Tax Refunds And Prepaid Debit Cards

Prepaid debit cards have recently become a favored way for states and the federal government to pay tax refunds, but for consumers, whether it is a benefit or not – the answer is, it depends.

By Shane Tripcony

The arguments in favor of the use of prepaid debit cards over paper checks in states like Connecticut, Georgia and Louisiana are similar. Not only do citizens who lack a bank account – and therefore cannot take advantage of direct deposit – receive their refund quicker than if it came through the mail in the form of a paper check, but the governments themselves like prepaid debit cards because it save them money.

Those are a few of the issues John Friedman took up in a recent story for Bloomberg Law entitled, “Policy Perspectives On Tax Refunds: An Economic Analysis Of Government-Sponsored Debit Card Refunds.” Friedman, an assistant professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, does an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the embrace of prepaid debit cards and arrives at some conclusions that go counter to many of the arguments policymakers have made.

To be sure, Friedman acknowledges just how popular prepaid debit cards have become as a way to dispense tax refunds. In fact, he notes that in the 2012 tax year, almost 20 million taxpayers opted for prepaid debit cards to receive their refunds. Still, despite that increasing popularity, Friedman takes direct aim at the seemingly uncomplicated assertion that governments, and thereby taxpayers, save money by utilizing prepaid debit cards.Even though states like Connecticut report that they saved about $300,000 by sending out prepaid cards instead of paper checks in 2012, Friedman points out that those calculations fail to acknowledge that governments don’t pay account setup fees; instead, taxpayers do. “It is true that state governments can cut their own costs by switching to debit cards from paper checks, but this simply pushes costs off the government budget and onto taxpayers directly in the form of fees,” he writes. “The roughly $1 of government savings is very small in comparison with the average fees incurred by individuals who received their tax refunds via debit card.”

Although he acknowledges that some taxpayers truly benefit by receiving their tax refunds on a prepaid debit card instead of a check, in particular because of the speed at which it arrives. This speedy refund, he says, means that high-interest debts on payday loans can be paid down quickly and that exorbitant check cashing fees can be avoided. But Friedman also says that the fees that come with the normal use of prepaid cards could make them a less attractive option for others. “Therefore, use of the debit card to receive the tax refund is not costless to individuals,” he says. Because prepaid debit cards are a mixed bag, good for some but bad for others, Friedman urges governments to still offer taxpayers the option of receiving refunds via a paper check.

Author: Shane Tripcony

  • Tax Refunds And Prepaid Debit Cards

    Tax Refunds And Prepaid Debit Cards

    Prepaid debit cards have recently become a favored way for states and the federal government to pay tax refunds, but for consumers, whether it is a benefit or not – the answer is, it depends.

    By Shane Tripcony

    The arguments in favor of the use of prepaid debit cards over paper checks in states like Connecticut, Georgia and Louisiana are similar. Not only do citizens who lack a bank account – and therefore cannot take advantage of direct deposit – receive their refund quicker than if it came through the mail in the form of a paper check, but the governments themselves like prepaid debit cards because it save them money.

    Those are a few of the issues John Friedman took up in a recent story for Bloomberg Law entitled, “Policy Perspectives On Tax Refunds: An Economic Analysis Of Government-Sponsored Debit Card Refunds.” Friedman, an assistant professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, does an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the embrace of prepaid debit cards and arrives at some conclusions that go counter to many of the arguments policymakers have made.

    To be sure, Friedman acknowledges just how popular prepaid debit cards have become as a way to dispense tax refunds. In fact, he notes that in the 2012 tax year, almost 20 million taxpayers opted for prepaid debit cards to receive their refunds. Still, despite that increasing popularity, Friedman takes direct aim at the seemingly uncomplicated assertion that governments, and thereby taxpayers, save money by utilizing prepaid debit cards.Even though states like Connecticut report that they saved about $300,000 by sending out prepaid cards instead of paper checks in 2012, Friedman points out that those calculations fail to acknowledge that governments don’t pay account setup fees; instead, taxpayers do. “It is true that state governments can cut their own costs by switching to debit cards from paper checks, but this simply pushes costs off the government budget and onto taxpayers directly in the form of fees,” he writes. “The roughly $1 of government savings is very small in comparison with the average fees incurred by individuals who received their tax refunds via debit card.”

    Although he acknowledges that some taxpayers truly benefit by receiving their tax refunds on a prepaid debit card instead of a check, in particular because of the speed at which it arrives. This speedy refund, he says, means that high-interest debts on payday loans can be paid down quickly and that exorbitant check cashing fees can be avoided. But Friedman also says that the fees that come with the normal use of prepaid cards could make them a less attractive option for others. “Therefore, use of the debit card to receive the tax refund is not costless to individuals,” he says. Because prepaid debit cards are a mixed bag, good for some but bad for others, Friedman urges governments to still offer taxpayers the option of receiving refunds via a paper check.

  • Oakland Issues Hybrid ID – Prepaid Debit Cards

    Oakland Issues Hybrid ID – Prepaid Debit Cards

    by Shane Tripcony

    From a municipal public policy standpoint, Oakland, California’s decision earlier this year to issue identification cards that also act as prepaid debit cards was hailed by some as a double play. For one thing, the decision by Oakland officials to make ID cards bearing a person’s photo, name, address and signature available was a way to provide citizens, both legal and illegal, a route to utilize local government resources, like museums and libraries. In providing this kind of ID card, which can’t be used in lieu of a driver’s license or for air travel, Oakland was following the lead of other cities, such as nearby San Francisco and New Haven, Connecticut.

    But according to a recent article on Governing Magazine’s blog, Oakland is the first city in the nation to provide an option for the users of the municipal ID card to also use them as a prepaid debit card. According to the article by J.B. Wogan, the reason Oakland chose to do this is because of a desire to encourage more low-income residents – typically the segment of the population that does not already have an ID – to have access to traditional banking services. Often, citizens who don’t have bank accounts rely on expensive check-cashing and payday lenders for their financial service needs.

    The Oakland initiative adding a prepaid debit card function to municipal IDs is attractive enough that about 2,000 citizens have already gotten them and cities like Los Angeles and New Haven are considering rolling out their own programs. But not everyone is a fan of the type of prepaid card Oakland makes available to its citizens. In particular, the city is being criticized for what some see as the excessive fees associated with the card. To get the ID, citizens have to pay a flat $15 fee. Once the prepaid debit card function is enabled, users pay a wide range of other fees, including a monthly service fee of $2.99, a point of sale charge of $0.75, $1.50 for in-network ATM cash withdrawals and $2.99 for customer service assistance.

    While these fees are not uncommon in the realm of prepaid debit cards, critics argue that Oakland can and should do better. In an open letter to the National League of Cities, Michelle Jun, a senior attorney with Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, expressed concern that city-issued prepaid cards weren’t offering citizens the best possible deal. “We believe that given the position of a municipality as a trusted entity, cities have the added responsibility of providing the most consumer friendly financial products and services,” writes Jun. “We believe the government and other public entities that choose to link a prepaid card option to any card or service provided by a municipality should provide its citizens with an opportunity to access a product or service that is fairly priced and provides the best value to the user.”

    As Wogan points out in his blog, Oakland’s fees are lower-than-average, according to a study done last year by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Still, according to Jun and others, cities issuing prepaid debit cards should ensure that they have as low fees as possible and provide as much protection against loss or fraud as is feasible.

Credit and Debit Card Ratings