|
|
Post by ss on Apr 7, 2010 21:40:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Apr 7, 2010 21:54:05 GMT
I wish liberals in the US would grow some balls.
Don't get me wrong, those news sources are hard to take seriously with their conservative bias - going back to the moon is not important people, nor is giving the bloated military more overblown toys - but I can't stand yielding an inch to Islam, it should be obvious that as a whole it is not an ideology that can be reasoned with or pacified by compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Apr 10, 2010 14:23:26 GMT
To me "politics" is a term which describes little more than a sporting event. We are presented with two teams , bla bla bla , it goes from there.
Government however is what we really ought to foucs on , not the faux sport game. That said , I am a bit worried about rfid chips , mandatory bank accounts etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 10, 2010 17:27:22 GMT
What's so scary about mandatory bank accounts?
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Apr 11, 2010 16:40:11 GMT
Well think of it like this for second , are there products and "services" that you don't use for whatever reason? Either because you have no use for them or they don't fit into your lifestyle or you don't agree with their corporate policies. Perhaps you avoid a particular product produced by a company that you differ with on a moral point....
That's how I feel about the banking system and reserve fractal finance. I don't want to be forced into paying a bank the money that I earn so than can use it to further their profits , when I don't agree with their entire business model.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Apr 11, 2010 18:06:53 GMT
I'm still a little lost on that explanation KT, but I also don't see the fuss about frid chips.....until they start mandatorying them to be implanted under our skin so the government can track US... ;D which they would if they could get by with it....which eventually they might...  |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 8:38:37 GMT
The problem with RFID chips is that each chip has a unique ID, and responds to any request by an RFID reader. This is fine if the chips are attached to the labels of what you buy and are only used for stock control purposes, however as soon as the chips are implanted into the products it becomes something that makes it very easy to identify you as a person, and more importantly identify what rfid chips you have attached to you. Which can then be used to identify what you're carrying, and ultimatily whether you'd make a good "Mark" or not.
Also for uses such as in passports or other items that hold personal information, they are an easy way to get enough information to clone your identity and thus make you liable for their debts.
Mandatory bank accounts however IMO are not a bad idea, as while they don't have to be used, it does give people that wouldn't have the ability to receive certain payments, or to make certain payments to do this, or to even just save their money (assuming they trust the bank) in a place that isn't subject to immediate theft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 12, 2010 8:44:59 GMT
Mandatory bank accounts is also a great tool to make tax return really simple, since the IRA knows of all your income so they can calculate the entire thing themselves.
Something for Americans to consider, since the only Americans who aren't complaining about about how complicated it is to do your tax return are tax consulants since they know all the loopholes and ritch pepole who can hire tax consulants so they too can use all the loop holes.
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 8:56:10 GMT
Only if you get paid into your bank account, as a lot of job pay cash in hand, this isn't so useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 12, 2010 9:01:33 GMT
Why pay cash in hand when you can pay straight to that person's bank account though?
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 9:22:03 GMT
because it's cheaper, esp. for shops, market holders, and restaurants that take a lot of cash and get charged by banks to change up money or to pay money in. It's also useful for businesses that do a lot of 1 day work such as building sites, as it saves on time and paperwork.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 12, 2010 10:01:55 GMT
You're also assuming that everyone will be forced to have only ONE bank account, Ube, which need not be the case.
***
The biggest problem with mandatory bank accounts is that it vastly increases the problems facing the homeless and anyone else caught outside of the system for whatever reason. You need to prove who you are to get a bank account, which means silly things like having addresses, contact numbers - all the paraphernalia of a settled life that the homeless do not have. If having a bank account becomes completely mandatory, anyone not capable of getting a bank account is going to be locked even further outside of the system. In addition to being homeless, they would now automatically become criminals as well.
Either that or banks are going to be forced to allow everyone to open a bank account regardless of whether they provide evidence of who they are or not, which is the greatest invitation to fraud in history...
Whatever way you look at it, the idea is utterly brainless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 10:18:52 GMT
Not if by bank account you mean - Account with a paying in and out book. These basic accounts rely on the account holder having a contact address and a bank book, no other id is required, but you can't do bank transfers, direct debits, or any of the other really nice and useful things that people take for granted these days. You also don't get a cash card, and have to go into a branch to do everything. Kinda like they used to be in the 80's.
Also the post office has facilitated this in this country by giving an address to at least 1 park bench (in hyde park) as a way to allow homeless people in the area to have a permanent address for the purposes of signing up to the job center and getting benefits. You'll probably find that the US govenment/postal service will do a similar thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 12, 2010 10:48:07 GMT
One park bench in Hyde Park doesn't even do a lot to help London (Though it's a definite start) never mind the rest of the UK, and we don't have mandatory bank accounts, anyway.
The logistics for a place like the US would be an utter nightmare and still opens the gateway for massive fraud.
That said, let's not forget those people with serious mental illness or disability, particularly those in asylums. One would assume they would be exempted, but with such a poorly thought out idea, is that certain?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 10:52:37 GMT
However the idea has been mooted over here before, and I think there's something about basic bank accounts on the statute books that means that if you want a basic account the bank has to give it to you regardless of your credit history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 11:07:59 GMT
In fact a little research finds that banks in the UK now have to provide a basic bank account to people <Source>. |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 12, 2010 11:42:07 GMT
because it's cheaper, esp. for shops, market holders, and restaurants that take a lot of cash and get charged by banks to change up money or to pay money in. It's also useful for businesses that do a lot of 1 day work such as building sites, as it saves on time and paperwork. The problem is that it's quite easy to not tell anyone about this money you've gotten, or to give false numbers. How do you handle that? With a bank account it's easy, you just see how much money have come in (it's up to the employer to check that s/he gets the right ammount) and you tax that. You're also assuming that everyone will be forced to have only ONE bank account, Ube, which need not be the case. Not at all a requirement. If the IRS can keep track of one bank account they can keep track of 30. It's when you start having sources of money income that the IRS can't control (like cash in hand) that problems start arrising. The biggest problem with mandatory bank accounts is that it vastly increases the problems facing the homeless and anyone else caught outside of the system for whatever reason. You need to prove who you are to get a bank account, which means silly things like having addresses, contact numbers - all the paraphernalia of a settled life that the homeless do not have. If having a bank account becomes completely mandatory, anyone not capable of getting a bank account is going to be locked even further outside of the system. In addition to being homeless, they would now automatically become criminals as well. I'm not saying it should be that mandatory, just that it should be mandatory to get a job/an appartment/etc. If you don't have one and want a job/an appartment there should be some kind of state authority to help you out. That said, let's not forget those people with serious mental illness or disability, particularly those in asylums. One would assume they would be exempted, but with such a poorly thought out idea, is that certain? Public care takers. They're not responsible for their economical situation now (unless they've got the mental capability to handle that responsibility), what would be the difference if a bank account was mandatory? Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 11:56:06 GMT
How would you control people paying cash or something else for a job? Unless you eliminate cash and make everyone pay with plastic/cheque/direct bank transfer, which would disadvantage huge numbers of people, and make a lot of transactions overly onerous (e.g. small instant personal loans - I don't suppose I could borrow a tenner to get the cab home could I, I'll pay ya back next week. Sorry can't do that as I don't have an internet connection/phone).
Also, keeping tabs on bank accounts isn't anywhere near as simple as it seems especially when you take into account international relations (I pay out £10,000 to a bank account in egypt and list it as a purchasing stuff, and then recieve £900 from france, £2000 from sweden, £4000 from germany, and £8000 from saudi arabia - Spot the fradulant transaction)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 12, 2010 12:18:04 GMT
How would you control people paying cash or something else for a job? Unless you eliminate cash and make everyone pay with plastic/cheque/direct bank transfer... Why make everything cash free when it's sufficient to make salary cash free? Cash still have it's place, so getting rid of it completely is uncalled for. Also, keeping tabs on bank accounts isn't anywhere near as simple as it seems especially when you take into account international relations (I pay out £10,000 to a bank account in egypt and list it as a purchasing stuff, and then recieve £900 from france, £2000 from sweden, £4000 from germany, and £8000 from saudi arabia - Spot the fradulant transaction) That's possible now too and I doubt that rate would go up by an awful lot if it was mandatory to pay salaries via a bank. I don't know how international trade is handled today, but I doubt that getting all (or even any) money from foreign banks is all that common here in Sweden, where paying to a bank account is the norm. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 12:31:52 GMT
But if you have cash how do you stop people being paid in cash? Again especially those that are in cash trades such as waiters, shop assistants, etc.? Or those that are in trades where people are employed on a casual basis?
|
|
