I can't see the connection between a person's earnings and how carefully he/she manages their bank account. With income only from small pensions and investments I don't think I could be considered a high earner, but I can't remember the last time I went over my agreed overdraft limit, because I keep a careful watch on my balance. I think Antonia's first question is the relevant one - why should a good (i.e. careful) customer pay for the profligacy of others? As to "free" banking, I agree with Alexandria.

Barry, Wallington, UK

I'm a low earner, in 10 years I've paid less than £15 in interest on credit cards and arranged overdraught interest.

The simplest option would seem to be, dont breach your overdraught.

Dominic, Manchester, UK

Low earners are not subsidizing those who are more careful. They are bolstering the Banks' obscene profits. With electronic banking meaning the customer does almost all the work, the cost to the bank of a normal current account which is always in credit must be minimal to nothing. When free banking was brought in the pay off for the bank was supposed to be that they had your money free to get a profit on by using it to make loans etc.

if they are going to charge me then I shall require a decent rate of interest on any money I leave in a current account as well as my savings account.

alexandria, Sheffield, UK

We are, prehaps deliberately, missing the point here. Current accounts should be free because the banks use our money to make more money for themselves. They are not looking after it as a favour to us. I realise that banks have a duty to their shareholders to make ever more obscene profits, but not with my money. If this trend of banditry continues I shall be resorting to the time-honoured biscuit tin under the matress.

Mike Poulsen, Reading,

It's not a matter of being careless, dishonest or irresponsible. If you have a lot of financial obligations and little money to meet them, bank charges are almost inevitable. The banks have been using the "why pay for other people's mistakes?" line for a while and we shouldn't fall for it. People don't usually exceed their authorised overdraft by choice or carelessness. Banks pay virtually no interest on current accounts, take several days to clear cheques and frequently charge customers twice for the same thing. Usually this charge puts them further over their limit and then the bank levies another charge! It's about time bank charges were properly investigated.

J Khir, Aberdeen, Scotland

Banks make the vast majority of their profits from investing the money we place in our accounts, not from fees levied on customers, poor or rich. They don't just leave the money sitting in a vault!! With this in mind, your article is missing the point. The 'poor old' banks are making plenty of money from us anyhow, and should be forced to absorb the so called 'extra' costs of administering peoples' accounts.

John Dixon, London, UK

Banks make the vast majority of their profits from investing the money we place in our accounts, not from fees levied on customer, poor or rich. They don't just leave the money sitting in a vault!! With this in mind, your article is missing the point. The 'poor old' banks are making plenty of money from us anyhow, and should be forced to absorb the so called 'extra' costs of administering peoples' accounts.

John Dixon, London, UK

What a nonsense article it is not a matter of "poor customers subsidise the rest?" It is the irresponsible with a cavalier attitude to other peoples money who partly subsidise the rest. The poor like myself are careful not to spend someone else's money without asking permission. Customers with credit balances loan their money to the banks, at usually zero interest, why should they subsidise the careless, profligate and sometimes dis-honest. Additionally, those who "borrow" the bank's money without permission are certainly more likely to default and "risky" customers always pay a premium for finance.

A. Robertson, Edinburgh,

What an unbalanced article it is not a matter of "poor customers subsidise the rest?" It is the irresponsible with a cavalier attitude to other peoples money who partly subsidise the rest. The poor like myself are careful not to spend someone else's money without asking permission. Customers with credit balances loan their money to the banks, at usually zero interest, why should they subsidise the careless, profligate and sometimes dis-honest. Additionally, those who "borrow" the bank's money without permission are certainly more likely to default and "risky" customers always pay a premium for finance.

A. Robertson, Edinburgh,

What an unbalanced article it is not a matter of "poor customers subsidise the rest?" It is the irresponsible with a cavalier attitude to other peoples money who partly subsidise the rest. The poor like myself are careful not to spend someone else's money without asking permission or to incur penalty charges which I could ill afford. Customers with credit balances loan their money to the banks, at usually zero interest, why should they subsidise the careless, profligate and sometimes dis-honest. Only those with a zero credit receive free banking. Additionally, those who "borrow" the bank's money without permission are certainly more likely to default and "risky" customers always pay a premium for finance.

A. Robertson, Edinburgh,