|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 12, 2010 12:54:28 GMT
In fact a little research finds that banks in the UK now have to provide a basic bank account to people <Source>. From the article: "However, Britain's banks are not expected to welcome the new legislation, which would effectively force them to provide a basic account to anyone that can supply a valid residential address." - so it's still not actually everyone, just those with an address. The homeless are excluded. Nonetheless, this is not unreasonable, despite the banks' apparent lack of enthusiasm. It is also entirely voluntary for the people who wish to open accounts, of course. *** Ube - if everyone is forced to have a bank account (Which is what 'mandatory' means) then people in care who are not capable of even holding a coherent conversation will automatically become criminals unless they are excluded from the legislation because they will be incapable of complying with the law. Unless banks are forced to give accounts to people with no real proof of identity, the same is true of homeless people, of course. Automatically criminalising whole swathes of the popn because an overbearing govt wants greater control of peoples' personal finances is not a great idea, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 12, 2010 13:06:00 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? I'll get back to you when I've looked into how things actually look in Sweden. Ube - if everyone is forced to have a bank account (Which is what 'mandatory' means) then people in care who are not capable of even holding a coherent conversation will automatically become criminals unless they are excluded from the legislation because they will be incapable of complying with the law. They will own a bank account that they aren't in control of. In fact, they probably already do. Besides, I'm not really talking about mandatory bank accounts anymore, I'm talking about mandatory bank accounts for having a job/house. Automatically criminalising whole swathes of the popn because an overbearing govt wants greater control of peoples' personal finances is not a great idea, IMO. Oh no, the evil goverment wants to streamline tax declaration and prevent tax evation? AFAIK this is already all but the case already in Sweden. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Apr 12, 2010 13:06:51 GMT
Let the homeless become criminals, and dump them into the ocean. No homeless, no problem  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 12, 2010 13:11:50 GMT
Ube - such measures do absolutely nothing to prevent tax evasion.
This idea would prevent homeless people ever being able to get anywhere to live, or any kind of employment.
***
Terror - that would be darned convenient for Ube's plan, wouldn't it? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 14:53:52 GMT
From the article: "However, Britain's banks are not expected to welcome the new legislation, which would effectively force them to provide a basic account to anyone that can supply a valid residential address." - so it's still not actually everyone, just those with an address. The homeless are excluded. Nonetheless, this is not unreasonable, despite the banks' apparent lack of enthusiasm. It is also entirely voluntary for the people who wish to open accounts, of course. However it does mean that it is now mandatory for banks to allow people to open a bank account (however limited) regardless of their financial status. Which I suspect is what the american government is saying, rather than making it mandatory for everyone that's earning a wage to have a bank account |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 12, 2010 15:08:39 GMT
You suspect confusion in the message, DPR? Perhaps. I guess we'll find out, sooner or later  |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 12, 2010 15:20:07 GMT
Ube - such measures do absolutely nothing to prevent tax evasion. It does in a country like the states where creative book keeping is the most common form of tax evation. Like the US, whose tax system is extremely complicated. This idea would prevent homeless people ever being able to get anywhere to live, or any kind of employment. Apart from that state authority I mentioned earlier: If you don't have one and want a job/an appartment there should be some kind of state authority to help you out. In other words, if you're outside of the system there should be ways back inside of the system. Besides, who hires a homeless person today? And who rents an appartment to a homeless, unemployed person? The bank account requirement isn't really going to change anything for the homeless, because they can't rent a flat or get any kind of employment as it is. And to that not having a bank account isn't something that's going to be enforced with a stick. There's only going to be positive incentive involved: if you have a bank account you can be part of society, if you don't you can't. Nobody's going to go to jail or be forced to pay a fine, if you don't get a bank account you're just not going to be able to get a job and get a place to stay until you do (unless you decide to get a place in the middle of the woods maybe). Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 12, 2010 15:38:14 GMT
erm, by definition, if they can rent a flat and do, they're not homeless. And FYI the most common way out of homelessness are halfway houses that have strict curfews, roters, etc, and will allow you to rent for a pittance until you can get a stable job and enough money to move into your own place. These are not very nice places to live, but for many it's the best they have and the only way off the streets.
As for who hires unemployed, homeless people? in the UK if they have a CIS card, then building sites, and I think in the US they don't need any sort of card/qualification to work as a labourer on a casual basis (we're laying bricks today and need hands to move them around)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 12, 2010 17:13:40 GMT
Not to mention farms and other places that need seasonal or itinerant workers. There are plenty of places where the general practise is to hire whoever turns up as hiring is done for a day's work at a time.
If there's no penalty for not having a bank account, Ube, it's hardly 'mandatory' is it?
It's also the case that the state traditionally does very little for the homeless, as there's no votes in it. Those who help the homeless most are charities, voluntary organisations and (ultimately) the homeless themselves. The more barriers that are put in fornt of them, the harder that becomes. If trusting the state were a good option, there would BE no homeless.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Apr 12, 2010 23:36:15 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. I agree with this very much. Also , I have a damned right not to support a industry which I find useless and criminal. What's wrong with that? I understand that people don't agree with me , but shouldn't I have the right to refuse a "service" or "product" that I am opposed to? |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Apr 12, 2010 23:46:29 GMT
I also happen to agree...I have a bank account for MY convenience.
Mandatory bank accounts is/would have to be simply another way the government can control you and track everything you do. Besides, they want to do away with cash...and one of these days they will...I just hope I have "gone on"
I have read the end of the story... ;D
They can hide under some doublespeak all they want to, but when the government makes ANYTHING mandatory, the cold chills go up the back of my neck..
the 2 most famous sayings..
"The check is in the mail"
and
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you out."
But that could just be my paranoia.... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Apr 13, 2010 0:05:57 GMT
I have read it as well ss , though I kinda think it's the blueprint that the controllers use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 13, 2010 7:42:44 GMT
If there's no penalty for not having a bank account, Ube, it's hardly 'mandatory' is it? If you don't like it, feel free to pick a better word. I've already explained what it's mandatory for, and it's not mandatory for physically being in the country. And you've brought up points that have made me reconsider my stance slightly. It shouldn't be mandatory for day jobs and jobs of more a more temporary kind. It's also the case that the state traditionally does very little for the homeless, as there's no votes in it. Those who help the homeless most are charities, voluntary organisations and (ultimately) the homeless themselves. Fair point. The more barriers that are put in fornt of them, the harder that becomes. Which is why the barriers should be complemented with easy ways around the barriers. If trusting the state were a good option, there would BE no homeless. Trusting the state to spontaneously do it isn't a good option. The problem isn't that the state can't do it though, it's that it won't do it. So if we can get it to do it it will at least become a decent option. I agree with this very much. Also , I have a damned right not to support a industry which I find useless and criminal. What's wrong with that? I understand that people don't agree with me , but shouldn't I have the right to refuse a "service" or "product" that I am opposed to? Like the military? Or why not social security? Sorry Kilgore, but for society to work we need pepole to support things they may be opposed to. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 13, 2010 9:03:45 GMT
The point is, handling cash is an administrative nuisance for employers (and also government benefit payments) as well as a potential risk (of theft none the least). That's why the paying side is and always will be interested in promoting non-cash payments. Banks on the other hand make more money from loans and extended credit lines than from simply administring the cash flow (one could even come to the 'absurd' conclusion that they should PAY interest on a positive balance!  ). That's why they are not interested in 'positive balance accounts'. Requiring THEM to have to provide one, if requested by THE CUSTOMER is a good thing IMHO. The issue of confidentiality of bank transfers is a separate one - and certainly something to be watched. The general condemnation of the entire banking industry as a whole is, as all generalizations, unfair. There are banks, at least in Germany, whose business model is not in investment and who have actually refrained from greedily selling funny stuff to equally greedy customers. Conceded, they were laughed at and looked down upon by the big guys of the business (and shareholders) - but they are still extant now, with a positive balance.^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 13, 2010 9:08:22 GMT
btw, can someone actually post an article that reports on the mandatory bank accounts, as none of the articles in the OP do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 13, 2010 9:19:49 GMT
Ube...
This is indeed the main problem. It's also pretty insurmountable though, unfortunately, as the only thing that can compel the state is the weight of public opinion (And then only sometimes) and with the best will in the world homelessness is never going to be a major priority for the majority of the electorate.
The biggest problem with state run anything is that the state is a vast, weighty and very blunt instrument. It is suitable for tackling huge problems, because that's what it is designed for. But anything that needs finesse it is signally bad at.
This is why new govt initiatives are usually costly, over-bureaucratic, inefficient and not very successful. They always try to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.
The best way to prevent tax evasion, for example, has been proven to be making sure that taxes are low enough so that most people can't be bothered. To get tax evasion right, you need clever accountants, offshore tax havens and who knows what else, which takes a lot of time and effort. If taxes are not too vast, most people don't bother, so the govt actually gets more tax revenue than it would if taxes were far higher. This has been proven time and again, yet you still get idiot govts who raise taxes through the roof when they should be cutting costs who then whine loudly that they aren't getting the revenue they were expecting. So they start screaming about nailing tax evaders and flailing about madly and to little effect in what amounts to a political temper tantrum. All because they're completely useless. Truth is, it is impossible to prevent tax evasion because any system one person can come up with, another can find a way around. So the best you can hope for is that most people will find it too much effort.
But that's realism. Govts are not too good at realism. Gets in the way of their little power fantasies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 13, 2010 9:24:40 GMT
Well, tax evasion is a problem only of and with people who have enough spare in excess of immediate living cost - and who thus actually owe taxes.
I'd bet that 99% of those DO quite voluntarily have at least one bank account...
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 13, 2010 9:44:15 GMT
Right, Glance. The main difference between that and fiddling is that tax fiddlers still do pay tax (Mostly), just not as much as they should. The loss to the economy is nowhere near as bad as it gets when you get significant evading, because it's the richest 10% who evade most and they pay the majority of all taxes between them.
Most fiddlers just fail to declare all their earnings, which gives them a slightly better quality of life and allows them to them to buy more things, thus boosting the economy. Once again, I suspect the best answer is simply to make it not worth their while to risk criminal proceedings: so lower taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 13, 2010 10:29:22 GMT
Even if you had a 1% tax on earnings, people that are earning significantly more than they need will still try to buck the system. After all 1% of £1,000,000 is £10,000. Also it's not just employees that try tax evasion, but also employers as well, as they have to contribute some $$ for each $ that the employee pays in tax.
In one classic case a company made a deal with a local pawn broker/jeweler to buy old roman coins at a fixed rate, they then bought the coins back off the jeweler (had bought them in the first place) at a very slightly more expensive rate, and used those coins to pay their employees bonus'
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 13, 2010 11:29:32 GMT
Oh absolutely, DPR. There's no way whatsoever to eliminate evasion or fiddling from the system. The best you can ever hope for is to minimise it.
|
|
). That's why they are not interested in 'positive balance accounts'. Requiring THEM to have to provide one, if requested by THE CUSTOMER is a good thing IMHO.
.com