Morning Line: Banking customers should share costs more evenly

No, the real gripe is the pathetic interest rates offered to savers so that the bankers enjoy huge bonuses. It would be much fairer if the banks (and building societies) paid their in-credit account holders real-return rates of interest and had a easily-understandable fee structures for those customers who go overdrawn. It was very telling in the reports over the weekend that 'pay-day' loans can be a cheaper option than going overdrawn with your bank!

Sorry big city bonuses come from the investment banking arms - Not the Retail one. If you work for a bank you can have completely different pay & conditions depending on which area you work in.

HSBC Retail had a larger number of basic holidays, but lower pay scales than the Investment Banking Division

Paying for your own use sounds fair enough on an equal charge scale and, interest rates that reflect base rates for borrowers and savers would seem a better deal.

Don't forget people choose to have children - if they can't afford them don't have them don't winge about cost. The government also pays those with children and those without get b****r all! If people started living within their means and not keeping up with their friends kids then we all might be better off in more ways than one. Rant over......just that the 'young families' arguement doesn't hold water to me.

We were all young once but not all of us depended on overdrafts. As I lend my cash to my bank, currently interest free, I m already doing my bit towards helping those who do not bother to live within their means. I look forward to banks being forced to "treat customers fairly" and pay interest on deposits.

Ive got a good idea!

hows about banking costs being reduced for ALL and deposit interest rates being set at least at the level of inflation (after tax). And banks giving some value back to society.

instead of (as usual) trying to get us all divided. This time between overdraft & non-overdraft users and missing the real problem - parasitical, greedy bankers. Wheres the payback for the £850billion? They now want to charge for what was once free? wheres the competitive element?

Hows about banks and bankers serving a social function as well as continually jamming their self-serving snouts into the trough?

I wonder where the money from the "fairer" charging system would end up? in the pockets of young famlies bringing up children? I think not.

just a thought

I am really fed up with this concept of 'fairness'.

It is a term that was spun and pushed by the last Government and in practical terms is rubbish, in conceptual terms only, it has some attraction.

Life is not always 'fair', nor has it ever been and nor will it ever be.

Living as we do in the 'relative' there will always be greater and lesser.

All that can be done by a Government is to protect the weakest from excessive ravages by the rich upon the poor.

People run businesses in order to make money, that money is taxed and then that tax is used to run the country which includes the poor and the indigent, maybe this is what is called 'an enlightened liberal democracy'?

I myself have been through periods of great poverty, even to the extent of having to burn furniture to keep warm and having to find wild salad and vegetables in hedgerows. This was not through choice but unexpected circumstance that wiped me out from a financial p.o.v. I have no jealousy of those that get a bonus or a pay off of tens of millions, good luck to them - it is their destiny, who knows what will happen to them when they have become prisoners of their own money.

So please may we banish this 'fair' word into the dust-bin of history.

Meanwhile I have been to Metro Bank and opened an account, it was an uplifting experience, the guys there are so pleasant you can see that they themselves just love working there, what is more with that sort of workplace atmosphere it crossed my mind to apply for a job.

Utterly brilliant!

To suggest it is more or less obligitory to borrow if you are young and raising children is a nonsense. Young marrieds have always been hard up but in the past there was this "quaint idea" of living within ones means. Most would not have dreamt of borrowing for daily needs and while they might have taken on HP commitments for TVs,Washing Machines etc this would be after considering how repayments could be met and deferring the purchases until they could afford to do so.

The "I want it now" society has to learn to behave responsibly--or stop moaning about the penalties if they don't.

There also seems to be this idea that if you are old/elderly you contribute nothing but very large numbers in that category are taxpayers and, therefore, continue to contribute to the public purse from which young families benefit.

What are Banks supposed to be? Businesses or Social Charities? I was hoping that a change of Government would end this "help the poor, the needy and those that don't understand family planning" train of thought but I guess there are a few "socialists" still around.......

PS Free banking is available for those that look for it........even my current account pays me 4%.....although it's a pity the savings account can't match it!

Agree mostly with the previous posters. More wealth bashing. Sure being wealthy gives you more life options and privileges. Just like being intelligent or healthy gives you more options in other avenues of life. Well, there's a surprise!

The vast majority of general wealth is borne from hard work. Yes, I'm sure the statistics will say that most wealth by value is inherited, but that is the super-wealthy, upper 0.0x% of the population enjoying the 20%+ of the country's wealth. Outside the scope of this discussion - there's only so many cheques someone can write! What we are on about is regular middle-class wealth and should be celebrated and not derided.

I've no issues paying a fair rate but no government soon is going to legislate what that is. No Siree - its the open market. However, if I were the government I'd scrap the bank tax but transform NSI into a goverment-owned commercial retail high street operation with full disclosure as if it were on the market and with a cap on earnings, appropriate bonuses for commercial equalling performance. Then we'd see some real competition without the existing cartels. Just watch the bleating that would cause!

Jaymack has set me off! Absolutely - all this bull about 'progressive' government i.e. bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator. For this society to get off its borrowing, must have today culture would be real progress!

Ian. Yes there are still socialists around I am one, when I was bringing up my 4 kids I did not have a bank account let alone a loan, yes we went without a lot of things but we are none the worse for it. Kids are all now in their 40s and hopefully are not into hock for anything.

I suspect that a good many of these people who get charged are just too sloppy to manage their finances properly.

Why should I have to pay for them?

I'm not wealthy, just sensible.

Jingoistic....ooops, sorry, good for you..............what has 40+years of socialism done for you ?

Al RE NSI as a competative retail banking organisation: What a good idea!

Hang on a minute. This is the twenty-first century. How many people write copious numbers of cheques. Most people these days have the option to settle their accounts by standing order, direct debit, or debit card. Since all transactions are electronic the cost is negligible provided the account runs an ongoing cash balance.

For someone who has a monthly cash-flow of £10,000, a minimum balance of £1000 and writes two cheques the net cost to the bank would be zero.

Likewise for someone with a monthly cash-flow of £1000, a minimum balance of £100 and does not write any cheques, the cost to the bank will be nothing because any admin' cost will be more than covered by interest earned on the residual balance.

It is only when the account goes overdrawn that the headaches start. The admin' costs would be very similar for someone who is overdrawn by £100 to that of someone who is in the red by £1000 so the person who has under funded by £100 has to pay more pro-rata.

I remember a time when I could only just keep my head above water financially. There was no electronic transfer in those days. It was just cash or cheque. My solution to the problem was to close my bank account and settle all my bills in cash. This meant I could not spend what I didn't have, and also I dealt direct with my creditors, who in every case were understanding and gave me a reasonable time to pay without charge.

I'm sorry but I have little sympathy with those who rely on overdrafts.

Banking is free if you are in credit.

You don't have to pay for a cheque book, a debit card, a monthly statement, cash points, internet banking, telephone banking or using branches.

Why don't we just force better off people to give their money to people chosen by Lorna Bourke?

You have completely and utterly got it wrong dear Lorna. The people who are being penalised for using unauthorised overdrafts are far more likely to be those who have the highest volume use of their accounts and those who deliberately try it on. The former tend to be businesses with poor cash flow control and the latter deserve what they get.

Those who break the rules deserve a fixed charge, which is easily to apply.

The only part of your article which makes any sense is the part re high interest rates for loans/overdrafts. But Lorna knows the reason for this and will also know that the rates are creaping down.

PS I am not a bank man.

Holly sh1t!! All these years I've been totally wrong about finance, now this insightful article by Lorna has shown me the light.

It's "fair" that if you lend money to an organisation like a bank you pay them to hold your money for you and conversely if you borrow money from a bank they pay you to hold it for them.

Makes perfect sense now!