With the world's central planners (and their status quo hugging cronies) calling for cash bans (and rather ironically helicopter money at the same time), the soaring costs of getting one's own money appears to be a quiet form of capital control creeping up on the distracted American public. As WSJ reports, the average cost for using an automated teller machine that isn’t tied to a customer’s bank rose to a record $4.52 per transaction (with average “out-of-network” cost tops $5 and can rise to as much as $8 in some places.)
The average cost for using an automated teller machine that isn’t tied to a customer’s bank rose to a record $4.52 per transaction over the past year, according to a survey from data provider Bankrate Inc. that will be released Monday.
In Atlanta and New York, the average “out-of-network” cost tops $5 and can rise to as much as $8 in some places under certain circumstances, Bankrate said.
The new average rate reflects an increase of 21% over the past five years.
“Someone has to pay to maintain these ATM networks, and so that burden is falling on the noncustomers,” says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.
Average fees vary by city largely because big national banks price differently depending on the market, while local banks may have unique pricing plans.
In addition to Atlanta and New York, the Bankrate survey found that cities with the highest ATM fees include Phoenix at $4.88, Miami at $4.84, and Milwaukee at $4.78.
The lowest ATM fees were in San Francisco, Cincinnati at $3.86, Kansas City at $4.01, Dallas at $4.11 and Seattle at $4.21.
* * *
While this is not a direct capital control, it is clear that the "tax" on accessing your own money is rising rapidly, and as we noted previously,
The benefits to banks and governments by eliminating cash are self-evident:
- Every financial transaction can be taxed
- Every financial transaction can be charged a fee
- Bank runs are eliminatedIn fractional reserve systems such as ours, banks are only required to hold a fraction of their assets in cash. Thus a bank might only have 1% of its assets in cash. If customers fear the bank might be insolvent, they crowd the bank and demand their deposits in physical cash. The bank quickly runs out of physical cash and closes its doors, further fueling a panic.The federal government began insuring deposits after the Great Depression triggered the collapse of hundreds of banks, and that guarantee limited bank runs, as depositors no longer needed to fear a bank closing would mean their money on deposit was lost.But since people could conceivably sense a disturbance in the Financial Force and decide to turn digital cash into physical cash as a precaution, eliminating physical cash also eliminates the possibility of bank runs, as there will be no form of cash that isn’t controlled by banks.