I never understood why people floated checks like this- it seems risky and puts your credit rating at stake if you estimate wrong and bounce a check.
If I’m in a position where I have to make some kind of payment, I use a credit card if possible, then pay the balance as soon as I get the funds. The reason is because I am much less heavily penalized for a delayed payment using a credit card. The only time I write checks is for things that can only be paid by check, which is rare. What must be paid by check is always paid first during the month to ensure I have funds on-hand to deal with it, since I am not willing to risk floating a check, and especially now that they have changed the rule.
How does Evil Captor’s post deserve a pitting? Your answer to the problem of math errors is to have a huge cushion of money in the account. Many people are barely making it payday to payday. It simply isn’t an option. I’m not advocating writing checks where there are no funds, but your suggestion is unrealistic. And a bit elitist.
What in the world are you talking about? I said nothing about “career criminals,” or anyone being other than ordinary. It is a fact that writing a check against an account that cannot cover the check is illegal. It is a fact that it is an ill-advised practice because of the penalties and potential repercussions. I made no comment whatsoever on any other aspect of the law or the ethics of any party. Please do not ascribe to me positions that I have never claimed.
OK, let’s say I accept your notion that giving me more money won’t do me any good – I still maintain that the substance of your post is that people should have a couple of thousands dollars on hand to stick in the bank that they don’t need to spend on necessities – that your solution is based on an unrealistic assessment of others’ financial situation. It seems to me that when people propose a solution that requires that others have more money, they should be willing to back it up with their own resources.
Not all the sloppy thinking about money goes around on the liberals’ side, many conservatives have some fairly unreaistic views on the topic.
The tone and content of your post does seem to imply some fairly rigid ideas about legality. As I have pointed out, banks don’t care to prosecute their customers about overdrafts, they just want the money, which is why they rig their procedures to maximize this kind of “fee income.” If people would recognize this for the cheap dodge it is, they might not put up with it.
A huge cushion? I said a thousand or so, not a million. And that was not an answer to the problem of math errors, but an answer to the problem of lack of self-control. I’ll match my stories of poverty against yours any day, having trekked to the outhouse on many a cold morning as a child. It isn’t a matter of elitism, but a matter of living within one’s means. You are not entitled to steal money or defraud people just because you are poor.
You’re skirting the issue. If they cannot afford necessities, then a checking account doesn’t help that problem. It is not intended as a loan or charity instrument. If they cannot afford necessities, it is because they don’t don’t make enough money, and that is the problem that they should address.
Number one: To some people a thousand dollars may as well be a million.
Number two: Depositing a paycheck on Friday should mean that the funds are immediately available, just as you writing a check on the money will immediately remove said funds from the account. Unfortunately it appears that no one thought to add this to the legislation.
Number three: None of this changes a thing for me. I have direct deposit and the money is credited on the day on which I am paid, or the weekday before that payday should my payday fall on a weekend or holiday.
I’m sure they thought about it, but legislation is driven by political expedience. Laws are written to protect government and its interests from its citizens.
That’s what I don’t get. If my checks clear so fast, why don’t theirs?
I have DD, too, but I travel for work a lot and get reimbursed, meaning I can be anywhere from $10 to $1500 behind because of that. Apparently I’m stealing from people because I write checks based on money I should have if the banks process checks so fast. :rolleyes:
“…and its interests”. The whole point of governance in a coercive society is to build power and wealth. Granting legislative or regulatory favors to powerful wealthy people affords a politician or bureaucrat a bright future as a board member or executive with a corner office.
Check 21 is mainly for merchants. It will actually make it easier for you to pay for goods and services with checks because merchants will be able to immediately access the funds rather than risking the check bouncing for insufficient funds.
The warnings about this happening are for your own protection. If you are currently in the habit of writing a check to pay for your groceries on Monday when you don’t get paid until Tuesday, you might want to switch your shopping day to Tuesday.
While it is common to pay by check in many areas of the country, try to pay by check in a city like New York and you’ll be laughed out of the store. Check 21 should alleviate situations like these. As more and more people have become accustomed to paying for purchases via debit card, Check 21 should not be much of a problem to them. Those of us who are accustomed to abusing the “float” implicit in most “paper” transactions will encounter more adjustment problems.
Check 21 is not being implemented to punish you. In fact, it should make it a lot easier to use checks in your normal day-to-day transactions. There is no reason not to ask your bank or a merchant whether they are using Check 21 technology before paying by check.
This will not be an over-night transition for banks or merchants. Merchants won’t jump on Check 21 technology before most banks are using it because the equipment expenditure will most likely be relatively high for most small businesses. Smaller merchants will wait until most banks are utilizing the system before investing in it because it will not be cost-efficient otherwise.
I remember back when stores would offer discounts/sale prices only on cash purchases because using a credit card created an expense for the store. You don’t see that anymore because credit purchases are now so commonplace that the cost of accepting credit card payments has been offset by the volume of credit card sales.
So, don’t expect your corner mom-and-pop store to jump on Check 21 the day after implementation. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Let me qualify that statement: The FED is sort of a quasi-government agency, established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the chairman must make periodic reports to the congress on the state of the economy, but is still privately owned, and otherwise acts on its own.
If you want some in-depth information on it, and what it’s done to our “money.” Check out “The Biggest Con,” by Irwin Schiff. About the ownership of the FED: “Vulture’s in Eagles Clothing,” by Lynn Meredith, and “The Unseen Hand,” by Ralph Eperson.
Now there’s some irony for you. Schiff is one of the best known “income taxes are illegal and you don’t have to pay them” loonies. He’s been convicted for criminal tax evasion. He’s been sued by some of the poor, deluded folks who made the mistake of following his ridiculous advice. He is, in fact, a con man.
One of Schiff’s disciples, and apparently just as much of a fraud.
Ralph Epperson (correct spelling) is a conspiracy nut, who usually spends his time trying to tell people that everything is a Masonic conspiracy (sounds like the numerology whacko who’s been posting over in GQ lately). From this article:
Just to expand a bit on the question of the “ownership” of the Federal Reserve:
The key fact in that passage is that Congress can, whenever it chooses, pass legislation to alter any aspect of the operation of the Federal Reserve. In short, if it’s some sort of cabal, it’s pretty vulnerable.
Hi folks. I hate banks. Especially large commercial ones that place holds on CASH deposits (calling out US BANK on that one), and maximize the use of REG CC at every opportunity. This new system would screw me cold simply because of REG CC. But what can you do? The banks have you right? Nope. They don’t.
Change banks. Duh!
It took some looking but I found a bank in the Denver area. Has maybe 8 branches. They don’t put holds on deposits. Period. Seems to be working for them. Deposits are posted before inclearing checks on the same day–if the deposit happened before the checks were presented. They even tack on $500 in “bounce protection” as part of the checking account (and if I can get that much credit, anybody can!) for no extra fee–you mess up your ledger and bounce 3 or 4 little checks you get ONE $25 charge instead of 3 or 4 that you clearly aren’t able to afford. This is a small, local, family operated bank that has decided to trust its customers. I LOVE 'em. And I hate banks.
People need to stop complaining about getting cheated by their banks. Nobody is MAKING you cary an account with ANY particular one, so why keep on with one you think is not treating you fairly? STOP giving the huge commercial thieves your money! Just because they have a zillion branches doesn’t make them better.
You start treating banks like YOU are THEIR investor, and start smacking THEM down when they hurt your feelings and in this free market you’ll hear some pretty big slurps when they start kissing your butt like they’re supposed to!
It’s all about money.
Eliminate float or time from deposit there till cleared and debited here.
In conjunction with ‘Check 21’ the banks are encourageing, nay, pushing the use of a check card to immediately debit your account and credit the merchant. This drasticaly cuts the bank’s processing and records costs. This also requires you to keep close tab on expenditues and/or check your acount on line frequently.
There aren’t a lot of mom and pop store left to shop at. It’s all Kroger Target Walmart CVS Publix NameyerpoisonCorp. They’ll be on Check21 like flies on … the metaphorical equivalent of Check 21.