Great Post Steve. Your summation was bang on. The investigation into whether or not there is collusion is fine by me. Will be interested to see the result.

Posted by: northbaytrapper at January 26, 2007 03:24 PM

---

That's pretty much the same post I made, point for point, a few hours ago.

Posted by: Matt at January 26, 2007 03:53 PM

---

Doesn't PC banking offer no service fees? Maybe Jackk should check out a Loblaws and sign up for a new bank account if he doesn't like service fees.

Posted by: Jonny_eh at January 26, 2007 04:02 PM

---

Quite right Matt. Linked you in. When I saw that "savings" of $420 million, I knew it couldn't amount to a hill of beans for Canadians, especially the way Layton wants to get the job done -- via regulation. On the other hand, if you do it via competition, then the effect can be quite significant.

Posted by: Steve Janke at January 26, 2007 04:06 PM

---

Steve

I got this link yesterday at SDA. The first post tries mightily to explain the problem with the numerically challenged left:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001692

Posted by: Rob R at January 26, 2007 04:21 PM

---

Thank you Steve. Great minds think alike :)

Posted by: Matt at January 26, 2007 04:48 PM

---

Grandstanding Jack and his petty drivel kept getting him elected in Toronto for some reason - even though he never actually did anything in Toronto in all his years as a politician. Nothing.

Posted by: Philanthropist at January 26, 2007 05:23 PM

---

PC no fees banking. Free withdrawals at an Lowblaws or CIBC location. Canadian Tire is looking at starting up the same thing.

BTW, the one dollar withdrawal fee that you get when withdrawing from something other than your own branch is split 50/50 between the bank and Interact.

Oh, and _never_ use those white auto-tellers that you find in malls, etc. They charge way more than banks.

Posted by: jgriffin at January 26, 2007 07:17 PM

---

Good post.

I do agree - gasp! - with Layton on this one though. The banks saved a bundle when they brought in ATMs (I worked with the group that did the first, Instant Teller, at CIBC in the early 80s) by laying off lots of tellers.

The machines pay for themselves lickety split so it's all cream.

$420 million is diddley when you average it out among Canadians but if you divide by 5, you get $84 million per bank, averaged.

That ain't hay for doing nothing and I feel it is a gouge.

Then you have those funny little machines that charge $2 or more such as Wells Fargo, etc at the airport.

I'm a free enterprise fanatic but I wouldn't shed a tear for the banks if they lost this revenue - they are making record profits.

Posted by: Selma at January 26, 2007 08:58 PM

---

Banking is one of the most highly regulated sectors in Canada, which is why you so often find sky-high fees and crappy service. Adding more regulation only makes it harder for new, better, leaner competitors to enter the business, and therefore makes it easier for the "bigs" to stick it to the customers who are forced to deal with their cozy little cartel.

The same applies to your healthcare, education and transportation systems. They're all "too important" to allow you stupid, non-governmental slobs to figure out whose services you should patronize.

Posted by: at January 26, 2007 09:35 PM

---

Good point as usual, Steve. But I'm with Jack Layton and Selma on this. is it fair that Americans, British and Europeans never have to pay ATM fees when they withdraw cash from the ATM machines while Canadians pay ATM fees? Hell no.

I uses ATMs a lot, if I need to get cash. I don't bring a lot of cash in my wallet anymore, because I don't want to be a target for wallet thiefs or muggers. If your debit card and credit card get stolen, just call and get the cards cancelled and replaced. On the other hand, if you lost the cash, you still lost the cash.

Still, I'm curious to hear how the banks would justify their ATM fees.

Posted by: at January 26, 2007 10:02 PM

---

You couldn't just argue the merits and drawbacks of this ATM fee thing on its own, huh? Had to go and conflate it with the daycare issue. Fine. Leaving aside the pros and cons of subsidized daycare, which we can debate about ad nauseum, let's revisit your math.

A colleague of mine recently moved to Toronto from Montreal. In Montreal, daycare was $7/day, about $160/month (about 23 work days/month). In Toronto, daycare is about $600/month.

Under the Tories' plan, my friend now pays $500/month, saving $100. Not bad.

Under the NDP's proposed plan (subsidized daycare, similar to Quebec's plan, let's say $10/day), my friend would be paying $230/month, saving $270 relative to what she's paying now. Including this bank fee thing, the NDP's programs would have saved my friend $271.25 per. Better.

For the record, I agree - gasp! - that linking the elimination of ATM fees with helping out working families is, in itself, a rather thin claim, designed more as a quick PR soundbite than a social policy statement. But then politicians do what politicians do. The fee elimination proposal would have been better conceived as a symbolic gesture.

Posted by: A at January 26, 2007 10:33 PM

---

You conveniently forgot the tax your friend will pay associated with "free" or "subsidized" day care, as well as the general tax increases for all the other social expiraments the ndp would spew forth...

Where would the subsidized day care places be put? Oh, righto, the rural areas. Not likely.

Posted by: big d at January 27, 2007 04:29 PM

---

Wow, daycare is only $600 a month in Toronto? I paid $525 in 1981. I used to say it was twice as expensive as university tuition.

They said I could get subsidized but since I was working and made decent dough I turned that down.

You'd laugh if you knew what 'decent dough' was in those days!

Posted by: Selma at January 27, 2007 07:02 PM

---

You conveniently forgot the tax your friend will pay associated with "free" or "subsidized" day care...

No, I hadn't forgotten, though it's true I didn't include it. Given my friend's income level, I'm pretty sure any tax increases would be less than $171.25/month.

Where would the subsidized day care places be put? Oh, righto, the rural areas. Not likely.

Question: how/where are kids being cared for in rural areas these days?

Wow, daycare is only $600 a month in Toronto?

Only because hers is a not-for-profit outfit run out of a church basement by mostly volunteers. The average price in Toronto is closer to $1000-$1500/month, depending on the child's age.

Posted by: A at January 27, 2007 09:49 PM

---

This is definitely a case of good politics, bad policy.

Reminds me of the cut to the GST.

Posted by: at January 27, 2007 10:24 PM

---

This is definitely a case of good politics, bad policy.

Reminds me of the cut to the GST.

Posted by: Rob Edger at January 27, 2007 10:25 PM

---

$230 a month for daycare? That works out to roughly $11.50 a day for each child.

Some people spend that much on their fancy lattes in a day. Add lunch in and we're talking $20-30 spent on themselves.

Why should Canadians subsidize the daycare of people who can afford lattes, lunches, and (expensive) lingerie, who figure the care of their children is worth less than their own lifestyles--and who figure that other people should bring their kids up? ($1000 to $1500 a month sounds more reasonable, working out to a daily payment of between $50 and $75 a child. Aren't our kids worth that amount?)

I always laugh when I hear Hillary Clinton say "It takes a village to raise a child." What village would she be talking about? You need moms in the kitchens and doorways, who know the kids in the village, who watch out for the kids in the village, who feed them, clothe them, teach them, and protect them. But, that's not Hillary's job. She'll be somewhere else making the big bucks, expecting someone else to take care of Chelsea.

The entitlement and arrogance of this mindset makes my blood boil. Not to mention the graveyard of neglected kids.

I stayed home to care for my own children, on a very limited income, as my husband, with three university degrees (I have two) is in a helping profession. No one paid our way, I can tell you. The government punished us through an inequitable taxation system that gouged our one income, while giving tax breaks to two-income parents. We do, however, have a very solid relationship with our two kids, now in their 20s, something you can't put a price tag on.

The Jack Laytons and Olivia Chows of this world really irritate me. Their philosophy is to spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to cover the costs of parents who feel it's somehow beneath them to "do childcare" for their own kids.

Parents need their own money in their own bank accounts, so that they can make decisions about daycare that suit their particular family. There's no way the government should be over-taxing families and then making the always costly decisions about how the money's to be spent, because they are enlightened and know best (yup, that's our Jack and Olivia--the Olivia, as far as I know, who has no children, yet pretends to be a know-it-all on child care and nutrition).

I don't know about Jack and ATMs. I just know that nearly anything Jack thinks is a good idea is anathema to me...

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 27, 2007 10:52 PM

---

There are lots of alternatives to using ATMs. I've never used one in my life. The fact that folks keep using ATMs instead of the alternatives suggests to me that the fees aren't that big a deal.

If Jack bin Layton doesn't like ATM fees, he shouldn't use them.

Posted by: felis corpulentis at January 27, 2007 11:05 PM

---

Banking fees of this type can be avoided by the wise consumer. Other posters have mentioned "no frills" banking accounts that offer free ATM services provided you use their own machines.

Having said that, in some of these accounts (not all) you must maintain a balance of over $1,000.
Of course that $1000+ earns maybe 1/4 % interest so they shaft you there compared to slightly higher returns on regular chequing accounts.

But why should Jacko stop there? Why not get rid of those pesky user fees on credit cards.I don't have them on mine but I think they are common.Also, those rediculous 28% loan rates are probably crippling people to a much greater degree than the ATM fees.

Again if you are paying attantion you don't need to pay these fees.

There seems to be a cultural stereotype made here by Jacko. In his mind the poor are more likely to shop at conveniece stores for eg. and therefore pay more for items like milk and bread. This same group doesn't have $1000 to maintain in an account and it is the poor that are using those private ATMs that are the big gougers.

Jackos daycare plan is perplexing. If he wants to model the Quebec system then it is for the provinces to run the daycare. Why is he getting involved at all? Shouldn't those in Ontario who want universal daycare be rallying Dalton for this to happen?

Lets not forget that Redbook 1 made a promise to bring about a daycare plan and after 13 yrs no progress was made. Let Jack and others tell the poor that they are going to take away their $100/month and get them a real "daycare plan" in about 15 to 20 years, maybe.

Posted by: David at January 28, 2007 10:27 AM

---

It's ridiculous that anyone would complain so vehemently about ATM fees. It is a fee that can be controlled almost 100% by the consumer.

I use ATM's all the time. When I need cash, I go to the closest ATM. If it's one from my own bank, there is no charge to use it. If it's one belonging to another major bank, it 's going to cost me $1.50. If it's a third party machine, it will cost $2.00 or $2.50. IT IS MY CHOICE. I can pay the $2 and go about my business or spend $2 on gas to get to a machine that doesn't charge.

Also, if I decide to pay the $2 fee for the sake of convenience, it's still a flat rate. I can withdraw $20 every time I need it and pay 10% in user fees or I can withdraw $100 and only pay 2% for fees.

If I'm in a position where I have to worry about every penny I spend, I can use a bank, as mentioned above, that has no fees and use a little forethought to make sure I have money when I need it that hasn't cost me any user fees.

Posted by: Rob R at January 28, 2007 02:00 PM

---

As John Turley-Ewart pointed out in the National Post, the $420 million figure that is accepted at face value by reporters is trumped up.

From http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=e9c9d2ad-5e17-45e9-bc1f-e662c5c88c17

Take, for example, the "estimated $420-million" the NDP says Canadians pay to use banks' ATMs. The source for this figure is a 2006 Associated Press story about the U.S. ATM market -- one that relied on a Florida Web site that "surveys approximately 4,800 financial institutions in all 50 states." The site, Bankrate.com, does not provide research on Canadian financial services or ATMs; indeed, its only claim to expertise is tracking U.S. financial services. By its estimate, Americans pay approximately US$4.2-billion in ATM fees annually. The NDP arrived at their figure of $420-million for Canada by dividing the Bankrate-reported U.S. figure by 10.

According to an NDP press secretary, this statistical manipulation was justified because "Canadian and U.S. ATM fee schedules are similar." But this is untrue. Price Waterhouse Coopers demonstrated in a 2003 study that the average bank-owned-ATM fee in Canada was $0.58, whereas in the United States it was $1.35, more than twice the Canadian amount.

Posted by: pete at January 28, 2007 06:21 PM

---

Why should Canadians subsidize the daycare of people who can afford lattes, lunches, and (expensive) lingerie, who figure the care of their children is worth less than their own lifestyles--and who figure that other people should bring their kids up? ($1000 to $1500 a month sounds more reasonable, working out to a daily payment of between $50 and $75 a child. Aren't our kids worth that amount?)

It's not so much a question of whether one's kids are worth spending X amount of dollars, but rather whether one has X amount of dollars in the bank to spend. The idea of subsidized day care isn't to benefit the parents "who can afford lattes, lunches, and (expensive) lingerie, who figure the care of their children is worth less than their own lifestyles." As in Quebec, it's geared towards low- to middle-income parents, whether raising children on their own (and hence need outside day care so he/she can work) or with a spouse/partner (who would also be better off economically if both adults were working).

Subsidized day care helps these folks very much, even if it helps more affluent parents very little or not at all. A $100 monthly cheque in the mail helps (a smaller subset of) families who are doing OK but could use an extra $100 for child care costs. As the Government of Canada's official response to the issue of child care in the country, it's too little an amount to really help those at the lower end of the spectrum (especially since those increased day care slots promised in the last election have yet to materialize), and it's a pleasant but insignificant drop in the bucket for those on the upper end of the spectrum.

It also function as a de facto general tax cut (rather than a child care policy per se) for families with a stay-at-home caregiver, who clearly have already reached some arrangement whereby they can deliver care on their own. Which isn't to say that they don't deserve a break too, but if you're going to specifically design a "child care" policy, shouldn't it be such that it'll end up helping those parents who need the most help?

In any case, I really didn't want to wade back into this day care issue, which I'm sure will change nobody's mind here. I just wanted to note that Steve's logic behind mixing this ATM nonsense with the Child Care Benefit thing was rather bung.

Posted by: A at January 28, 2007 06:26 PM

---

I don't pay ATM fees either, since I deal with PC Financial and usually use a PC Financial or CIBC ATM at no charge. However, another good dodge, should you find yourself not able to find an ATM and need some cash is to buy some groceries or gas with your debit (ATM)card and ask the clerk to get some cash back. They are usually good for $40, enough to get you through until you can hit a real ATM. It used to crack me up, seeing people use the white label ATM's to withdraw cash, so they could pay for their drinks in a bar, when they could have just paid with the debit card function of the same card and gotten a $20 as well, saving themselves $3 in fees (which they would often throw my way as a tip when I filled them in on the "better way"!!!!)

Posted by: reido at January 28, 2007 09:51 PM

---

A: "As in Quebec, it's [child care subsidy] geared towards low- to middle-income parents": You don't mention those of us who were/are low- to middle-income who decide/d to stay home to care for our own children. (Many of us didn't/don't have X amount of dollars to spend, but we made/have made the choice anyway.) There are more of us than you think, for whom the $100 EACH child under six, EACH month, not just $100 a month, is far better than the Liberals' $0.00 for each child each month.

Then A says: "It [the CPC $100 a month for each child under six] also function[s] as a de facto general tax cut (rather than a child care policy per se) for families with a stay-at-home caregiver, who clearly have already reached some arrangement whereby they can deliver care on their own."

I'm interested in your statement "who clearly have already reached some arrangement...", etc. A, the "special arrangement" meant scrimping, sacrificing, doing without, and being treated as second-class citizens by the Liberals. I can tell you, many of us one-income families were those "who need[ed] the most help"--but we didn't get it, nor any breaks whatsover from the Liberals, nor from the great white hope of females, the SOW, nor from the political party that "really cares about 'the workers'," the NDP.

I think what Steve has been trying to do here is to suggest why should we even listen to what Jack and Olivia have to say on ATMs (big hairy deal that Jacko and his NDP are going to save each Canadian a buck a month) when they diss the CPC for giving each family $100 a month for each child under six. You do the math, A. Which party is giving more to "working class families"?--because there are a lot of these families who would rather have a parent stay home to care for their child(ren) than put him/her/them in daycare...

This post is about the hypocrisy of the NDP and their followers: save Canadians $1.00 a month and you're some kind of savior, whereas the CPC Party, which is giving families with children under six $100 each every month, in Jack and Olivia's convoluted thinking, is not doing enough.

Some kind of sidewinding thinking going on here, A.

A: What was the Liberals' "daycare policy" or the the NDP's? And please don't forget stay-at-home parents in the equation who, you yourself admit, "deserve a break too." The Liberals were in power for THIRTEEN YEARS, for G*d's sake, and as far as I can see, they didn't implement a coherent daycare policy to help any kind of family: either one-income or two-income--though two-income families got more tax breaks--and now they and the NDP are dissing the CPC.

What utter hypocrites.

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 28, 2007 10:56 PM

---

You don't mention those of us who were/are low- to middle-income who decide/d to stay home to care for our own children. (Many of us didn't/don't have X amount of dollars to spend, but we made/have made the choice anyway.) There are more of us than you think...

I agree there are many families like yours (low- to mid-income, stay-at-home parent), but there's not nearly as many of you as there are low-income single parents. As a rough estimate, go here and play with the drop down menu. You'll see that, if we define "low income" as $20,000, there are about 200,000 married and common-law families (with kids 18 and under) that qualify, compared to about 330,000 single parent households (at $30K, it's still 360K two-parent families vs. 485K single-parent families). So, the biggest single chunk of "low-income" families is still single parents, for whom a "national child care plan" that involves subsidized day care would be a huge help and for whom a "national child care plan" that involves $100/month back is of very little help.

Which party is giving more to "working class families"?--because there are a lot of these families who would rather have a parent stay home to care for their child(ren) than put him/her/them in daycare...

And how many of these working class families who, prior to the CCTB, required two incomes to survive can now afford to have a parent stay at home to care for the kids now that they get $100 per head per month? I'm willing to bet none.

As for these working class families who, prior to the CCTB, already had a parent stay at home to care for the kids, well, they're clearly already scraping by somehow (in terms of child care supervision, at least). Kudos to them; their sacrifices are heroic. As I said earlier, I absolutely support a break for these families (maybe in the form of a higher personal income cut-off for a zero-tax rate).

What was the Liberals' "daycare policy" or the the NDP's? And please don't forget stay-at-home parents in the equation who, you yourself admit, "deserve a break too." The Liberals were in power for THIRTEEN YEARS, for G*d's sake, and as far as I can see, they didn't implement a coherent daycare policy to help any kind of family: either one-income or two-income--though two-income families got more tax breaks--and now they and the NDP are dissing the CPC.

I agree the Liberals' plan (or lack thereof) did little to improve child care in Canada. I'm not defending them; I'm taking issue with the Tory plan, which also is going to do little to improve child care in Canada. Ironically, the NDP plan would have ensured subsidized care for those low income folks who needed it, AND given low-income stay-at-home parents their tax break too (since they're for lowering taxes on all low-income persons).

Posted by: A at January 29, 2007 10:48 AM

---

I agree that the ATM fee thing is mostly grandstanding by Layton, who is scraping the bottom of the barrel, public support-wise. But this comment caught my eye and reminded me of the bigger picture:

"with the lack of competition in the banking industry in Canada, no bank feels the need to eliminate the fees to attract customers, and so cause all the banks to follow suit..."

I think we should scrap the bank act tomorrow, period. Is there any ordinary consumer (who doesn't work for or heavily invest in stocks of banks) who is well-served by the total lack of competition in Canadian banking? The Canadian banking system's most effective role these days is transferring wealth from consumers and small businesses to bank executives and stockholders. In Canada, bank stockholders trump bank customers every time.

I'd open the whole system up tomorrow to any serious foreign bank that wanted to come in. I think most bank customers couldn't care less whose name is on the sign outside as long as they think they're being treated as a customer and not a sheep to be shorn.

Posted by: Larry at January 29, 2007 02:44 PM

---

"U.S. and British banks do not charge for these services."

thats a bullshit statement... I've lived and banked in all three countries, the fee structures are different and you get dinged in different places and in different ways.... but you get dinged all the same...

from my experinece the British banks tend to lump all the fees into a monthly sum and the US Banks just hide them better.

Posted by: Sierra at January 29, 2007 03:34 PM

---

"A" quote

"And how many of these working class families who, prior to the CCTB, required two incomes to survive can now afford to have a parent stay at home to care for the kids now that they get $100 per head per month? I'm willing to bet none. "

Your missing the point "A" and the problem doesn't just affect lower income single income families... Us and say 20 or 30 of our 28~35 friend families in Calgary fell into the category of single income with kids... most have 2 professional degrees, or trades... most of them live in low income or subsidized housing situations, like we did, (ever wonder why there’s a low income housing shortage in Calgary? is cause all the mid income professional degree/trade families are taking them all up driving up the price)... most are have $10,000 + in credit card debts, not used for luxury items but for diapers, clothing, etc... most hoping that eventually promotions and shifting jobs will allow them to pay that off and maybe in 10 yrs or so collect a down payment for a house together. All of us seeing other similarly aged associates in the double income no kids category, getting far ahead financially with new homes, etc and most planning on never having kids.

most of us can't afford daycare, public or private... private is too expensive and we're not eligible for public assisted daycare. Besides most of us think we can do a better job at teaching OUR kids who are OUR responsibility than a minimum wage worker who primary motivation is financial not social.

the crux is that you can't survive in Canada without 2 incomes. we've tried twice now.. both times we've eventually had to accept positions outside Canada to "recover" from the experiment... we're in Alaska now for a 3 year contract... I make over $80,000/yr with 3 kids as an engineer for the oil industry... moving out of the country allowed us to afford to buy a home... and allows an extra $500/month over our budget that will go to paying off the $30,000 in credit debt we accumulated trying to "make it work" in Calgary for the last 4 years... we're hoping that in 3~5 years we'll be debt free, and a promotion that will allow us to afford a house in Canada and move back... if not, we'll likely officially emigrate to the US and take a position in Houston...

We keep in contact with our friends in Calgary and see them getting ever more and more desperate and hopeless that they will ever be able to "get ahead". Some have looked at the vast improvement we experienced and are now actively looking for professional positions in the US.

the conservative child care plan didn't solve the problem, but is sure helps!!! that extra $100~200/month our friends are getting is just enough for them to balance the budget every month... Income splitting for tax purposes would likely provide a permanent solution... but that falls in the "hell freezes over" catagory

At the end of the day however with the current situation many younger couples who want kids are finding ourselves in a position where we simply can't afford to be "Canadian"

Posted by: Sierra at January 29, 2007 04:26 PM

---

Well said, Sierra. Sorry it's been so tough. But this particular freight train's been speeding down the track for a long time--at least since my family was scraping together a living on one income as we took on the responsibility of our own children's daycare in the early '80s.

Sad situation in Canada--actually, more than sad: assinine, appalling, and lacking in vision. Under years of Liberal governments (and Brian Mulroney's Conservatives were no better: maybe their ties with Power Corp had something to do with their dismal showing) families were both discouraged from having children and, if they did have kids, from caring for them themselves.

Read Mark Steyn's America Alone, the only developed country that has a replacement birthrate to balance its death rate. It is very discouraging to see governments actively working against couples having children, while me-first media images of "the good life" encourage greedy and narcissistic lifestyles. The Libs always were happy to grab the taxes of "working" people, and put absolutely no value on parenting.

What you're describing, Sierra, is the result of years of neglect of families and the needs of families on the part of the Canadian government under the Liberals, with NDP cheerleaders--Olivia and Jack are not exactly family-friendly.

It will take a long time for the CPC to turn our family-hating society around, if it's even possible after too much neglect and too much encouragement of "the good life." 'Too many people wanting EVERYTHING, NOW, AND WHY NOT?

Good luck with your familial enterprise. I've often thought that if the Liberals get back in power, it may be time for my husband and me to leave Canada. It's become a dystopian wasteland, not at all a welcoming or friendly place to be if you've got kids.

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 29, 2007 06:56 PM

---

I don't think I need to mention it, but the reason, of course, why the only way Canadian families can make it financially is to have two incomes, is because of the greed of past governments. The Librano$ come to mind. They didn't want parents to stay home with their kids, because there was no money in it for them.

Parents caring for their own kids actually result in better adjusted and disciplined and more productive children (my apologies to the political correctness police, but it's true), but "so what?" was the Liberal shrug. "No money in it for us to spend on the social engineering needed for our new, Godless Utopia in Canada, so, sorry, folks, we'll actually punish you because your work doesn't pay us in tax revenues. You'll be one of the highest taxed units in Canadian society, in fact. So, moms/dads, get out of the house and do some real work!"

The MSM and the feminist NAC/SOW took up the same refrain, so is it any wonder that families and stay-at-home moms and dads became persona non grata in Canada? And is it any wonder that families with kids are still having trouble making ends meet? Canadian governments have been anti-families and anti-kids for a long time, resulting in a dystopian wasteland, as I mentioned above.

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 29, 2007 07:13 PM

---

I'm interested to know how if the $420mil is calculated.

If I use my account bank's branded ATM machines, I get charged nothing.

If I use another bank's machine, or an unbranded ATM, I get charged $1.25 to $1.50 for the withdrawal. On top of that, my bank charges me an additional $1.50 per transaction as reflected on my statement. That is $3.00 total, whether I withdraw $20 or $200.

I could easily spend $15 per month.

'course, when I use the local LCBO, there are no charges either.

Posted by: john at January 29, 2007 07:37 PM

---

It's all about choice and convenience.
For instance, I may purchase a product at a grocery store for $X. The same item purchased at a convenience store will cost $X+. Why? Because it is a convenience! Same with ATM fees. I can withdraw from any of my Bank's ATM's across the country with no fee. If I use the stand-alone ones in Malls and other locations, I'm gonna pay. Why? Convenience.
Layton and his dribble-cases should get a life. What next, price controls on bread?

Posted by: Rattfuc at January 30, 2007 10:12 AM

---

I think there needs to be some clarification here on the banking fee stuff. I work in a bank as a systems programmer and have learned a few things about the banking sector.

First off, I think the banking sector does need more competition. The bank act does need to remain because it's a key economic policy. It just needs to be tweeked. Other financial institutions should be allowed into product areas that have been traditionaly owned by the chartered banks.

Second, people see bank fees as a way for a bank to make a profit. They are not. They are designed to persuade people against doing costly things for the bank. Having less than $1000 in your account is costly to the bank because we have to have it sitting in the vault in case you want to withraw. If you put more than $1000 in the bank they can now give some of it to your neighbor as a mortgage. This is key to the economy. The less money available for loans means less economic development, less jobs. If business or home owners can't get loans the economy will stagnate. That's why we have a bank act. To facilitate the loaning of money between depositors and borrowers.

Currently wise consumers, even those with less than $1000, can work it so they don't pay fees. PC Banking is an excellent idea.

I get the feeling those in the NDP have never talked to an economist. They have never taken the time to understand how banks, goverment, and currency works.

Posted by: Fritz at February 1, 2007 11:11 AM

---

Fritz I'm not too knowledgable about banks but ur idea that banks have to keep every cent of every persons account under 1000 dallor is not true. I think (and I think its in the Banking Act) that banks have to keep a percentage of money on hand that is related to the total amount of money that they have deposited into the bank.
If you allow more competition into the banking arena, eg. foreign banks, you also allow the laws of that country's bank to influeance our country eg. Patroit Act
Banks are a business. Busineses make a profit. More of a profit the better.
I agree with u 100% that people can work it so they do not have to pay high service charges, but lower charges.

Posted by: Jeff at February 1, 2007 02:37 PM

---

Jeff, I don't think you understand what I was saying.

The law does state that banks do have to maintain a certian "cash reserve" level. It is not tied to individual accounts. It's tied to assets as a whole. This was setup because of the problems of the depression of the 1930's. I forget the current level set by the feds. It's something like 2 or 3 percent of total assets. So if that bank has a total of 500 million in deposits, at the reserve rate is 2%, we need to have 10 million sitting in a vault just in case.

We (I speak as a bank employee) do the math and figure out what the threshold works out to on an individual account basis. I know becuase I helped write some of the programs that do some of this math (me and few hundred other programmers). This same data analysis allows the bank to figure out what types of accounts are profitable. People who keep a balance under $1000 and do lots of transactions are definately not profitible. We have entire departments with lots of people devoted to this kind of analysis. You can make a career out of it, honestly.

Bank fees are a handy way to encourage more profitible behavour on customers. The other way is by paying you next to nothing on interest.

Posted by: Frtiz at February 2, 2007 03:49 PM

---

Funny the similarlities between both the banks and the oil companies sometimes...

Yea Frtiz I agree your right... the personal banking protion of the buisness is probably marginal... the fees banks charge probably reflects accuratly the cost of services. plus a small profit. What most people don't get is that the massive profit banks post comes primarily from thier OTHER services... to corporations and in the investment markets. PC likely offers their services at a net loss in order to get people to buy more groceries from them.. The question begs however... should other banks operate their consumer service divisions at a loss counting it as a "cost of doing buisness" to have access to the more lucrative services.

Oil companies have a similar situation... the business of refining and retail sales of gasoline is extremely marginal... most gasoline retailers make more profit selling coffee than they do selling gasoline... supermarkets like PC and Safeway actually sell gasoline at a LOSS solely to gain a market share advantage in their groceries. The big profits oil companies post, (dwarfed by the bank profits I should note) almnost entirely from the Explorations sectors. which find and produce oil and sell it to the refiners and retailers at market prices... SOME companies, (Imperial, Shell, Petro-canada, Husky) which own production, refineries, and retail stations in theory COULD post a loss in the retail divisions and sell gasoline for less counting on thier production sectors to make up for the loss... but again that likely isn't a fair buisness practice as it would put any indepentants and franchise owener immediatly out of business.

Posted by: Sierra at February 5, 2007 02:17 PM

---