They won’t move for free money, they’re not gonna move for a nominal fee. It’s ‘too much hassle’ to move all your direct debits and salary.
You don’t have to win every argument. Be magnanimous.
1 Like
They aren’t the same thing so you can’t apply how people act in one situation to the other.
With switch offers, staying where they are doesn’t “cost” money, it just doesn’t get you any extra money. With paid bank accounts, that changes. Staying where you are would actively lose you money. The psychology of the scenarios is different.
3 Likes
Arseholes are like opinions. Everyone has one. Why don’t we wait and see.
I’ll refer you back to when I said this has been mooted for years and never happened. In fact, money to move offers have increased. This implies banks are making plenty of money from the apathy of the majority.
We’ll check back in three years and see where it stands. If I’m wrong I will stand corrected.
You seem to be confusing the arguments. Very few people here have given an opinion about whether or not it will happen so haven’t actually said you are wrong about that.
People have disagreed with you about the impact of fees on accounts and whether that would lead to switches.
2 Likes
It’s not really free though, is it? I would expect a flat fee to be much fairer and more equitable than the current “free” system, which hammers the poor with overdraft fees, late payment fees, interest, etc to subside cashback and switch bribes for those better off.
This is the internet. It is your absolute right to disagree. Let’s not go round in circles.
1 Like
Do you think if they charged for banking, those things would go away? 
Presumably if they wanted to charge for banking it would be because they wanted to make more money, so all those things would stay plus there’d be a monthly account fee on top.
4 Likes
Exactly. They aren’t going to get rid of making money of those who are less fortunate out of the goodness of their heart. I’m sure they would happily keep them plus introduce a fee (if people wouldn’t just switch away if they did).
2 Likes
Not noted yet but I also sort of enjoy the article’s implication that the reason they would implement this is to help pay for all the regulatory fines the big banks are accruing.
How about they just stop breaking the law instead
5 Likes
Exactly. I had a whole thing going there then deleted it and decided to bow out gracefully.
There’s a whole group of people who exist between the overdraft fees and the high interest savers. Where the budget lasts the month but only just. Adding another bill to that might be too much. What if the banking fee is the thing that puts them in an overdraft?
2 Likes
Banks do charge indirectly as the amounts in current accounts are in general not interest bearing and their income from overdrafts is typically 39% notwithstanding all the other high interest products they offer. Furthermore they can invest in high interest products as they keep a designated amount in liquid assets per Bank of England requirements. Banks are all about confidence as a run on a bank could cause downfall. However, banks are normally backed up by other banks and the Bank of England as lender of last resort.