Tuesday, March 6, 2007

"Get your money for nothing, get your chicks for free"

What would Londoners like higher fees on instead?

London Free Press poll:  Should the government force banks to cut their ATM fees?

Or fewer services, perhaps? To borrow from Jay Jardine in the comments, business is not in the business of bearing "increased compliance costs out of the goodness of their hearts" …without either passing off the costs to consumers in other ways or reducing expenses.

1 Comment:

Jake said...

This just highlights how lazy people are and refuse to solve a problem that is totally within their control. Why should banks subsidize for your sloth in the name of convenience?

The fees are a penalty for non-account holding customers for not using their own bank. Basically, it's a fee for being a lazy ass.

If people are so fed up with fees, then they should use a virtual bank like PC Financial. It allows people to use the ATMs at both Loblaws and CIBC anywhere for free. Not to mention that stores like Wal-Mart have a free cash back option when you purchase items on debit.

To see than drugged up loser on A-Channel last night bitch about the fees at White Oaks is the case and point. Maybe if he took his methadone, he would realize that he could avoid them by walking to any of the big five bank branches within a two block radius of the mall.