Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Almighty Buck

Why America is Experimenting With 'Postal Banking' (msn.com) 140

Posted by EditorDavid from the neither-rain-nor-sleet dept.
From the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: In 1947, more than 4 million Americans owned $3.4 billion in saving deposits held not by a bank or credit union, but by the United States Postal Service. It's a largely forgotten part of American banking (and postal) history that the USPS ran the Postal Savings System for 56 years, from 1911 to 1967... [T]o this day postal services around the world provide small-scale financial services, from check cashing to savings accounts to e-commerce solutions, such as allowing refunds for returned goods to be deposited directly into a consumer's postal account. In September, the U.S. Postal Service took the first steps toward restoring its place in Americans' financial lives: At four East Coast post offices, customers can now get paychecks or business checks worth up to $500 cashed for a flat fee of $5.95....

Postal banking has the potential to reorient the American financial landscape for the benefit the most vulnerable. A fifth of Americans are considered "unbanked" or "underbanked," often relying on unscrupulous payday lenders because they lack the week-to-week security to set even a little aside in a traditional account. According to a 2014 USPS report, in 2012 alone these "alternative financial services" wrung $89 billion in interest and fees out of the poorest Americans... Postal banking also has a bipartisan pedigree. While it has most recently been a centerpiece of the progressive platforms of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., it has also been promoted by reformist conservatives as a way to get and keep capital in local communities, rather than having it held in the coffers of multinational conglomerates.

And finally, an expansion into basic financial services may be essential to the very survival of the U.S. Postal Service. As Amazon and private shipping companies continue to press their advantage, the Postal Service can press its own: thousands of locations in every nook and cranny of the country, along with broad community trust.
This modest pilot "is the foundation for more expansive contemplated postal banking services that could include bill-paying services, ATM access and money-order and wire-transfer capabilities," argues a follow-up piece in the same newspaper: Local bank branches are shuttering in communities all across our country, and mainstream banks are failing to offer financial services that meet the needs of many communities... Robust postal banking, which should ultimately include checking and savings accounts as well as loan options, could step into the breach and provide equitable, accessible and affordable financial services to people who lack access to traditional bank services and would otherwise have to turn to high-cost and low-value fringe financial institutions... Underbanked households have an average annual income of $25,000 and typically spend approximately 10% of their income on fees and interest to fringe financial institutions simply to access their money — an amount equal to what the average household spends on food annually...

Postal banking provides an economic lifeline to countless Americans living in banking deserts. The Postal Service's 34,000 facilities service every ZIP code in the country. More than two-thirds of the census tracts that have a post office do not have a bank branch. Postal banking also provides transparent and equitable services and costs. Traditional bank fees and requirements — such as minimum balance requirements, activity fees and overdraft charges — exclude low-income and small-balance customers... Postal banking is a key pathway from poverty to economic mobility for millions of Americans and also produces significant revenue and opportunities for the Postal Service to flourish and expand its business model.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why America is Experimenting With 'Postal Banking' More

Why America is Experimenting With 'Postal Banking'

Comments Filter:

  • Hard to imagine (Score:3)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @10:48AM (#61944657)

    I have given up any expectation of anything in the USPS to improve with Louis DeJoy [house.gov] running the place. Banking with the USPS would be a boon to huge swaths of the population who are currently getting gouged with outrageous fees and for that reason alone I don't see any Republican or Republican appointee doing everything in their power to block it.

    • Re:Hard to imagine (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @11:41AM (#61944765)
      ** correction: Republicans and Republican appointees will do everything in their power to block anything that benefits the lowest-income section of the population. And as a Republican DeJoy is definitely all in on that.

  • A fifth of Americans are considered "unbanked" or "underbanked," often relying on unscrupulous payday lenders because they lack the week-to-week security to set even a little aside in a traditional account.

    Uh...without commenting on USPS being involved in financial services in general...I really don't think this is a good reason for that to happen. Payday loans aren't simple check cashing services, these are for people taking loans against paychecks that they haven't necessarily even earned yet. Really not a good business for the post office to be in as it's a very fly by night business that only really stupid people patronize and pay a stupid tax for.

    • I don't think its for the loans. A lot of people in the country don't have the savings to keep a bank account. So they have to pay big fees to check cashing places to actually get their pay.

      • You don't really have to save to keep a bank account. Also the vast majority of employers will do direct deposit, so your check just goes right into your account. Even small businesses do this as most of them outsource their payroll (that way they don't have to hire an accountant that they can't afford, or deal with the legal issues involved with payroll, the multitude of rules, etc) and those payroll companies will do the direct deposit.

        Even if you didn't meet the conditions banks usually require to have a

        • You don't really have to save to keep a bank account Either maintain a minimum balance or pay a horrible fee. Hidden secret: Most of the payday advance and check cashing places are actually owned by the banks. They just don't like the horrible publicity from them.
        • I think you missed the bit about 'banking deserts.'

          • That's quite a lot easier to deal with now than it used to be. I personally can't even recall the last time I went to a local bank branch. I think it was two and a half years ago when I needed to do a wire transfer to make the down payment on my mortgage. If I need cash for any reason (very rare) I just go to an ATM. Every online bank I've heard of reimburses all ATM fees (up to a certain amount, which I've never exceeded.) When I need to deposit a check I just use the USAA app. When people need to pay me w

            • You really don't know the first thing about poverty, do you? Go & volunteer somewhere you can get to know a few people who live in poverty, ask them about banks, smartphones, internet access, using ATMs.

        • You don't really have to save to keep a bank account.

          In the US, there are many millions of people who cannot or do not open bank accounts due to being undocumented, non-English speakers, or not financially literate. These are also mostly low-income people who are relatively hurt the most by fees.

          It would be an obvious benefit for these people to be able to access non-profit banking services from the Post Office. The only problem is that there already exist for-profit companies in this space. So, those companies would lose, and the people served would gain.

      • I don't think its for the loans. A lot of people in the country don't have the savings to keep a bank account. So they have to pay big fees to check cashing places to actually get their pay.

        If they didn't pay those big fees they would have money to keep in a bank account.

        But I'm presuming this simplistic and logical argument would fail with many of these people. If they were shown how much money they're losing each year by cashing a check rather than having a bank account it's doubtful they'd care. There would always be some excuse.

        It's like when people brag about how much they drink but complain they don't have money to do anything. Telling them to cut back or stop is never an option.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          As someone that used to be in those peoples shoes, you might be correct about some of them. However, when you're living paycheck to paycheck you sometimes cannot afford what is needed to get out of the loop.

    • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sjames ( 1099 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @11:33AM (#61944747) Homepage Journal

      The check cashing places are a rip-off as well. They charge much higher rates and exist primarily because banks don't want to deal with a bunch of low income people cashing their meager paychecks. People don't use those because they're stupid, they use them because the banks won't do business with them and legitimate employers are afraid to pay in cash.

      While I don't want to see the USPS involved in payday loans, cashing paychecks is perfectly reasonable.

    • I think you missed the part where TFA how workers are being fleeced 10% of their incomes by fringe financial services such as payday loans. If workers get to keep that 10% of their wages & are able to save a little for those unforeseen emergencies, the need for payday loans is substantially reduced. That's more money going around in the real economy & so good for everyone, except payday loan sharks.

    • What traps people with payday loans is that they "just need a little more money" throughout the course of the month, and keep borrowing. With the added interest, this causes a vicious cycle of ever mounting debt.

        I doubt the USPS version would be a fly by night outfit, but they will find themselves playing into this destructive debt cycle that ruins peoples' lives.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gwills ( 3593013 )
      the world exists beyond your nose. Perhaps you dont know enough to understand why so many are excited about it. Do you know the history of postal banking? Have you consider anything before sharing " I DONT LIKE IT" Slashdotters are 40% ideology, 40% ego, 10% actual thought.

  • The post office is getting into the instant checkout cashing business? What’s next, payday loans?

    • For people outside the US, what's a paycheck and why do you need to pay a fee to turn it into cash?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

        For people outside the US, what's a paycheck

        Do people outside the US not work jobs for which they're compensated by their employers? Most employers don't keep cash on hand to cover payroll, so they either (1) issue direct deposits that show up in your checking account every other Friday or (2) print checks that get handed out on payday for those who haven't signed up for direct deposit for whatever reason. You probably can't spend a payroll check directly for purchases, though, so you either deposit it i

        • Oh, it a reference to a cheque, I though it was some verification process. I've never been paid by cheque in my life and I'm Gen X so that's been awhile, it's always been direct credit so the whole pay-by-cheque process is pretty mysterious to me. In fact I only have a vague idea what a cheque looks like, it's been 30+ years since I've seen one.

  • Locally, we have post offices that operate when the postmaster feels like being there, meaning late opening, early and long lunches, and early closing. It's rare that you can get "window service" more than 6 hours a day.

    Most have been moved out of the town center, so those for whom this proposal would ostensibly serve, they'd need to use the (almost non-existent) public transportation system to reach, riding past multiple bank and currency exchange locations on the way.

    So it is something that could look goo

  • Unbanked Americans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @11:03AM (#61944693)

    How about outlawing banking fees for low deposit customers? It clearly discriminates against the poor and funnels them into payday loans and check cashing services charging massive fees relative to the amount cashed.

    I'm fine with banks making money from personal loans and mortgages. A little less fine with ATM fees, given that the machines save the banks money by not having as many cashiers. Screwing people over with huge fees and penalties for keeps a balance less than $1000 is pure BS. Especially when banks are paying essentially zero interest on deposits, or negative if you include fees.

    All it does is keep the poor poor. The postal service is not the answer here.

    • Re:Unbanked Americans (Score:4, Informative)

      by zephvark ( 1812804 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @12:31PM (#61944867)

      How about outlawing banking fees for low deposit customers? It clearly discriminates against the poor

      Umm, what? Just because you can't afford something does not mean you're being discriminated against. That's absurd. I'm not being discriminated against just because I can't afford a Maserati.

      It is also perfectly easy to find a bank that doesn't have fees and even pays you back for ATM withdrawal fees outside their network.

      People use payday loan establishments because their credit is so bad, no one will offer them credit without a substantial fee to cover the odds that they'll screw you the way they've screwed everyone else.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        People use payday loan establishments because their credit is so bad, no one will offer them credit without a substantial fee to cover the odds that they'll screw you the way they've screwed everyone else.

        Or they're living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly get hit with an expense that nominal savings can't cover, but they really have to pay. EG their car breaks down and will cost $500 to fix, but without a car they can't get to their job.

      • Re:Unbanked Americans (Score:5, Insightful)

        by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Monday November 01, 2021 @09:34AM (#61947071)

        "Just because you can't afford something does not mean you're being discriminated against." - Being able to afford something and being unfairly punished with excessive fees because the person is struggling to maintain a certain bank balance are two different things. Same bank two different customers. One pays no fees the other does.

        "It is also perfectly easy to find a bank that doesn't have fees and even pays you back for ATM withdrawal fees outside their network." - Sure, assuming the person has a car or is easily able to travel to an ATM that is further from their home. Or has a computer or smart phone to look up such information. Not everyone has those options that you and I take for granted.

        "People use payday loan establishments because their credit is so bad, no one will offer them credit without a substantial fee to cover the odds that they'll screw you the way they've screwed everyone else." - Maybe, just maybe, some of these people have been handed a bad deal in life. Instead of offering a boot on their throats why not offer a hand up? I'm perfectly aware that some people are in the position they are due to their own bad decisions. Does that mean we tar everyone with the same brush? Just saying.

      • It is also perfectly easy to find a bank that doesn't have fees and even pays you back for ATM withdrawal fees outside their network.

        It depends on where you live. For example, where I live, in Podunk, we have three choices for banking in town, if I include the credit union in there, and they're all small community banks. If you don't like those choices, you have to go either 30 or 45 miles away for a town with the bigger banks. If you're poor and have to travel 30 miles to do your banking, that's not "perfectly easy."

        • Just what do you mean by "do your banking?" I set foot in a bank once or maybe twice a year or so. And that's usually just to get something notarized, which I could certainly do at city hall or elsewhere if the bank were inconveniently located. Pretty much everything else is online or... increasingly less frequently as even street vendors and food trucks accept cards and Apple pay... ATMs.

      • C'mon. You know your argument is awful. Comparing an exotic sports car to the necessity of access to a safe/accessible bank account? A bank account is one of the single most important things a human can have for financial stability. Without it your ability to operate in the modern world is dramatically reduced and your quality of life is substantially worse. We have built a society that revolves around banking and to keep people locked out of that because they are poor is simply unacceptable. I'm shocked an

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      A little less fine with ATM fees, given that the machines save the banks money by not having as many cashiers.

      Do banks really charge withdrawal fees at their own ATMs? I've always used credit unions so I wouldn't know.

      • Most don't. And there are a handful of banks which will also reimburse you for ATM fees you incur by using other banks' ATMs.

        You just have to put in 15 seconds of effort to type a search into Google to figure out which banks. For the economy to function properly, people have to be informed. If someone doesn't want to expend such a minimal amount of effort to better inform themselves to improve their financial situation, I will shed very few tears when they're charged a fee. It's not a "hidden" fee if you

      • They don't for their own ATMs but if you use another bank's ATM or a third party it will.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by imidan ( 559239 )
        Some businesses are now paying employees now with prepaid debit cards. These cards are 'out of network' (or whatever the banking equivalent is), and using them in any ATM costs money, even just to check the balance. The goal, of course, is for the payroll company that issues the cards to take as much money as possible from the workers in the form of fees.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

        Do banks really charge withdrawal fees at their own ATMs?

        Not at their own ATMs, but if (for instance) you use a Wells Fargo ATM card at a Bank of America ATM, both Wells Fargo and BofA are going to ding you: Wells Fargo for not using one of their ATMs, and BofA for using one of their ATMs to access an account at another bank. The same goes for most banks with a physical presence. Credit unions, OTOH, share their ATMs among themselves so you won't get dinged for using another credit union's ATM. Online b

    • I agree. I don't think most financially stable people realize how many billions banks make on overdraft fees. Payday loan companies get drug though the mud for their "predatory lending", but in reality they exist because people realized they could offer a more affordable alternative to bank overdraft fees, and still make a fortune. This is exactly why banks fight so hard to have them shut down.

  • Put an end to privatization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macsimcon ( 682390 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @11:10AM (#61944705)

    Every core service Americans need to survive today (Internet, electricity, gas, water, education, healthcare, banking, housing, food, work) should have a government-provided alternative.

    When parasitic, do-nothing industries like finance and healthcare amount to 25% of the economy, it's no wonder the U.S. is falling behind.

    And I'm not some twenty-something poet socialist, I'm a business owner in my fifties.

    If the last 40 years have proven anything, it's that privatization of key services drives quality down, and costs up.

    • Government subsidized may be more efficient. The government is very inefficient at doing things. In some cases (military, research courts etc) there is no alternative but when industry is able to provide a service, is is usually more efficient at it. Lack of competition and natural monopolies are a big issue with this, and there is no easy solution. Regulated utilities tend to be pretty bad.

      • Re:Put an end to privatization (Score:4, Insightful)

        by macsimcon ( 682390 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @11:56AM (#61944791)

        Are UPS or FedEx more efficient than the US Postal Service? They use the Postal Service for the last mile delivery in many cases.

        Are Charter or AT&T more efficient than Internet companies in every other OECD country? Those governments created the infrastructure, and then leased it to the companies, which resulted in lower prices and greater efficiency. Wireless and Internet are both faster and cheaper in Europe and Asia.

        Are United Healthcare and Blue Cross more efficient than government run healthcare? Again, virtually every OECD country has government involved in some fashion in healthcare, leading to lower prices and better outcome.

        There is just no way that banking at the Post Office would cost what Chase and Wells Fargo charge.

        Every time we turn an industry over to private enterprise, prices soar while quality suffers. Every time. There are no exceptions. Can you provide one?

        • SpaceX seems to have done a good job reducing launch costs relative to NASA-built rockets.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by OzPeter ( 195038 )

            SpaceX seems to have done a good job reducing launch costs relative to NASA-built rockets.

            Sure SpaceX has reduced costs compared to say the SLS. But the prime purpose of the SLS doesn't seem to be actually about launching rockets, but instead about funneling pork to the districts of various senators.

            And in fact the rocket business of NASA has been like that from the get go.

            PORK FLIES AND NASA DOES TOO [orlandosentinel.com]

            So comparing to SpaceX isn't really a fair example of private industry doing better than the government when the government equivalent is run as a pork factory

            • What makes you think government run ANYTHING isn't just a mechanism to funnel pork to some senator's district. You asked for an example. You got one. Somehow it isn't a true Scotsman.

              The USA government is incapable of doing anything even remotely competently. I turn your question on you: What is ONE THING the _USA_ government does better than industry?

              - VA Medical? Medicare and Medicaid services are provided by industry. The VA Medical centers are your example of USA government provided health care. https:/ [nbcnews.com]

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by OzPeter ( 195038 )

                What makes you think government run ANYTHING isn't just a mechanism to funnel pork to some senator's district. You asked for an example. You got one. Somehow it isn't a true Scotsman.

                Except that NASA's rocket business was blatantly constructed from the ground up as a pork process.

        • Re:Put an end to privatization (Score:5, Insightful)

          by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @12:57PM (#61944927)
          The big strength of the post office IMHO is that it will deliver mail even in situations where its not profitable to do so - and I believe that is valuable feature of a govt run organization.

          Comparing between different countries is very difficult. I agree 100% that healthcare is better vs costs in other countries, but its not clear why that is so. A govt run healthcare system in the US might work well, or it might just grow into a bureaucratic nightmare. Remember that it will still need to purchase from for-profit companies unless we turn the entire healthcare industry (including equipment manufacture) to govt control. Given the govt's record on covid, I'm not optimistic about that.

          • Oh, it's very simple, and there have been multiple studies about it. What it boils down to is there are a tonne of people in between you and your healthcare, and each one wants to take a piece of the pie, and care isn't the primary concern of any of them, profit is. That's why you see government run healthcare programs with lower overhead, even in the USA.

            For-profit insurance for NECESSARY healthcare means that you always have a company that doesn't want to pay anything fighting against an organization that

        • There is just no way that banking at the Post Office would cost what Chase and Wells Fargo charge.

          Perhaps. They're full-service, high cost suppliers. Try comparing against local credit unions instead.

          Every time we turn an industry over to private enterprise, prices soar while quality suffers. Every time. There are no exceptions. Can you provide one?

          Cars. Cell phones. Computers. LASIK. Food. Clothing. Cosmetic dentistry. Need I go on? Do you really thing these would be better if a government agency supplied them?

          And the real danger is a taxpayer subsidized government agency. Competing with free might be

      • The government is very inefficient at doing things

        That's not quite the way I see it. I think the government is actually very efficient at doing *some* things, rather inefficient at doing other things, and almost totally incapable in some areas while being the only sane solution in others. Examples:.

        In general, the government is very efficient at providing one-size for all, lowest common denominator, mass produced items. The recent vaccination drive is a great example, but there are others. School is

        • The govt paid for vaccines, but they were developed by private industry. I think the government is good at making sure necessities are delivered, but not good at producing those necessities.

      • Government subsidy of telco/cable Internet rollouts haven't been terribly efficient. And that's just one example.

    • When parasitic, do-nothing industries like

      Like the government? That's practically a definition of all the government agencies and bureaucrats.

      • Re:Put an end to privatization (Score:5, Insightful)

        by macsimcon ( 682390 ) on Sunday October 31, 2021 @12:04PM (#61944801)

        Sure, over the last forty years, Republicans have sought to destroy government, and they've done a good job. The Post Office is saddled with providing for retirement now for employees who won't retire for decades, Social Security enrollment takes longer, the USDA has no power to stop salmonella, the CPSC can't stop dangerous products, and 40% of Medicare recipients are enrolled in Medicare Advantage scam programs.

        Just how is the government parasitic? You pay taxes (unless you're a billionaire or a large corporation), and you get roads, schools, police, fire, infrastructure...

        Remove Republicans from the process, and this country becomes a pretty good place to live, but until we do, Republicans will continue to break government so they can say, "See? We told you. Everything should be privatized."

        • you left out anyone making less than $50k/yr. Technically they don't pay tax either. In fact they are less likely to pay tax than the billionairs or large corporations you speak of.
          maybe you should go take a look at the IRS web site, they spell it all out there.. you know they even go to the top .001%. The number associated with it is fairly small because there aren't many people when you get that far into it. but the top 50% pay just about all of the tax paid in the US. My thought it maybe if we want it to

          • The % of income taxed isn't flat; but even so, people making less than $50k per year pay plenty of income taxes just not as much as people in higher % brackets. Yes it amounts to a lower dollar amount and takes more people to become equal dollars but if you want to be "fair" then you have a flat % tax; but to be realistic, you cut out the flat % for the basic costs of living and then take that a little further and you get income tax brackets.

            Even so, if you are below poverty level and pay no income taxes, y

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by smoot123 ( 1027084 )

      I'm a business owner in my fifties.

      Really? And if you think private business owners doing such a bad job, why aren't you working for your local city instead?

      Oh, wait, you're delivering great products at a fair price. It's all the other business owners who are screwing up.

      If the last 40 years have proven anything, it's that privatization of key services drives quality down, and costs up.

      You live in a very different world from me. Near as I can tell, government provided services are expensive, unresponsive to customers, and very slow to adapt compared to privately provided products. Just ask yourself which is easier: getting permits from your local planning

    • Wow, took you 20 minutes to be called a commie.

      Does anyone else see it as "free enterprise" where the government is given the same leeway to add a competitive service to ANY market to protect the consumer? WalMart used the whole loss-leader thing to put K-mart out of business . . .

      The big businesses in our country have enjoyed years of coddling and a mix-and-match of picking favorites with the antitrust laws and the practice of merge-and-close competitors

      Or -- let the army (Iittle a, meaning all se

  • The Post Office already sells and cashes postal money orders for people who don't have bank accounts and want to send money somewhere. So in principle they already have the basic infrastructure to deal things like this.

    I agree with another comment on this story that the first step is getting rid of Postmaster De Joy. He's a big Trump contributor and hell bent on breaking the postal service. Then undo the removal of sorting machines, drop boxes, and service reductions.

  • Post office banking may be a good start but what we really need is nationalised banking run by the people for the people -- Socialist banking!

    I'll just sit back now & watch an orgy of libertarian fervour ensue.

    • This already exists. It's called a credit union.

    • Who runs Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase, etc.? I thought they were private institutions run by "people for people".

      • Yes, your prepositional adverbial, "by people for people" does mean that. However, what's the difference in meaning with the definite article, as I wrote it, "by the people for the people"? Solidarity, brother. Solidarity!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

      what we really need is nationalised banking run by the people for the people -- Socialist banking!

      You were probably only joking, but the senile sundowning shithead occupying the White House has nominated a communist [freebeacon.com] to be the next banking regulator. Her big idea? Shut down all the private banks and have everyone move their accounts to the Fed. What could possibly go wrong with moving your deposits to the same organization that has debased the dollar by 96% since its founding?

  • The only modern function of banks to to be co-opted by the government to be its captured STASI. Banks no longer add any value.

    Decentralized finance can solve all the problems of the unbanked. However, the State and fossilized banking industry is frantically trying to stop progress, while perpetuating that sweet middleman rent.

    Yes, money laundering, I know, but that can be solved by not making every damn thing criminal.

  • >"At four East Coast post offices, customers can now get paychecks or business checks worth up to $500 cashed for a flat fee of $5.95...."

    Oh fun. So now when I am forced to go to the post office, it will be full of even MORE people. It is already extremely inconvenient- horrible hours, slow service. Now it will be even worse.

    Why would anyone want that, anyway. Walmart offers stupid check cashing for less ($4) for up to twice as much ($1000) is open 24/7, and probably has more locations. And they hav

    • A lot of the country isn't that close to a Walmart. It takes me five minutes to get to the nearest post office, seven minutes to the second closest (driving).

      Nearest Walmart is a 25 minute drive.

      The pilot is basically on check cashing at a rate less than what many other businesses will charge (other than Walmart who undercuts competitors to get people in), loaded to Visa gift cards (where the "unbanked" can get it on a card they can spend money on. Depending on how it goes, the USPS may choose to offer more

  • Despite the claim made herein, 'under banned' families do not spend $50/week, $2,500/year on check cashing services in the private sector.

    Underbanked households have an average annual income of $25,000 and typically spend approximately 10% of their income on fees and interest to fringe financial institutions simply to access their money â" an amount equal to what the average household spends on food annually...

    Workers without bank accounts can cash their payroll checks at the bank their check is drawn on for free, no one walks into a check cashing 'store' and pays $100 every two weeks to cash their biweekly $1,000 paycheck.

    Do some people pay up to 10% to cash certain checks at certain times? Probably, but don't claim everyone without a bank account is doing that.

    If you want to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Agripa ( 139780 )

      Workers without bank accounts can cash their payroll checks at the bank their check is drawn on for free, no one walks into a check cashing 'store' and pays $100 every two weeks to cash their biweekly $1,000 paycheck.

      Tell that to Bank of America.

  • For those of you unfamiliar with the local post office it would be the one open 8-4:30 M-F and 9-12 on Saturday where the queue to mail a package averages around 45 minutes deep.

    It's possible that the convenience of hypothetical Postal banking is being somewhat overstated.

  • * sometimes your direct deposit doesn't show up until 3 weeks after your employer does the deposit
    * sometimes your direct deposit never shows up in your account at all
    * sometimes your direct deposit goes into another person's account

  • a flat rate of $5.95 to cash a check up to $500, really??? So if you're lucky you only pay about 1.2% of your check to cash it, but if it's a check for less, like $100 you pay 6%.
    this just sounds to me like they feel like they are missing out on fee's that come from these types of transactions and are looking to capitalize on it. If thats the case, why not just have payday loans at the post office too. you can drop by to grab some stamps and get a high interest loan to hold you over for a few days.

  • I understand if you're a loan shark making pay day loans for 30% fees... but a reputable financial service... especially a federal government agency charging to perform basic financial transactions seems wrong. Federal taxes must have been withdrawn when issuing a pay check. A portion of that tax is supposed to fund the postal service. I would never use a paper check and would most likely never use cash, but for the people who do, I consider them to be part of the infrastructure of the country and I feel my
  • I cannot not be surprised that checks are still so important in the US. In the industrialized world, we stopped using them decades ago. Why is it still so important in the US?

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close