Goodbye free, hello fees?

close

Video

Goodbye free, hello fees?

Report: Banks dropping free checking accounts as regulations kick in

DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

PRESIDENT CALL FOR "ECONOMIC PATRIOTISM" AMID SPENDING RUSH

GARY B.SMITH: Not this version of economic patriotism. I think this plan is going to do more harm than good. I went through Obama's plan as well as his television commercial and there were things that caught my attention that didn't make any sense. One, he wants to cut tax breaks for companies that outsource. When companies outsource the net effect is to create more jobs in the United States. People are able to buy goods cheaper because companies are able to make the goods cheaper. When they can buy goods cheaper they spend more money in other sectors. Two, the other thing that Obama wants to do is he wants to invest in education and training programs. That's all well and good and we know that it's going to cost millions of dollars, but that's not how the economy works.

JONAS MAX FERRIS: It's the only specific tax increase out of both candidates. It would close the deficit returning some of the taxes to higher levels. However, you can't call it patriotism when you say that a small fraction of the country will bear this extra tax burden because everyone should have to pay more taxes. When you combine the tax proposals of Mitt Romney and president Obama together you would have a patriotic plan where you are removing some of the benefits that lower income people have received in the last ten and fifteen years. If we were to have a high bracket then we would have high revenues across the board, broadening the base and that would lower the deficit the most. There are other things in this plan that are frankly not patriotic.

STEPHANIE FITCH: Here's a guy that the right wing loons have been calling a Manchurian candidate from Kenya for the last four years and it's kind of amusing to watch him waving old glory in their faces. I'm not so sure that either of these candidates has taken anything serious about the debt. At least Obama is talking about raising taxes and raising real revenue. I don't think we really know what Romney's plan is because he won't really share any details with us. I'll tell you what though. You say everything is about cutting spending. Gary, Europe has been cutting spending like crazy and do you see where Europe is headed. There's a lot of evidence that they're in recession now because they've been over aggressive about austerity and I don't think that would be good for the United States.

TOBIN SMITH: Of course debt is going to go up. Patriotism is just another code word for borrowing more money. If you take the spending the way its structured and you take it out eight to ten years we will get to that point like Greece and Spain where there is no return. There is a point at which interest rates go up that thirty percent of our entire budget is to pay interest. So in my book it's not very patriotic to bankrupt the country and that's exactly the road that we're on.

KYLE HARRINGTON: I want the red, white and blue on top and one of the ways to not do this is with these code words of economic patriotism and redistribution of wealth. This just continues to facilitate where we print more money and raise taxes to complete insolvency.

REPORT: BANKS RAISING FEES TO HELP PAY FOR NEW GOV'T REGULATIONS

KYLE HARRINGTON: The current administration with the Dodd Frank regulatory environment has increased the regulatory costs to these banks in order to remain and continue solvent. Guess who they're going to pass these costs onto? It's the consumer. No more free checking, you're going to be charged for your checking accounts.

STEPHANE FITCH: It was always a big phony scam. There never was anything such as free checking. It was something that the banks would tell you that you were receiving free checking but then they would hit you with ten unexpected fees. The regulations have made it difficult to charge those fees and so now we're going back to a more honest system.

GARY B. SMITH: There is a lot of competition in the financial sector. You have community banks, big money center banks and credit unions that if they want to gain market share would pass these along. I had to laugh when Stephane said that we will have a fairer system as if the government is the one to insure that we have honesty in all industries. A lot of government is so corrupt to begin with, but yes they're going to be in charge of fairness now for the financial industry - I love it.

JONAS MAX FERRIS: They are more inept than corrupt just to clarify. The point of this policy is to stop the next banking crisis and the next Bernie Madoff. In the specifics there are winners and losers. The kind of person who would bounce a lot of checks over the limit, they would benefit because now there would be less owner's fees on that person, the overdraft client. The person who actually plays it by the rules invests in free checking the same way the guy who takes a zero percent cash offer from a credit card but then doesn't let it go into the twenty-nine percent mode when the period expires. You're taking away free checking as a reward to the very diligent consumer. If you're the guy who was bouncing a lot of checks then you're better off with these new regulations.

TOBIN SMITH: The deal here is that these regulations actually makes it worse for the people who can afford it the least It might not matter to a person who has a $3 ATM charge, but then that charge is going to go to five and six bucks. That then takes away from the people who have the least money. The same goes with checks and bounced fees. In the word of doing well and making things right they're actually hurting the poorer person and the rich person wouldn't care.

REPORT: U.N. PUSHING FOR A GLOBAL TAX ON INVESTMENTS AND FLYING

TOBIN SMITH: It's simple because it just adds on. Once you get to that point it will continue to remain a tax on tax. This is what these guys are hoping for. To get a little sliver going and then it starts to roll and then what you have is efficient money going into the inefficient government and then it becomes a disaster.

STEPHANE FITCH: I don't think there's a lot of reason to speculate about this tax because it's not going to happen. These are people who propose that countries voluntarily create a tax on themselves. The U.N. has no taxing authority. There's just no chance of it. We've heard threats of these taxes before this is just nonsense from the U.N. bureaucracy.

GARY B. SMITH: I'd say for the last twenty years, and to paraphrase Ronal Reagan the nine most terrifying words are, "I'm from the U.N. and we're here to help." Even back in 2005 USA Today said that the U.N. is a scandal. They've had scandal after scandal. It's an organization that has corrupt dictators, corrupt countries that make up a decent part of their membership.

JONAS MAX FERRIS: I actually do think that some of these ideas are going to become policy. Maybe not from the U.N., but there will be a tax of some sort to pay for the world's ills through many large exchanges. It will exist at some point and it's not a bad thing necessarily. I will say that by just taxing financial people for the world's ills makes no sense.

KYLE HARRINGTON: Listen to this narrative of government and taxes. This is preposterous to me and the more that we have these inefficient taxes it is efficient money going into inefficient areas and it is a narrative of redistribution of wealth.

PREDICTIONS

TOBIN SMITH: (KOG)

STEPHANIE FITCH: (BA)

GARY B. SMITH: (SBUX)

KYLE HARRINGTON: (JNJ)

JONAS MAX FERRIS: (DLTNX)