Banks
Your Ginger Fuhrer froths, "I hate my bank. Not because of debt or anything but because I hate being sold to - possibly pathologically so - and everytime I speak to them they try and sell me services. Gold cards, isas, insurance, you know the crap. It drives me insane. I ALREADY BANK WITH YOU. STOP IT. YOU MAKE ME FRIGHTED TO DO MY NORMAL BANKING. I'm angry even thinking about them."
So, tell us your banking stories of woe.
No doubt at least one of you has shagged in the vault, shat on a counter or thrown up in a cash machine. Or something
( , Thu 16 Jul 2009, 13:15)
Your Ginger Fuhrer froths, "I hate my bank. Not because of debt or anything but because I hate being sold to - possibly pathologically so - and everytime I speak to them they try and sell me services. Gold cards, isas, insurance, you know the crap. It drives me insane. I ALREADY BANK WITH YOU. STOP IT. YOU MAKE ME FRIGHTED TO DO MY NORMAL BANKING. I'm angry even thinking about them."
So, tell us your banking stories of woe.
No doubt at least one of you has shagged in the vault, shat on a counter or thrown up in a cash machine. Or something
( , Thu 16 Jul 2009, 13:15)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Because it's a penalty
Why should being £1 over incur such a disproportionate penalty? If I borrowed a pound from you would you demand I pay £90 back? Surely it cannot be hard to set up a system whereby you pay 50% on any extra that comes out of your account? So if you're a pound over you pay £1.50 back, and if you're £100 over you pay £150 back. That way the penalty is proportionate to the ammount. Why can we not do that? Answer: The current system produces maximum profit for the bank.
And for the record the only time this happens is when something comes out of my account before something else has cleared. Yes, it would be nice to have more going into my account but I live in something that I like to call "the real world" and as such that is not a possibility. You seem to be assuming that I'm some airhead who cannot balance his finances, and is wantonly spending money which is not his, which I assure you is not true.
( , Mon 20 Jul 2009, 9:31, Reply)
Why should being £1 over incur such a disproportionate penalty? If I borrowed a pound from you would you demand I pay £90 back? Surely it cannot be hard to set up a system whereby you pay 50% on any extra that comes out of your account? So if you're a pound over you pay £1.50 back, and if you're £100 over you pay £150 back. That way the penalty is proportionate to the ammount. Why can we not do that? Answer: The current system produces maximum profit for the bank.
And for the record the only time this happens is when something comes out of my account before something else has cleared. Yes, it would be nice to have more going into my account but I live in something that I like to call "the real world" and as such that is not a possibility. You seem to be assuming that I'm some airhead who cannot balance his finances, and is wantonly spending money which is not his, which I assure you is not true.
( , Mon 20 Jul 2009, 9:31, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread