this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
41 points (97.7% liked)

Canada

11715 readers
521 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rozodru@piefed.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

was this really an issue?

When I lived in the US it was incredibly easy to overdraw at the bank due to how they process debits. This was naturally by design.

Here in Canada I can't even recall the last time I overdrew and got an NSF fee. the debits are processed differently here where it makes it almost impossible to overdraw. I'm by no means an expert on banking but I honestly don't think I've ever overdrawn. If I didn't have enough money it was just declined.

[–] shinratdr@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 minutes ago

Did you read the post? 1/3 Canadians incur one of these fees per year, $600M annual savings. So yes, it’s an issue.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Explain to me how NSF fees are even a thing. The processing has to be so negligible in terms of "cost". I've been caught with my pants down on to these a few times and it usually because I forgot which account funds were coming out of.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Explain to me how NSF fees are even a thing. The processing has to be so negligible in terms of "cost".

It's more punitive than any practical thing.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 1 points 36 minutes ago (1 children)

It's more profit driven than punitive

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 minutes ago

"I see you don't have enough money. I'm gonna take more money away from you" feels pretty damn punitive to most people.

[–] BinzyBoi@piefed.ca 12 points 17 hours ago

Great!

I get the argument of saying this is a diversion from the actual issue, but even then, sometimes things happen, and even if you're getting by alright, issues can pop up suddenly.

Few months ago I was donating to Amnesty International and Save The Children. I've stopped since funds are tight, but I remember starting off was really awkward since I was told by one that there would be no immediate donation needed, to which I was later told there would be. Ended up with $150 in NSF fees because I couldn't cancel that initial donation, followed by the other trying to withdraw funds I would have otherwise had twice.

I'd have taken being $120 less in the negative any day.

[–] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 6 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

how about you don't focus on lowering costs, and instead CHARGE RICH FUCKS LIKE GALEN WESTIN MORE TAX AND DEMAND HOGHER WAGES FOR ALL CITIZENS SO WE CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD SHIT AND DONT HAVE TO EVEN WORRY ABOUT STUPID NSF FEES FROM NOT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY TO BEGIN WITH.

enough with the fucking bandaids .. go after the cancers causing this..

[–] shinratdr@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 minutes ago

This measure isn’t a bandaid for what you describe. Imagine a scenario where you got everything you suggest here, living wages and higher tax on the 1%.

Would that mean that this NSF fee cap would be redundant? Not at all, we absolutely should be capping NSF fees as even in that scenario it’s a predatory poverty tax.

Things like tax rebates for services instead of capping prices, or subsidies for services if your income is under a certain threshold instead of making it affordable in the first place, those are bandaid solutions. That’s not what this is.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world -3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Well given they did mass immigration to intentionally debase salaries, after leading to skyrocketing asset prices via money printing and stimulus, so I'm going to say they wont do that. Remember the quiet quitting phenomenon we had around 2022 when wages were actually rising, how that was quickly squashed by our very own NDP/Liberal coalition?

Theres a reason the young are shifting to conservative while boomers love the Liberals, they protect their home values and their equity values. Then they make vague promises around climate change to fool the naive youth, while importing mass amounts of people into urban sprawl and hour long commutes since their housing plan is also intentionally ineffective.

[–] slykethephoxenix@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

How many subreddits you banned from for this opinion?

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

A lot. Including /r/canadahousing.

It makes sense though, because how could additional demand possibly create shortages?

[–] slykethephoxenix@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I was banned on that sub for saying something similar, lol.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Its artisanal grade gaslighting we've had for long while now. Meanwhile everyone with a brain can figure out that its to hide falling economic growth, as Eby and the sane MP's beg for them to stop.

Luckily we have Gregor Robinson as housing minister now, so we have the foremost expert in making housing unaffordable.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 hours ago

Stop using Canadian banks. By using them you're supporting them.

Use Wise, Wealth Simple, or a credit union.