Banks can't just "take" your money

Home   E-mail

First of all, this is an oxymoron. How can someone "take money" from people who "have no money"? If a person does not have money, then it's impossible to take money from them in the first place. Just like I can't go to Africa and take clean water away from thirsty children. Speaking of which:

Who the fuck makes these? Do the people who share this shit even donate to the cause that they're guilting people for in the first place? Ever since the Ice Bucket Challenge took off, all of the angry, do-nothing slacktivists on social media got on their soap boxes to bitch about how people are "wasting" water, while billions of people on the planet suffer from a lack of clean water. As if the ice water "wasted" in the countless ice bucket challenges somehow was taken from people in third world countries to begin with. Those children would still have limited access to clean water regardless of whether or not millions of people in developed areas dumped buckets of ice on their head. Even if we all donated water to suffering people in third world countries, what difference would it make? Their lives are still going to be shitty. It's not like life in Somalia would be perfect if everyone there had a reasonable amount of clean water. And if it wasn't bad enough, I see people sharing this:

Once again, are these people actually donating to the causes they're guilting people for in the first place? I'm willing to bet no. Because before the Ice Bucket Challenge started, I saw exactly zero people bitching about how there isn't enough clean water to go around. If they really cared (which they don't), they would have been preaching and begging people to donate clean water to suffering people long before the Ice Bucket Challenge. People who make and share shit like this are nothing but miserable people with a stick up their ass who want to make others hate their lives as much as they hate their own.

Anyway, back to this bank nonsense. Who cares if banks received $30 billion in overdraft fees? All that matters is that I did not overdraft, which never happens because I know how to fucking count. Even during times when I have been broke, I made sure to not spend money I did not have, because it would cost me more money. Whether or not others lose money due to overdraft charges is of no significance to me. In fact, it's really easy to not spend money. Here's a flowchart that explains when to spend and not spend money:

Secondly, banks cannot "take" money. It's not like bankers are walking into people's houses with a gun and looting innocent people of their precious assets. Anyone that's ever opened up a bank account knows how much of a pain in the ass it is. Sitting down with a bank employee as they hand you paperwork to sign, explain what the documents entail, and answer any questions. Every bank I have ever done business with has always been clear about their overdraft fees, which I agreed to.

And if you don't agree to the overdraft rules? Guess what? You have every right to walk out! And take your money with you.

Also, banks should charge overdraft fees. If someone overdrafts their account, then the bank, and everyone else who has accounts with the bank, loses money. Why should everyone else lose due to negligent, careless account holders? For a bank to not charge overdraft fees would be a serious disservice to everyone with money in the bank.

People who don't have money should not have bank accounts to begin with. Aside from making money on interest, the primary reason to open a bank account is to secure money. To protect it against burglars and thieves that enter homes. If I have hundreds, thousands, or millions of dollars, it's much safer in a vault with high class security than it is in my bedroom drawer. But if I had no money, then what would be the purpose of having a bank account to begin with? That would be like a quadriplegic buying a bicycle, and then complaining that the bike salesman swindled him into buying a bike.

Share on Facebook