steviemcfly:

Overdraft charges should not be allowed to be more than the cost of the transaction that caused the fee. If it was a portion of the triggering charge, it would make sense. It would essentially be a loan by the bank for the amount they had to cover for you, repaid with interest, with limits to how much one is allowed to overdraw. As it stands now, with each fee being around $35, it’s inherently predatory to the poor. It’s a whirlpool.

In the last couple of weeks, I’ve spent around $100, but have been charged or directly paid (in trying to bring my balance to zero) over $200 to the bank. Over $300 if you count the fees they reversed. With two or three exceptions, each transaction was under $15 (most under $10). I paid for $100 worth of goods and services, but paid over $300 for them because I’m in a financial bind.

If there was any circumstance in which a bank could charge a rich person a fee of two or three times the amount they spent on something, on top of the initial expenditure, there would be a law against it by 10 AM the next day. But because it’s something that affects the poor, it’s not only allowed, but the industry standard.