The growth of ATM charging in poor urban area, basically a tax on the poor?

Answer 1

Not a tax but certainly exploitation of the poor. We live in a very sick society.

Answer 2

Since very few ATMs charge it is a tax particularly since the government is keen to make people use bank accounts rather than post offices to receive pensions and benefits. Some banks have agreed to set in free ATM in certain areas but this is a limited number

Answer 3

OK - this is controversial but....

We know from empirical evidence that street theft and theft from shops is more prevalent in poor areas. Convenience stores price their products accordingly, in terms of the risk of stock shrinkage and one-off large scale robberies. Also, because they don't have the same throughput of some items, the opportunties for economies of scale for purchasing are reduced. Agruably conditions exist for the operators of ATMs in non-banking premises.

Having argued that there is an economic justification for charging, it is quite clear that poorer people are exploited "because they can be". What needs to be addressed is the underlying causes of deprivation, and until then private companies will continue to poorer people to contibute a disproportionate amount of profits.

Answer 4

ATMs have had a charge with their use for a long time now. Are you saying that only recently poor neighborhoods have started getting charged at the ATMs. If that's so then they have been getting off lucky.

Answer 5

I don't think ATMs are serviced quite enough. The money probably goes into security and maintenance. It's certainly easier to service ATMs in city centres when you think about transport, access and high usage compared with lower pedestrian traffic elsewhere.

Answer 6

its not just ATM that change that is wrong.but now banks are saying that if you do not have a certain amount in your account.they will change the poor.10-20 a month. banks do not want poor people to use the bank because they cannot earn any money from then.

Answer 7

yes they re playing on the lack of access in poorer areas so in effect its a tax on poor and less mobile people like the elderly. the government and the banks should be ashamed

Answer 8

certainly it regarded surprisingly a million/2 and a million/2 to me. in general the middle class is conservative and the wealthy and the damaging are liberal. the wealthy ar ebecoming liberal because of the fact they make money off the damaging by utilising performing like they accept as true with them, in case you should attempt and understand that. the middle class only needs the government to depart them on my own so they are able to only stay their lives. Obama needed extra government administration, no denying that.

Answer 9

I think it's a tax on people who use the pointless pikey word 'basically' all the time.

Answer 10

yes,but not as much as the lottery is.Thay one is a real idiot+poor tax