Is this stealing, dishonest, or in any way unethical?

[Blown_Injected]

*Originally posted by Antimanics *
**Their money went towards paying for Gina’s bills. Gina’s money went towards the gift. It still results in a $300 gift for Don, but it’s not the same thing. The money was intended for the gift, not Gina’s bills.

Presumably, if Gina did not handle the $300 for the gift, then she would not have paid her bills on time or she would have found some other “loan”. Either of these situations would result in an interest charge or back payment charge – whatever. The $300 allowed her to avoid this additional charge that would have resulted from the unpaid bills or loan (a charge that, logically, would be less than the credit card bill. As, if the credit card would have been cheaper, it doesn’t make any sense to use the $300 for the bills). Therefore, resulting in a benefit to Gina that was not intended by those donating the money.

The real question is whether Gina volunteered to get the gift or Gina was told to get the gift. If Gina had volunteered, she gives the impression that she intended to take advantage of the situation, to take advantage of the money, to take advantage of those who donated it. She was never forthcoming about her intentions for the money until after the fact. Had she asked those who donated the money beforehand if she could use the money for her bills and use her credit card for the gift, I doubt any of them would have had a problem. It is the underhandedness of the situation that upsets them.

If I were in that situation, I’d be upset at Gina. It’s too late to get their money back, but some form of compensation from Gina would be in order. **

Yeah, but the $300 gift IS part of Gina’s bills!

At least you said “presumably” because you are assuming she avoided a penalty, you don’t know. Besides, it sounds like she might be paying interest on the $300 cc purchase.

THIS IS NOT STEALING OR IMMORAL.

Good idea to print this out for all the dumb asses that are bitching in your office.

[BiblioCat]

*Originally posted by C3 *
**I’m wondering what your co-workers’ reactions would be if Don decided to take his $300 gift certificate to WalMart, buy a $10 item, and pocket the cash to pay his bills. **

Niptpick…
It was most likely a gift card, and any leftover amount stays on the card till he spends the total $300.
Most stores use this now to avoid situations like you described.
They lose out when that happens, since basically the coworkers would be giving Don a $300 gift, which he then (in theory) is exchanging for a $10 gift. The store would have to give him back $290 in change.
By requiring it to be on a gift card, and not giving “change,” the store keeps the full amount of the money in the store.
As for the OP…I think Gina’s the moron. She’s paying interest on the $300 charge on her credit card. So what if she got a fistful of cash? She still has to pay off that credit card! I hope she paid it off at the end of the month.

[js_africanus]

Money is fungible.

[phlebert]

*Originally posted by js_africanus *
**Money is fungible. **

I agree that money should be fungible, but is there a legal cite for this?

[Zoe]

Therefore, resulting in a benefit to Gina that was not intended by those donating the money.

Oh, heaven forbid that anyone should benefit without my intending that she benefit!!!

Gary T, if the money were lost carelessly, I would think that she would have to repay it. If it were lost in a fire, I would not expect her to make it up. In fact, I would take up a collection for her.

Hmmm…Since the money might have been lost in a fire, Gina was actually protecting their investment by putting it on her card.

If Gina had been robbed of the money, I certainly would NOT expect her to make it up. After all, she was doing those friends a favor by doing their shopping for them.

Being able to keep the cash was a perk that hurt no one. Part of being emotionally intelligent is not being resentful of another person’s good fortune.

The office workers are controlling, whiney, mean-spirited and petty. I hope that they get switches and ashes and coal in their stockings next year.

[psychobunny]

I can’t believe anybody could be upset with Gina. The fact that she went out of her way to get the card entitles her to pay however she likes. In the long run, she may lose money by having to pay interest charges.

A much more questionable situation is one I frequently face. When I go to dinner with one friend she always asks if we can put the charge on her card so that she can get frequent flyer miles. Since I hate to fly, I let her do it but I can see people being upset at one person benefitting in this way.

[Urban_Ranger]

katie, you and Gina there just ignore those other dweebs in your office. You should keep a distance away from anybody who is so petty.

[Shodan]

I suspect the co-workers who think Gina is ripping them off also don’t understand the riddle about the bellhop, the three businessmen, and the missing dollar.

Gina didn’t do anything wrong. Her only mistake was to phrase it that “the $300 came in handy to pay some Christmas bills”. That’s what made it sound like she stole the money.

Whoever complained about it just volunteered to do the shopping for the next birthday.

Regards,
Shodan

[williambaskerville]

I’m mostly in the so-what camp, but there’s one point that might make me slightly dubious about Gina’s actions. If she badly needed cash to pay some essential bills, and deliberately arranged things so that she went to buy the voucher, specifically to allow her to do this, I could possibly see how some people might be offended.

Yes she could have just taken the cash out on her credit card, but if her card is like mine, interest on cash withdrawals starts the day you withdraw the cash. Assuming she’s planning on paying off the credit card balance this month(maybe unlikely, I don’t know), she HAS saved some interest on her c/c account, because the gift voucher enjoys the interest free period. So people may be taking offence at a Christmas gift being hijacked to save someone some c/c interest.

In general, though, my reaction to the outraged co-workers is get a life. Who cares ?

[Weirddave]

I see no problem at all. Gina should say to all the whiners, “Hey, I charged the gift card to save me a trip to the bank, I now have to pay 15%/year ( or whatever rate she’s got ) on it, what are you crying about?” That out to shut them up, maybe even make them happy that Gina didn’t, God forbid, benefit at no one’s expense but was actually penalized.

I would have no problem dining with someone who uses a frequent flyer miles card, a Discover ( cash back ) or probobly even a 20% off dining card, although in the later case the decent thing to do is to collect only the price of everyone else’s dinners and let the 20% pay for the tip- that way all diners benefit equaly.

[Weirddave]

Out? Uh…“ought”. Yes, “Ought to shut them up”

I need coffee.

[jjimm]

This is the most ridiculous complaint I have ever heard.

Have you considered moving company?

[Shade]

Could you ask one of them why its a problem?

[js_africanus]

*Originally posted by phlebert *
**I agree that money should be fungible, but is there a legal cite for this? **

I have no access to any legal books at all. Here are two cites I got off google for the phrase “money is fungible”:

The IRS temporary regulations restate the principle that money is fungible. “The method of allocation and apportionment for interest set forth in this section is based on the approach that, in general, money is fungible and that interest expense is attributable to all activities and property regardless of any specific purpose for incurring an obligation on which interest is paid. Exceptions to the fungibility rule are set forth in §861-10T. The fungibility approach recognizes that all activities and property require funds and that management has a great deal of flexibility as to the source and use of funds. When money is borrowed for a specific purpose, such borrowing will generally free other funds for other purposes, and it is reasonable under this approach to attribute part of the cost of borrowing to such other purposes.”

and

This is because existing laws require only that the organization keep a set of books that shows that it did not use our money to pay for the actual abortions or for pro-abortion lobbying. This bookkeeping trick ignores the fact that money is fungible. When we subsidize an organization, we unavoidably enrich and empower all activities of that organization.

I cannot verify their legal weight. Perhaps the fact that “All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues,” provides the legal weight necessary. If any bill is good for any debt then money must be fungible (??).

Although, I would submit that the legal technicalities of the fungibility of money, the question of debt vs. exchange sans debt, and credit shouldn’t affect the OP. If the person had gone to the bank and got a $300 advance on the credit card and bought the present with those bills, and used the groups bills to pay her debts, then the situation would be effectively the same. The person secured no advantage, other than taking one less trip to the bank. IMO.

[Scotticher]

I LIKE Gina.

[stochastic]

Yes, Gina’s cow-orkers are idiots. Consider this: it was Christmas-time. Who’s going to endure a stop at Wal-Mart during Christmas-time to pick-up just a gift card? Likely, Gina also bought other presents at the time, and like the majority of us debt-addicted folks, put the whole amount on her credit card. What? Was she supposed to have the cashier ring up the gift card separate from her personal purchases, when it was more convienient (and harmless to everyone else) to do it the way she did?

[tesa]

Gina, I hope that you print out this entire thread and show it to those who were pissed off so they can see what a bunch of shallow and less-than-intelligent people they really are.

Of course, they’ll be in denial about it. But 56 SDers can’t be wrong.

Tesa - who won’t be getting Gina’s co-workers Christmas gifts anytime soon! Hrumph!

[phlebert]

js_africanus,thank you for the cite. I notice in the link

Temporary Treasury Reg. §1.861-10T(b)(4) lists the following SIX EXCEPTIONS whereby interest expense is NOT “qualified nonrecourse indebtedness”:

transactions that lack economic significance (facts and circumstances test)
transactions that involve cross collateralization
transactions that involve credit enhancement
transactions that involve the purchase of inventory
transactions that involve the purchase of any financial asset, including stock in a corporation, an interest in a partnership or a trust, or the debt obligation of any obligor.
transactions that involves interest expense that constitutes qualified residence interest as defined in IRC section 163(h)

…

Now, I still think Gina did nothing wrong… morally. However, would the third exception (transactions that involve credit enhancement) apply to this example where Gina’s credit rating could be seen to benefit legally?

question: is this cite specific to California law? Gina is in Georgia I believe. Also, does it only apply to foreign investment?

Incidentally, I still think money should be fully fungible, and it is an office full of assholes.

[stypticus]

It’s not illegal. It’s not immoral. It is mildly rude.

Think about it: Gina is getting (up to) a 30-day interest free loan by keeping the cash and paying with the credit card. She is benefitting from your coworkers’ cash without their prior approval. It’s presumptuous for her to think that they would agree to her doing so.

On the other hand, since it doesn’t tangibly affect Gina’s coworkers, they’re making too big a deal out of it.

I’d say it’s on a par with letting the door slam in someone’s face because you forgot to look behind you to see if there was anyone there. Not malicious, but not the height of good manners either.

[Kallessa]

The real problem with this whole issue is not Gina’s behavior, or even her co-workers’ reaction, it’s that the money was used to get a gift card from Wal-Mart, easily the most immoral and unethical major retailer operating in the US.