Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was talking about that as well. If the government is your direct banking provider, they own everything from money creation to base rates that largely set cost of your debt to access to your wealth. If the government provides your debit/checking accounts they can't deny charges they don't want you to make or completely block you from your money.
Sure, that’s possible; however, I’ll note that private banks and payment services do already discriminate in their payment terms, and while your high income earner may choose more desirable options (for whatever reason), the unbanked population would still likely benefit from the existence of a minimalist USPS banking option.
That's a much more important issue in my opinion, I assume we agree there. I wouldn't be surprised for any one bank to be picky, but if almost every bank refuses to service a certain type of customer that's a problem. More broadly, its a problem that having a bank account is effectively required to live in modern society.
> the unbanked population would still likely benefit from the existence of a minimalist USPS banking option.
Agreed here as well, at least in the short term. The government we have today doesn't seem interested in flexing that authority even if they had it, though the government does have a history of a slippery slope problem when it comes to federal powers.
Income tax was initially sold as a tax of only 1% on the most wealthy. While it was originally limited to that, the government gave itself the power to tax income and it only grew to leverage that more. I have no reason to think banking would be different.
They may only want to help the unbanked today, but when a big bank fails the government would offer accounts and may even offer full replacement for lost funds due to bank failure. That alone wouldn't matter, except that it could tip the scale of cost/benefit that made a USPS bank worth it for those with no other choice.