Originally posted by sh76
I don't understand why people don't have bank accounts these days. There are many fee-free checking accounts (e.g., https://home.capitalone360.com/online-checking-account) with no minimum balance and everything can be done online except, I suppose, for depositing cash.
It would probably be better in the long run to educate people to open checking accounts th ...[text shortened]... ahead. But if it means subsidization from the federal government, I don't really see the point.
I'm sure it's very hard for someone living in the suburbs with an upper middle class lifestyle to understand why some people don't have bank accounts. But if you had bothered to check some of the links I provided, you'd have seen that there has been a wave of bank branch closings in recent years that have left certain areas with a severe shortages of banks (one link said there is one bank branch per 20,000 people in the Bronx). This is the same type of "consolidation" that you are proposing for the Post Office, which would mean even less service for a lot of lower income areas.
I don't see how it would require any "subsidization"; just permission from Congress to offer the financial services at the PO. "The point" is to make life a little easier and less costly to lower income people; a goal that obviously isn't very important to most commentators here but which Bernie thinks is a worthy one.
EDIT: In California, the unbanked population is exceptionally large. Sixty percent of low-income neighborhoods do not have a bank or credit union; tellingly, the state has twice as many check cashers and payday lenders as the rest of the country. Payday lenders charge 400 percent on loan interest rates, and check-cashing fees cost a family up to $2,000 a year. In total, the Center for Responsible Lending estimates that California families pay $450 million in payday loan fees each year.
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/banking_on_low_income_families