baron von Richthofen]

Free enterprise is another way of saying( where going to rip you off ) since the government relinquished control of electricity gas petrol phone banks
We have been ripped of royally

[erick]

Open a Credit Union account. Do all your banking online, pay by EFTPOS and credit card (really cheap, no frills, low interest rate Mastercard) and get cash through EFTPOS cash out and you're laughing! If I am stuck and have to use a foreign ATM, the Credit Union refunds any fee I have to pay. In fact it rebates the cost of up to 15 EFTPOS transactions, equating to $6 and a further rebate of up to $5 for ATM transactions per month. How about that!

I only use my bank for mortgage(s). And remember, the interest rate pressure on the banks from the Rams and Aussies crowds has kept mortgage interest rates lower then they used to be. The banks have set about making up the difference through fees, (including fees on mortgage accounts!) But if you have a reasonable mortgage, the lower interest rates more than counters the fees, especially if you use strategies to avoid paying fees as above.

No I don't work for a bank or a credit union. :)

[Allan_L]

Banks! Now there is a safe topic :D.

when I was a boy, banks were like courts. Only open between 10am and 3pm Mon-Fri. But they all at least paid you for the right to hold your money. It was only 3%, but it was income, not a fee.

Because it required an incentive to get people to put their money into the Bank. and that is how it should be!

But, ever since legislation made it legal to pay employees by direct bank deposits, Banks have gotten cheekier and more arrogant, conceited, self-important, pompous, pretentious, supercilious - and that is just their good points! :P.

Now its like they have a monopoly on your money. They get paid your wages, and they charge you if you try to get it out, and they charge you to pay bills with it, and they charge you if you just leave it there!

I reckon we should all insist on being paid in cash - you remember, the real, folding stuff! Then see what effect that has on "Bank Fees".

Just my 2c worth!
...but don't get me started...
I HATE Banks Too !!! :evil2::mad2::mad2::mad2:

[AstralTraveller]

Well the banks own the government don't they?? The voters certainly don't.

[JimmyH155]

One of my pet hates is the audacity of Optus and the like to charge me $2 for a paper bill. They want me to pay by direct debit:mad2:
Have you ever tried cancelling a direct debit??? I tried once, the bank said it was nothing to do with them "Go and talk to the provider" they say. (in this case it was McAffee in USA - how do I do that????):mad2::mad2::mad2:

[gman]

Another reason that all bank transactions should be tax deductible to the average punter.
These charges a re directley a cost of getting your wages.

I agree, bring back the folding or gold - a negative is the amount of armed robberies will go back up.

[astronut]

"Why I hate banks !!!"

Do you need a reason?:lol::lol::lol:

[Benno85]

I have been trying for 5 weeks to borrow a little bit extra on my mortgage to payout a credit card. As an existing mortgage customer I would have thought this to be a simple one-phone call task. NOOOOOOOOOOO. Multiple faxes and letters and STILL NO CLOSER!!

I love how they stuff us around like this, yet within 0.000001 seconds of overdrawing an account they'll smack you with that ridiculous "dishonour" fee.

:mad2:

[Outbackmanyep]

I remember one of those sayings "Banks will lend you an umbrella when it sunny but want it back as soon as it starts raining..."
My father always said that to get any money from a bank first you have to prove that you don't need it!
Its funny that with all that said, the bloody NAB send us approved credit card limits without us even asking for it! We usually shred the letters.......

[mac]

Australian banks really are greedy, aren't they? Since nearly every bank in New Zealand is Australian-owned, we get hit by all these horrific fees too. At least the public have managed to bully the Bank of New Zealand (owned by National Australia Bank) into aborting their $25 instant overdraft fee - which had stung me a couple of times when I went a mere few cents over.

For the last few months and counting, my wife and I have been on a strictly cash-only budget. We get our money out at the beginning of the week, and that's all we spend. It's working really well.

[Barrykgerdes]

I agree that banks are too greedy but they are in business to make money (out of money). I don't have any bother with my bank. I keep a credit balance and have no fees.

The secret for borrowing money is never borrow unless you don't need it ie, is only borrow if you can make money out of what you borrow.

With credit cards never use a credit card to buy an item you cannot cover with your own cash and pay the total balance before the end of the interest free period.

Barry

[marki]

When I was a little boy I used a word that rhymed with bankers. My mother washed my mouth out with soap:P. Sez it all really.

Mark

[dpastern]

I do not believe that they can legally do this, and in fact it's over at the ACCC now. It discriminates against those that do not have credit cards or Internet access, or those that are simply older and prefer to do everything in cash (like my parents).

Banks in this country need a great bloody well kick up the ***. All our pollies are spineless, greedy *******s that don't deserve to serve this country.

Dave

[dpastern]

As an aside, there is no legal reason for employers to pay you via direct deposit. It is NOT compulsory. You have every legal right to ask your employer to pay you in cash, as you do not have a bank account, etc. If an employer fails to oblige, they are discriminating against you. If enough people actually stood up to employers (another group I hate), then things would improve in this country.

Dave

[FredSnerd]

If I said I'm on this earth to survive and bring up my family and feed, cloth, shelter and educate them and so from now on I will routinely rip off everyone I do buisiness with to achieve my goals, you'd say hey thats not right what if we all behaved that way. But when the Banks routinely rip us off you say well after all "they're in business to make money".

For **** sake, you see posts like this and you realise we dont have a chance because of that other half thats like a ball and chain around our necks.

Ohh and thanks for disclosing your secrets for borrowing money. Who would have thought it was so simple.

[taxman]

Actually, that is not the case. Under both Federal and State industrial systems, there is a clause in each of the respective Acts that enable an employer to pay their employees either in cash or via EFT at the employer's discretion.

As far as "Discrimination", it is a vastly overused term. The only circumstances under which a person is legally deemed to have been discriminated against are set and listed (race, religion, age, sexual preference, political views etc) in the Anti-Discrimination Act.

It always gets thrown about when people don't like the way they are treated, but it is not necessarily (legally) discrimination unless it is based on one of the categories listed in the Act.

[dpastern]

Ah yes. Let's just say that legislation isn't law until it's actually been tested in a court of law. Much legislation falls down in a court of law. Of course, with governments siding on the face of business, at the expense of the average worker, things are stacked against us. What about employee rights on the method of payment? So employers have rights, but employees don't? Certainly doesn't sound fair to me. But maybe you have a different viewpiont of fairness.

As to discrimination, might I refer you not to the legal sense of the word, but to the meaning of the word itself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Most laws do not use common sense, they rely on some idiotic logic that is completely abnormal imho. Discrimination is discrimination, whether or not it's specifically listed in a piece of legislation. Hence my usage of the word discrimination in my original post.

I think very little of our modern governments, and most of our modern laws are utter rubbish. A time will come with civil disobedience from the masses will bring down the current regimes. I look forward to that time with glee.

Dave

[taxman]

It seems you took my reply as an attack. It wasn't.



Actually, legislation is by definition law. An Act of Parliament binds all constituents. And the method of payment (at least it was federally, but I'd be surprised if a state case woul proceed with a federal precedent) was tested back in the 80s.



Actually this hardly ever happens. Of course, yesterday it did (military court et al), but it is pretty rare.



I didn't express an opinion either way. I was just pointing out that any employee in Australia relying on your assertion would not win.



Of course I know what discrimination is. But thanks.



And we all do it on a daily basis. Today I discriminated on a ham sandwich to choose the chicken instead. An employer that finds it easier to do a bank transfer instead of paying cash is not doing any *real* harm, but more likely is minimising the inherent risk of carrying around large sums of money. You might even say the employer is looking to the safety of their payroll employees...

[dpastern]

I actually didn't take your previous post as an attack, I simply have a very strong viewpoint on this subject.

Why should an employers rights trump an employees?

And legislation does not become effective law until it's won in a court of law. Until then, it's untested. The citizens of the country have the right to contest a law. It's called democracy, although democracy in Australia, as well as most western countries is a joke.

As to discrimination, you implied that unless it's specific discrimination covered in the actual discrimination act, it isn't discrimination. I call that selective discrimination, and the discrimination act itself, an utter joke.

As to an Australian relying on my assertion not winning, what would happen if an employee took an employer to court over this and won the case? You'd never know unless the employee actually stood up for themselves.

I personally hate banks, and I hate politicians. Both are bad and need to be placed in a big heshian back, swung around and hit with a bloody well big stick for an awful long time.

Dave

[FredSnerd]

hey Dave

Like where you're comming from man. Keep the faith

Regards

[FredSnerd]

Actually, legislation is by definition law. An Act of Parliament binds all constituents. And the method of payment (at least it was federally, but I'd be surprised if a state case woul proceed with a federal precedent) was tested back in the 80s.

Hey Taxman. First, Can I ask how you reproduced just segments of the post you replied to. I tried to but i think it hasnt worked so i put your stuff in blue

Second I agree that legislation is by definition law but this still does not tell us what the law is. Often, its not until a Court of law examines the legislation and applies (or tries to apply) it in a real case that the legislation starts getting some meaning.

Actually this hardly ever happens. Of course, yesterday it did (military court et al), but it is pretty rare.

Actually, its very often the case that Courts will not apply legislation on the ground that it does'nt work or otherwise apply it more narrowly and more widely then was intended. Parlt is forever complaining that the courts are deliberately subverting it because the courts refuse to apply or creatively apply their legislation.

Personally I agree with Dave. The less attention we pay to what politicians have to say the better.

One thing has become clear to me over the last 10 years. Politicians do not represent us, They represent an elite. Their democracy is a scam.

[Barrykgerdes]

The courts are only expected to apply the laws the pollies make without looking at the consequences



You need to pay attention or you could be in trouble



How true
However don't pay too much attention to what I said. It is an experiment to try split quotes.
Each section of a quote must start with a "QUOTE= xxxxxxxx " and finish with a "/QUOTE" encased in "[" and "]"
Barry

[MrB]

As Barry said, like this;



;)

[dpastern]

Politicians the world over only serve the elite. Look at the special treatment that the RIAA and MPAA get!

Dave

[PCH]

There's a good reason for that David... the minute they stop looking after the elite, they're out of a job. Can you imagine any polly EVER slagging off the likes of Rupert Murdoch for example. That pollies name would be be mud in the worlds' (is that apostrophe in the right place? ;)) press the following morning.

Hey, "if you can't beat 'em, - join 'em". :thumbsup:

[FredSnerd]

Thanks Barry/Simon, I think I get a hang of it now

[JimmyH155]

I heard a ripper of a story some years ago about an enterprising firm in UK, who, in order to save themselves and their employees money, decided to pay them in cash. Well, actually SOVERIEGNS. A soveriegn of course has a face value of one pound, so assume the gold value of the gold in a soveriegn was worth 500 quid, then the worker earning 500 quid actually got paid 1 quid in the form of a soveriegn. Too low to pay tax:D:D. He then trots down to the jeweller or coin shop and sells his soveriegn for 500 quid.
The scheme did not last long though - the rip off tax man soon plugged that loophole:mad2::mad2:
If only...............................