Growing up in the Houser household, my sister and I had to earn our allowance each week. In fact, each Sunday, sitting around the table after brunch, we had a family meeting to discuss a variety of family matters and one of those was whether we deserved our allowance, and if so, how much.

Our first allowance system was based on demerits: we would get a flat rate each week--I don't recall exactly how much, but probably around 50 cents--but the amount would be reduced if we misbehaved in certain ways or if we neglected certain chores. My dad had constructed a chart that we kept posted on our doors and the appropriate spot would be crossed out on the grid when we had an infraction. We would get deductions from our weekly take if we had a messy room, didn't brush our teeth or do our homework, didn't get to bed on time, misbehaved in church, took too long in the shower, or even left the lights on when we weren't in our rooms--fifteen categories of possible demerits.

That system ultimately wasn't working, I think because it required too much effort on my parents' part to record the demerits, so we soon switched to a different system where we had to "earn" our allowance. We got a new chart format where we had to mark our accomplishments. Then we were paid based on the number of those tasks completed based on a predefined rate chart. Practicing our band instruments was worth five cents for every fifteen minutes. Taking out the trash gained us ten cents; making the bed, five. The system also maintained the penalty provision where we could be given demerits for leaving lights on, long showers, or a messy room. But we also had the possibility of earning a bonus by performing a set number of tasks each week as long as we didn't have any demerits and had good behavior.

Although it all seems like an overcomplicated system, it was a successful tool in teaching us that you have to earn money rather than expecting handouts.

Check out the PDF of scans of our allowance sheets.

The recent announcement that Bank of America will start charging a $5 monthly fee for users of debit cards is an excellent example of the unintended consequences of government actions. The gut reaction is to blame those greedy banks. But the banks are just responding to recent federal legislation.

And once again legislators have proven they don't understand basic economics. The new $5 fee can be traced back to the Durbin amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was signed into law June 21, 2010. The amendment sets the amount large banks (more than $10 billion in assets) can charge other banks for debit card transactions to 21 cents plus 5/100ths of a percent of the transaction amount (the fee for the average transaction of $38 would be 23 cents). This cap on interchange fees has been estimated to cost the banking industry $9.4 billion per year.

And the folks in Washington figured the banks would just eat the cost.

The banks, of course, must find a way to recoup the cost of debit transactions. They could raise fees across the board. But the fairest method is to charge the fees to the people using the cards. Doing it this way provides a can't lose situation for the banks: many consumers will suddenly find credit cards more attractive—and banks will profit handsomely since they not only enjoy higher interchange fees for credit cards but can charge account holders all sorts of penalties and interest. And once Congress sees how the bill has decimated debit card use, they'll repeal the rule, but by then the banks will have already converted many customers from debit to credit. The only way the banks can lose is if everyone gives up their debit cards and goes back to using cash for everything. Not likely—and impossible for online purchases.