Thursday, May 3, 2018

Bill Would Create Postal Bank

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D - NY) introduced legislation (S. 2755) to create a Postal Bank, which would establish a retail bank in all of the U.S. Postal Service’s 30,000 locations.

Between 1910 and 1967, the U.S. Post Office offered banking services. However by the 1950s, the need for the Postal Savings System was being questioned and in 1965 the Postmaster General recommended abolishing the system.

According to Senator Gillibrand, permitting the post office to offer basic banking services would benefit low-income Americans by wiping out the predatory payday lending industry.

According to the press release, the Postal Bank would offer small-dollar checking accounts, small-dollar savings accounts, small-dollar loans, transaction services, and remittance services.

A 2015 survey of consumers by Raddon's National Consumer Research found that 9 percent of consumers would be extremely or very likely to use the post office to access their financial services. These consumers tended to have income below $50,000 and to be 44 years old or younger.

As I wrote in July 28, 2014 blog post, "[t]he danger to banks and credit unions is that this new postal savings bank could be perceived by many as a government-endorsed and preferred provider of financial products and the last thing we need is more government competition with the private sector."

Read the press release.

1 comment:

  1. Would tend to agree with your point about government interference when they can’t even do their current job right.
    In this case it’s poetic to think that Ms Gillibrand thinks the government will do a better job when one considers the congress has allowed the credit unions to swerve from the mission of making small loans to people of small means.
    Now they have 500 or so credit unions that are banks that don’t pay taxes and 5000 that are zombies. And while people of modest means need an alternative to loan sharks.
    Now Hilary junior wants MORE government involvement.
    It would be funny we’re it not ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete