Brentastic Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Did you know there is a federal law that limits you to only 6 transfers from your savings account to another account? You are also only allowed 4 debit (ATM) transactions. If you do more than 6 transfers you get charged a $12 fee and you get charged $3 for any debit transaction over 4. I'm so Penny Laneing livid about this and every other thing going on in our modern society. I think I'm going to Penny Laneing snap. I'm glad the gubmit is there to legislate how I spend my savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) The 6 withdrawls per month limit is true but it looks like the bank is imposing the 4 ATM transactions limit itself. Edited October 26, 2010 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 It's actually 6 electronic transfers - ACH - (not in person) out of your savings account per any given month. Typically for most of us, that's moving money online or over the phone to a checking account, or an ATM withdrawal out of savings. After the 6, you can still move money out of savings, but you have to do it in person at the bank. I don't believe checking accounts are impacted. And if you're using an online bank like ING or Emigrant, you're stuck because there's no "bank" to go visit. It's a fed regulation, that has to do with reserve requirements bank must maintain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 This is change I can believe in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 This 6 withdrawal limitation is part of the Federal Reserve’s Regulation D requirements, commonly called “Reg D”. Reg D was enacted as part of the Securities Act of 1933 in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash and was part of the New Deal Why the limit? Reg D focuses on the correct calculation of reserves. In order t properly calculate reserves, they must be classified the correct way. In order for a savings account to be a savings account, it must have less than 6 withdrawals (or transfers) within a one month period. If a customer fails to abide by this limitation on more than an occasional basis, the account can no longer be classified as savings account under Reg D. it's hard for me to see how this is a big deal in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 it's hard for me to see how this is a big deal in any way. +1 I dont put any money into my savings account that I think I may need to take back out any time soon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 This is change I can believe in! It has also been around for years . . . before Obama was elected. This entry was posted on Saturday, December 29th, 2007 at 1:00 am and is filed under Banks, Frugal Living. And i really dont see the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 which is more predictable? redrum rushing in to blame obama, or "fair and balanced" boy princess rushing in to gallantly defend him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 which is more predictable? redrum rushing in to blame obama, or "fair and balanced" boy princess rushing in to gallantly defend him? Or a personal attack by you? Are you THAT intellectually challenged that all you can come up with is a stupid insult that you stole from West Virginia? Wait . . . you already answered that question by your actions . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Or a personal attack by you? Are you THAT intellectually challenged that all you can come up with is a stupid insult that you stole from West Virginia? Wait . . . you already answered that question by your actions . . . Not that I need to defend Az, but intellectually challenged? He may be a lot of things, but that ain't one of 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) Not that I need to defend Az, but intellectually challenged? He may be a lot of things, but that ain't one of 'em. He can google right wing blogs that support his slanted opinion, read them, summarize them in a few introductory sentences and then copy and paste said slanted blogs with some of the best and brightest minds out there. Edited October 26, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Funny how this just devolves right into partisan rock chucking. None of it addresses the point: Why do we need the government sticking it's nose into how many transactions I can make with my own money, electronic or otherwise? The argument of reserve requirements is very thin, considering that I can transact in person as often as I'd like. They're just trimming the real estate in the corral, a little bit at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 He can google right wing blogs that support his slanted opinion, read them, summarize them in a few introductory sentences and then copy and paste said slanted blogs with some of the best and brightest minds out there. ZMOG!11! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 which is more predictable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Funny how this just devolves right into partisan rock chucking. None of it addresses the point: Why do we need the government sticking it's nose into how many transactions I can make with my own money, electronic or otherwise? The argument of reserve requirements is very thin, considering that I can transact in person as often as I'd like. They're just trimming the real estate in the corral, a little bit at a time. +1 Oh and Az would take out BP within two minutes of the first round the only questions is whether it is a knock out or submission. I'm guessing submission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 None of it addresses the point: Why do we need the government sticking it's nose into how many transactions I can make with my own money, electronic or otherwise? The argument of reserve requirements is very thin, considering that I can transact in person as often as I'd like. They're just trimming the real estate in the corral, a little bit at a time. the new deal regulations require that the banks classify their accounts into categories -- savings, checking, etc -- for purposes of calculating their reserve requirements. I dunno why it really matters, but our government betters decided it was important 80 years ago. that's clearly the reason the requirement is there, whether you think it's a strong reason or not. I don't know if they were right or wrong, but it doesn't seem like a very constraining requirement. you can still take all your money out in one shot (or 6), any time, so it's not like it can be cast as some nefarious plot to hold your money captive. to me, it's just an innocuous, arcane rule defining what a "savings" account is. BFD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Funny how this just devolves right into partisan rock chucking. That's pretty much what the tailgate has devolved into. The board should just change forum rules to eliminate political talk. Nobody is really changing minds and it's more of a gang mentality of partisans looking for a circle jerk. Has nothing to do with truth finding and the tailgate would be better off just closing threads as members have clearly shown that they have no interest in honest conversations on politics. Football and a hobby have brought a lot of people together on these boards and politics does little but cause divides. If the political flies want to argue politics every day there are plenty of other places with people that have more time and inclination to discuss those topics. /soapbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Not that I need to defend Az, but intellectually challenged? He may be a lot of things, but that ain't one of 'em. yah the uni bomber was not intellectually challenged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 yah the uni bomber was not intellectually challenged Is that a personal attack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 The board should just change forum rules to eliminate political talk. Be careful what you wish for............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Funny how this just devolves right into partisan rock chucking. None of it addresses the point: Why do we need the government sticking it's nose into how many transactions I can make with my own money, electronic or otherwise? The argument of reserve requirements is very thin, considering that I can transact in person as often as I'd like. They're just trimming the real estate in the corral, a little bit at a time. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 They're just trimming the real estate in the corral, a little bit at a time. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 They're just trimming the real estate in the corral, a little bit at a time. +1 This. you guys do know this "little bit at a time" happened 80 years ago, right? I mean, I'm very sympathetic to the notion of shrinking liberty and government encroachment, but come on. an 80 year-old rule that says banks have to call your account "checking" rather than "savings" if they allow you to make more than 6 withdrawls per month....in the "real estate" of lost liberty in this country, that's a fraction of one blade of grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 you guys do know this "little bit at a time" happened 80 years ago, right? I mean, I'm very sympathetic to the notion of shrinking liberty and government encroachment, but come on. an 80 year-old rule that says banks have to call your account "checking" rather than "savings" if they allow you to make more than 6 withdrawls per month....in the "real estate" of lost liberty in this country, that's a fraction of one blade of grass. You're now starting to sound like Ursa in regards to earmarks or NPR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.