When you go to a bank with their check and they charge you $5 to cash their check. Ex: Went to BB&T with a BB&T check and still got charged with their own check.
But, if you open an account with them you won't be charged. This is fucking bullshit and should not be legal.
So what happens to someone poor, they go to BB&T with a $10 dollar check and they only get $5 back. How fucked up is that. Fuck banks they can all lick my balls.
When you go to a bank with their check and they charge you $5 to cash their check. Ex: Went to BB&T with a BB&T check and still got charged with their own check.
But, if you open an account with them you won't be charged. This is fucking bullshit and should not be legal.
So what happens to someone poor, they go to BB&T with a $10 dollar check and they only get $5 back. How fucked up is that. Fuck banks they can all lick my balls.
Why didn't you just go to your own bank and cash it?
I needed the cash right away and didn't have enough in there to clear the big check I got. Plus this is another thing that pisses me off about banks, they wait for the damn check to clear for 5 days while they just sit back and make interest on it. When really all they have to do is pick up the phone and call the other bank. Once again banks can lick my balls.
Why didn't you just go to your own bank and cash it?
I needed the cash right away and didn't have enough in there to clear the big check I got. Plus this is another thing that pisses me off about banks, they wait for the damn check to clear for 5 days while they just sit back and make interest on it. When really all they have to do is pick up the phone and call the other bank. Once again banks can lick my balls.
So basically you were too lazy to go to your own bank; where you would not have endured the fee. Then you say claim banks are gay for putting a hold on a non-payroll, personal check because you would not have enough money in your account to cover the check if it were to bounce.
So from the business/bank side of things. You are saying they should allow all checks to be as liquid as cash so that when all the checks bounce the whole country and bank system fails?
That is a reason there are holds on personal checks. So that the banking system is protected from fraud as much as possible and to keep people with bank accounts from being screwed.
So basically you were too lazy to go to your own bank; where you would not have endured the fee. Then you say claim banks are gay for putting a hold on a non-payroll, personal check because you would not have enough money in your account to cover the check if it were to bounce.
So from the business/bank side of things. You are saying they should allow all checks to be as liquid as cash so that when all the checks bounce the whole country and bank system fails?
That is a reason there are holds on personal checks. So that the banking system is protected from fraud as much as possible and to keep people with bank accounts from being screwed.
I needed the cash right away and didn't have enough in there to clear the big check I got. Plus this is another thing that pisses me off about banks, they wait for the damn check to clear for 5 days while they just sit back and make interest on it. When really all they have to do is pick up the phone and call the other bank. Once again banks can lick my balls.
so you seem to have problems with banks making money.
If they didn't make money, why / how would they stay in business
I needed the cash right away and didn't have enough in there to clear the big check I got. Plus this is another thing that pisses me off about banks, they wait for the damn check to clear for 5 days while they just sit back and make interest on it. When really all they have to do is pick up the phone and call the other bank. Once again banks can lick my balls.
so you seem to have problems with banks making money.
If they didn't make money, why / how would they stay in business
So basically you were too lazy to go to your own bank; where you would not have endured the fee. Then you say claim banks are gay for putting a hold on a non-payroll, personal check because you would not have enough money in your account to cover the check if it were to bounce.
So from the business/bank side of things. You are saying they should allow all checks to be as liquid as cash so that when all the checks bounce the whole country and bank system fails?
That is a reason there are holds on personal checks. So that the banking system is protected from fraud as much as possible and to keep people with bank accounts from being screwed.
So basically you were too lazy to go to your own bank; where you would not have endured the fee. Then you say claim banks are gay for putting a hold on a non-payroll, personal check because you would not have enough money in your account to cover the check if it were to bounce.
So from the business/bank side of things. You are saying they should allow all checks to be as liquid as cash so that when all the checks bounce the whole country and bank system fails?
That is a reason there are holds on personal checks. So that the banking system is protected from fraud as much as possible and to keep people with bank accounts from being screwed.
That bank can verify the funds immediately. It's their customer writing the check drawn on their own bank. Isn't it that bank's obligation to honor that check immediately if the payee has the proper identification? Of course it is.
That bank can verify the funds immediately. It's their customer writing the check drawn on their own bank. Isn't it that bank's obligation to honor that check immediately if the payee has the proper identification? Of course it is.
I guess I don't see a huge problem with this. Look at it this way: Banks are in the business of making money. You are not an account holder at this bank. They are providing you a service. They choose to charge a nominal fee. There are very few businesses that will provide a service for free, so you may not like it, but it does not seem that unreasonable.
I guess I don't see a huge problem with this. Look at it this way: Banks are in the business of making money. You are not an account holder at this bank. They are providing you a service. They choose to charge a nominal fee. There are very few businesses that will provide a service for free, so you may not like it, but it does not seem that unreasonable.
That bank can verify the funds immediately. It's their customer writing the check drawn on their own bank. Isn't it that bank's obligation to honor that check immediately if the payee has the proper identification? Of course it is.
jlgargotti: To have lots of cash and needed to pay my local. I took skins +3.5 today and Pitt ML.
That bank can verify the funds immediately. It's their customer writing the check drawn on their own bank. Isn't it that bank's obligation to honor that check immediately if the payee has the proper identification? Of course it is.
jlgargotti: To have lots of cash and needed to pay my local. I took skins +3.5 today and Pitt ML.
Thats ridiculous. You should not be charged a fee to cash a check that is drawn on a particular bank. If there was money in the account then it should have been cashed. Period.
On the other hand, if the check was more than 10k I am not sure if there would be a fee attached but I would never cash a personal check for that amt.
69_Amazin_Mets banks make tons of money in mortgages alone. The interest over 30 years is normally 2X the amt paid for the house. What I think his comment was about is how banks (not all) nickle/dime you with fees *atm, checking, transaction etc. Heck, I'm surprised Bank of America doesn't charge 50 cents to their customers for actually coming into a bank to make their transaction instead of using the atm.
Thats ridiculous. You should not be charged a fee to cash a check that is drawn on a particular bank. If there was money in the account then it should have been cashed. Period.
On the other hand, if the check was more than 10k I am not sure if there would be a fee attached but I would never cash a personal check for that amt.
69_Amazin_Mets banks make tons of money in mortgages alone. The interest over 30 years is normally 2X the amt paid for the house. What I think his comment was about is how banks (not all) nickle/dime you with fees *atm, checking, transaction etc. Heck, I'm surprised Bank of America doesn't charge 50 cents to their customers for actually coming into a bank to make their transaction instead of using the atm.
jlgargotti: To have lots of cash and needed to pay my local. I took skins +3.5 today and Pitt ML.
jpero and 69 = way off
How can I be off when you are stating you want checks to be as liquid as cash tender??
A relative of mine works for a bank and I have asked similar questions and after an explanation and reasoning as to why there is such practices it is not unreasonable. You do not have an account there and therefore do not provide any reason that the bank should use its resources and man power to provide you with a service that you have not paid for or acquired by being a customer of theirs.
If you needed the money that quickly to pay a bookie then you should not be gambling money YOU DO NOT have in hand. You clearly have a gambling problem and you should obtain help.
jlgargotti: To have lots of cash and needed to pay my local. I took skins +3.5 today and Pitt ML.
jpero and 69 = way off
How can I be off when you are stating you want checks to be as liquid as cash tender??
A relative of mine works for a bank and I have asked similar questions and after an explanation and reasoning as to why there is such practices it is not unreasonable. You do not have an account there and therefore do not provide any reason that the bank should use its resources and man power to provide you with a service that you have not paid for or acquired by being a customer of theirs.
If you needed the money that quickly to pay a bookie then you should not be gambling money YOU DO NOT have in hand. You clearly have a gambling problem and you should obtain help.
Good lord I need a morning drink. I think this is the first time I have agreed w/ jpero. Banks should be looked at just as any business. Why would they provide a service to someone who is not one of their own clients for free? I just don't get how you feel you are entitled to get free service from a bank or any business for that matter.
Good lord I need a morning drink. I think this is the first time I have agreed w/ jpero. Banks should be looked at just as any business. Why would they provide a service to someone who is not one of their own clients for free? I just don't get how you feel you are entitled to get free service from a bank or any business for that matter.
i agree with those who say banks are businesses...they have fees all set up for certain charges (cashing checks for non bankers, nsf, using your card at other atm, etc.) They are there to serve those who have an account with them, because those are the ones that bring them the business...if you dont have an account with them, why would help you for free? it seems pretty simple business to me...
If you dont want to get charged, either cash it at your own bank...or open an account....its that easy cant be going around say shit should be illegal
i agree with those who say banks are businesses...they have fees all set up for certain charges (cashing checks for non bankers, nsf, using your card at other atm, etc.) They are there to serve those who have an account with them, because those are the ones that bring them the business...if you dont have an account with them, why would help you for free? it seems pretty simple business to me...
If you dont want to get charged, either cash it at your own bank...or open an account....its that easy cant be going around say shit should be illegal
Read the whole post theCity I have answered that question. Word... up bro.
All I am saying pretty much, is that it was there money in the beginning, and now they get to make more money off there own money for nothing. Banks have plenty of money and should not be taking any more money than they deserve. Like I said before they can all lick my balls. I cash their own check and get charged for not having an account. Ha for all you people that think this is right then I feel sorry for ya.
Read the whole post theCity I have answered that question. Word... up bro.
All I am saying pretty much, is that it was there money in the beginning, and now they get to make more money off there own money for nothing. Banks have plenty of money and should not be taking any more money than they deserve. Like I said before they can all lick my balls. I cash their own check and get charged for not having an account. Ha for all you people that think this is right then I feel sorry for ya.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.