It’s not unusual for me to find that my arguments in a debate are different from everyone else’s. Take voting. Some people argue we should vote because it's our country. Others argue we should vote because if we don't, who will? On the other side, some people say we shouldn't vote because it makes no difference. I believe that these arguments are too individual, too emotional or otherwise don't hold up to scrutiny.
I say we should vote because it's selfish to expect others to do it for us. As an extension to that, there are many people (for example, those who fought in the war) who believe they have done a lot to help the UK continue to have the chance to vote. We can make them happier simply by getting out of our chairs and wandering down to our polling station, or by dropping our vote into the letterbox. Even spoiling the ballot paper because you don't know who to vote for or don't see a difference means you've at least made the effort.
I find myself in the same position regarding the bank-charges debate. People who are for reclaiming charges say that the charges are extortionate. Some say that the charges have put them into debt, or further into it. They say why should they fund free banking for the wealthy? People against reclaiming charges ask why people who are good with their bank accounts should have to pay for that service. They also ask why they should have to pay for banking when the system works well enough the way it is. They say the claimants brought it upon themselves.
Whilst I empathise very strongly with the people who have debt problems largely or solely because of charges, and admire their arguments much more than the other side, they are unfortunately too weak when faced with the stronger, more confident voices of the wealthy, who are much more powerful than the poor, relative to their height.
From my point of view, there is only one argument that should be used to say that people should reclaim bank charges: they are unlawful. Ethics, cost, personal responsibility, the loss of free banking, and whatever other arguments that people use on either side simply aren’t relevant.
Consider that wealthy people also optimise their finances as much as possible within the law. The result of this is often that many richer people pay even less tax than their poorer counterparts. In turn, this means that poorer people need to pay more to cover the losses to the Treasury.
Therefore, anyone who argues that we mustn’t reclaim charges because it negatively impacts others (i.e. themselves) should also stop trying to cut their tax payments with clever inheritance planning, income tax planning, CGT planning and so on. Whilst they’re at it, they shouldn’t shop around for the best deals, because that means some other poor bugger will have to pay more elsewhere. I could go on but I shan’t. Everyone optimises their finances as far as they are allowed to. Indeed, we can’t expect the world to work any other way.
Perhaps this debate will be academic if the rather expensive and talented packs of lawyers the banks have hired manage to do their jobs and sway the judge in their favour (although the excellent legal opinion I have received calls their arguments sophistry). We'll see which side: the poor and indebted, or the banks and the wealthy, are smug when it's all over.
I make no secret which side I'm on, but swaying the opinion of the public proves harder than swaying a judge when everyone has a vested interest, no matter how well you argue your case. And I’ve just written a few paragraphs on it.
I guess that means you also won't believe my view that gradually increasing your saturated fat intake must surely help you to build up a tolerance for cholesterol?
