Debates
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderAll those people that think this is a good idea can start cashing cheques for poor folk.
And given the Postal Service's well known financial woes due to less "snail mail" it would also be a way for the UPS to generate a modest amount of extra revenue (at rates far less then what payday lenders and check cashing services are presently extorting from mostly lower income individuals).
A win-win.
You could do it for free No1, or for a fee that easily undercuts the extortionate rates of the commercial services.
Helping the poor folk out, a practical stand for your principals and making a couple of bucks on the side.
win-win
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderLike I said before, if it's revenue neutral, I have no problem with it. Heck, if it's revenue neutral or positive, let post offices open bakeries for all I care. If post offices are going to undersell private check-cashing services by enough to make the project worthwhile, it's hard to see how they're going to avoid needing subsidies.
A) Not everyone has internet access;
B) where's the "subsidization" part again? The proposal is merely to allow the Post Office to do various types of banking.
EDIT: As of late 2012, 20% of American households did not have internet access and only 57% of households with income under $15,000 did.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/internet-access-american-households_n_2049123.html
Public libraries typically have free internet usage for their patrons.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackBanks still mail out paper statements? I switched to e-statements a long time ago. Anyway, the bank can stipulate that this type of new checking account comes only with e-statements.
I don't agree. Banks simply make no money on accounts with little or no balance. It's the same $6 a year postage to mail out statements for large and small accounts. You have to pay for tellers, rent, help desks, you have deposit slips etc. Adding a new set of customers with a marginal loss on each transaction simply isn't profitable --- unless of course someone else is forced to subsidize it.
The tellers, help desks, etc. are there anyway. The marginal cost of a new account is tiny and small though the balances may be, they're not completely insignificant.
So, you tell me: If banks make no money on no-fee accounts with no minimum balances, why do they offer them?
19 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76If they have the sophistication to use e-statements then they can get they can go to a bank and get a free account. This proposal seems pointless.
Banks still mail out paper statements? I switched to e-statements a long time ago. Anyway, the bank can stipulate that this type of new checking account comes only with e-statements.
The tellers, help desks, etc. are there anyway. The marginal cost of a new account is tiny and small though the balances may be, they're not completely insignificant.
So, you ...[text shortened]... me: If banks make no money on no-fee accounts with no minimum balances, why do they offer them?
I believe banks offer the accounts with no fee despite them not being profitable because the government wants them to. The government pays banks back in other ways like bailouts and protecting bad loans.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackDo you have any evidence that one thing has anything to do with the other or is it just your supposition?
If they have the sophistication to use e-statements then they can get they can go to a bank and get a free account. This proposal seems pointless.
I believe banks offer the accounts with no fee despite them not being profitable because the government wants them to. The government pays banks back in other ways like bailouts and protecting bad loans.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Jan 16
It doesn't look like the subject of robbery has come up. I live near a Western Union where check cashing is done. So they have a lot of cash, especially when government checks arrive. There is thick bullet proof glass between the customer and the cashier, with a tray to slide things through. This is typical of check-cashing stores. One article I found mentioned that the manager carries a gun.
This could be a concern in a typical US post office.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by sh76I give up; I guess no matter how many facts I bring to bear you cannot wrap your head around the idea that the poor just don't have the same access to things that are easily available to those living an upper-middle class lifestyle.
Like I said before, if it's revenue neutral, I have no problem with it. Heck, if it's revenue neutral or positive, let post offices open bakeries for all I care. If post offices are going to undersell private check-cashing services by enough to make the project worthwhile, it's hard to see how they're going to avoid needing subsidies.
Public libraries typically have free internet usage for their patrons.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by sh76There are costs associated with servicing accounts. Tellers don't work for free, nor is rent free nor are ancillary services like the fraud team that is needed on every account.
Do you have any evidence that one thing has anything to do with the other or is it just your supposition?
How exactly does the bank cover costs if there is no balance?
Originally posted by sh76The USPS Inspector General estimates the proposal would bring in $8.9 billion in annual profits:
Like I said before, if it's revenue neutral, I have no problem with it. Heck, if it's revenue neutral or positive, let post offices open bakeries for all I care. If post offices are going to undersell private check-cashing services by enough to make the project worthwhile, it's hard to see how they're going to avoid needing subsidies.
Public libraries typically have free internet usage for their patrons.
The Inspector General, who conducted the study with the help of a team of experts in international postal banking as well as a former executive from Merrill Lynch, correctly frames the proposal not as a challenge to mega-banks, but as a way to deliver needed amenities to the nearly 68 million Americans—over one-quarter of U.S. households—who have limited or no access to financial services. Instead of banks, these mostly low-income individuals use check-cashing stores, pawnshops, payday lenders, and other unscrupulous financial services providers who gouged their customers to the tune of $89 billion in interest and fees in 2012, according to the IG report. Post offices could deliver the same services at a 90 percent discount, saving the average underserved household over $2,000 a year and still providing the USPS with $8.9 billion in new annual profits, significantly improving its troubled balance sheet. The report calls simple financial services “the single best new opportunity for the posts to earn additional revenue.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/116374/postal-service-banking-how-usps-can-save-itself-and-help-poor
EDIT: We'll get the Inspector General working on your bakeries idea.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by FishHead11138% of Post Offices are in Zip Codes with no banks
It's just a stupid idea, the cost would be astronomical to convert all our post offices and add banking facilities and new personnel , and it's not necessary anyway, we have banks all over. People that don't use banks aren't going to use a bank in a post office either.
It's just a step backwards.
21% of Post Offices are in Zip Codes with only 1 bank
https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/rarc-wp-14-007_0.pdf
Figure 4, Page 6
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by JS357Yeah, liberals have a tendency to panic when they see a gun. 😏
It doesn't look like the subject of robbery has come up. I live near a Western Union where check cashing is done. So they have a lot of cash, especially when government checks arrive. There is thick bullet proof glass between the customer and the cashier, with a tray to slide things through. This is typical of check-cashing stores. One article I found mentioned that the manager carries a gun.
This could be a concern in a typical US post office.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by JS357All the more reason my idea of individuals like No1 cashing cheques for a few poor folk each. There would be no large stash.it would be spread among many.
It doesn't look like the subject of robbery has come up. I live near a Western Union where check cashing is done. So they have a lot of cash, especially when government checks arrive. There is thick bullet proof glass between the customer and the cashier, with a tray to slide things through. This is typical of check-cashing stores. One article I found mentioned that the manager carries a gun.
This could be a concern in a typical US post office.
The same goes for location, if it's such a great idea people like No1 who are keen to take on this role are more numerous than post offices, offering an even greater spread.
20 Jan 16
Originally posted by WajomaUnlike the Postal Service, I lack the resources to meaningfully assist the significant portion of the public that needs access to these services. Since they do have those resources and could apparently make a sizable profit on it according to their own Inspector General, I fail to see why they should be prevented from doing some by "goobermint" regulations.
All those people that think this is a good idea can start cashing cheques for poor folk.
You could do it for free No1, or for a fee that easily undercuts the extortionate rates of the commercial services.
Helping the poor folk out, a practical stand for your principals and making a couple of bucks on the side.
win-win