I, to this day, blame Jack Layton for the fact that Stephen Harper is this country's Prime Minister. I am of the opinion that it was a self-serving, short-sighted and ill-considered move on his part to defeat the then-Paul Martin lead Liberals, and I am finding it hard to forgive him this. Without unnecesarily piling too deeply into it, he chose to trade more seats in the House for less political weight. He spent the entire campaign attacking Martin and the Liberals, leaving Harper untouched. He chose, ostensibly, to allow a man whose politics differ so greatly from the values he represents to ascend to power, and he knew, full well, this would be the result.
Objectively, a Conservative minority, in its turn, may have been the best case scenario for Canada. Paul Martin was not Jean Chretien: he could not keep the good ship Liberal afloat. Canadians needed to feel as though they chose to remove the party from office, to feel as though they washed the stink away, as it were. It gave the Liberals the opportunity at re-birth. Stephane Dion looks promising. I'm no Liberal, I voted for them in the last election for the first time, solely in an attempt to keep Stephen Harper out of government (I also begrudge Layton this, forcing me to use my vote in this manner). My primary political issue is the environment, and I like what I hear out of Dion so far.
Anyhow, this has all led to this: today, Jack Layton took the first step towards reconciling with me. I cannot begin to describe to you my long-time aggravation and ire at ATM fees. It's a damning commentary on the axe that big business wields that hardly a boo has been heard as these fees have crept into our lives, and we have accepted them. Good for you, Jack, you remind me of the Jack that stood up for not selling our natural resources to foreign business and the Jack who pushed valiantly for accessible post-secondary for Canadians. Get back on course, leave the pragmatics to the others.
Before we know it, it'll cost $22 for a 20, and we'lll be told how lucky we are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As far as I know, we (as money earners) have options as to where to place our money. We aren't required to use ATMs One can;
- put their money under their mattress
- keep their money in the bank, but adhere to the policies of that bank (i.e., go to a teller) that allow us to take money out without charging a fee.
If one wants to use a machine that is provided for convenience, one must be ready to pay the cost. Unless you're so important that you can't take 5 minutes out of your day once a week to take some cash out from a teller.
Personally, my bank allows a certain amount of transactions through that banks ATMs (could be unlimited, I don't know) and I find it more than enough. Unless you're the sort that only keeps twenty dollars on you and finds a need to spend money every 15 minutes.
ATM fees = stupid tax. What can I say? Life is unfair.
Yea, life is unfair. It's unfair that other countries have laws limiting (and even banning) ATM fees, but Canada doesn't.
Let's keep being chumps to the big banks. Life is unfair!
Do you pay ATM fees? I don't. Now ask yourself why you pay ATM fees? Is it because the government hasn't stepped in to ban ATM fees, or is it because you don't know how to use ATMs without being charged a fee? Hence my "stupid tax, life is unfair" comment, life is unfair for the stupid getting all these extra taxes because they don't know how to not pay those fees. But I am here to help.
Here are some ways to get your money out of a bank without being charged a fee
-use a teller
-use the ATM from your Bank, and not the one in the convenience store
-talk to your bank and ask how many ATM transactions they allow, if they charge a fee
-When you're taking out money, in order to prevent yourself from repeatedly using the machine have an idea of how much you're going to spend (this is called "budgeting").
If you think that all ATMs are one and the same, and all banks are one in the same and thats why you don't want to be charged for using ATMs from different banks, then you are misguided. ATMs isn't a company like IBM, it is an acronym the same way "TV" is an acronym.
The only thing I agree on is that ATMs should be transparent as to how much they are charging, if they are charging something.
As for your "It's unfair that other countries have laws limiting (and even banning) ATM fees, but Canada doesn't" comment, I can name those countries, here is the list.
-Britain.
However, even those aren't free in the Utopian sense. There is a network of ATMs under the Link brand, and they have come to this agreement for customers not being charged to use other Banks (that belong to the Link network) machines, but they won't be charged twice. That's right, they used to be charged twice, once by the machine and another time by their own bank, so you can see why the uproar to ban ATM fees occurred.
I don't disagree that it's a good idea to reduce or limit ATM fees, because hey, the less hands in my pocket the better. ATMs have been around for what 10-20 years? People tend to take technology for granted or feel that they are entitled to use all these wonderful conveniences that they themselves have personally helped contribute to society by... sitting on their asses and posting sarcastic comments?
Banks, if you haven't heard, make a fair chunk of change. Their profit margins are, oh, limitless essentially because they dictate the cost of banking. They can't lose money. And the suggestion of limiting the freedom of any kind of institution for what it can charge is represented as insane retro-babble by virtually everyone these days.
There are some of us who don't appreciate the boundless freedoms big-league businesses have meticulously acquired.
So, yes, it is a matter of choosing wisely if looked at in one way. But it is indicative of a far greater criticism in another, and one that fewer and fewer seem willing to stand by.
Post a Comment