No one is asking them to pay for anything. The bank has a revenue stream that allows it to offer a service to attract customers that can invest, buy houses, cars, etc. Why would anyone think that the money a bank (or business) takes in has to stay in the same area of that business? That’s basically what you are saying. People don’t want banks to use the money from one revenue stream to fund something else. That is as silly as saying “Walmart can’t pay an advertising firm because money is taken in at the cash registers, and not at the advertising company’s headquarters.”

How is it, in an era of computers, cheap electronic storage, Internet access, etc. . . . you [the banks] are charging fees on checking and savings accounts anyway (AND having MINIMUMS on accounts??)–when you largely did NOT charge (or barely charged anything) in an era of no Internet access; file cabinets, files, pen and paper, expensive or non-existant electronic storage, and physical storage; access to records meant having to go to the bank itself during “bankers’ hours” (and NO minimums on accounts), etc.?

You seem to misunderstand the entire discussion. Congress is preventing me from signing up for it.

They can. Anyone who wants to take advantage of overdraft can certainly do it by opting in. No one is prevented from signing up for overdraft.

As to your simpleminded “Why shouldn’t they be” the aswer is equally simple — don’t expect others to pay for what you consume. Don’t be a parasite.

This isn’t rocket science.

“Why should overdraft fees be used to offset the cost of providing checking account services?”

Why shouldn’t they be.

“If a customer wants a checking account, they should pay for it, not expect others to pick up the costs.”

If customers want free checking in exchange for risking having to pay overdraft fees should they so happen to overdraft their account, they should be able to get it as long as someone is willing to offer it.

Thanks, Anna from Motherly Law