101–110 of 136 posts
Another problem is that no society is perfect. And even if it were, it won't stay that way. There is a need for a small grey area in any system to stay sane, where people can workaround the limitations of said system. Yes, it will be abused, and also used for nefarious purposes. But it's better than the alternative. You need people to sometimes be able to do things the state doesn't approve. You need children to be a…
I've recently visited London for the first time. What really stunned me was the huge number of homeless people. They were practically everywhere. And they all relied on cash donations. I wonder what will happen to these people as society becomes more and more cashless? What effect will it have on crime?
In a China, beggars will have a QR code that you can use to give them some money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this is common where I live now (Norway), it is not common in the states. Married couples (or just couples) often have a joint account. It was more difficult to transfer money between two people's accounts as well, though there is a chance this has changed recently.
FWIW In the US something called Zelle launched a couple of years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle_(payment_service)
Post Zelle? I dunno. The last time I just wrote a check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It baffles me that a husband and wife don't trust each other enough to pool their resources.
Ditto. We each have our own JOINT account. We can use each other's accounts (including the associated credit cards) but it's easier to manage if we (generally) don't. After all, if you are married you are jointly and separately liable for all assets and debts so why doesn't your banking arrangements reflect that fact?
In countries with matrimonial property regimes, that isn't necessarily the case.
You need to keep things off the books sometimes. Try saving up for a significant other's gift, if you can't keep a few things hidden.
Everyday spending is on the debit cards, and immediately visible in our online banking apps.
Birthday presents and things we want some privacy about go on our individual credit cards, with just the total monthly repayment visible in the joint account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're not an EU resident, it's your own responsibility to have some valid means of payment from your home country. Which could also be cash you exchanged for the local currency, though if cash is all you have, some countries could prove difficult. Or you could find a local bank that will give you an account - they may of course do so even when not legally required. But to take an extreme case, there's nothing pre…
>But to take an extreme case, there's nothing preventing you from getting yourself into trouble due to a lack of valid payment methods. For example, Americans have visa-free access to the EU, so nobody will check their finances, and an American could theoretically land somewhere in the EU without a payment card and only carrying US dollars, which aren't legal tender. I thought part of the job of immigration officers…
Correct, but in practice the level of scrutiny depends on where you're from, and which country you're entering. From what I've heard, people from rich Western countries, like the US or Canada, are generally allowed in with only perfunctory questioning, especially in countries where the immigration officers are known to be more relaxed. So an unprepared American is still likely to get into the EU, but a Colombian would probably be questioned more, despite being in the same legal category as a US citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not who you asked this from, but in my opinion it has a huge problem of any mistakes being unfixable - either you mistransact or get scammed - taler provides no way to fix that.
I don’t get it – if you could just take it back whenever, it wouldn’t be “money”, now would it?
Another problem is that no society is perfect. And even if it were, it won't stay that way. There is a need for a small grey area in any system to stay sane, where people can workaround the limitations of said system. Yes, it will be abused, and also used for nefarious purposes. But it's better than the alternative. You need people to sometimes be able to do things the state doesn't approve. You need children to be a…
I totally agree, but I wonder if physical cash is really the only way get there. I fear that trying to keep a cash infrastructure in place will turn out to be a futile effort because it is so expensive. Long before cash is completely gone I bet that almost everyone who needs it will be priced out of actually using it. Also, cash has the downside of not being usable online. The problem is that I know of no government…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do if you're not a legal EU resident, you will be unable to purchase food/lodging/transportation?
If you're not an EU resident, it's your own responsibility to have some valid means of payment from your home country. Which could also be cash you exchanged for the local currency, though if cash is all you have, some countries could prove difficult. Or you could find a local bank that will give you an account - they may of course do so even when not legally required. But to take an extreme case, there's nothing pre…
When that happens you don't have a home country that you have a meaningful connection to, and you certainly don't have a bank account there.
For some it happens due to predictable visa expiry and rules ordinary people can comprehend. But for others it is impossible to know in advance (I have some experience with lawyers who are unable to figure out how the law applies in practice in some cases - few can afford a proper judicial review to find out). There are numerous articles in the press in recent years about people who were resident in the UK for a long time, have long since settled with families, then suddenly found they lost basic rights.
The ones which shocked me most where people who were branded "persona non grata" as if terrorists, because they filed minor corrections to their tax returns - the problem with that is not only do the then immediately lose UK rights, they also get a stamp that excludes them from most other countries of the world. That's a harsh price for doing the right thing. That sounds implausible, until you know that the UK Home Office has exclusion targets, and will use any random tick-box to exclude people no matter if it's not justified and would lose on appeal in front of a judge. (Most appeals against Home Office decisions about residence overturn the decision, which shows how dodgy the decisions are, but the right to appeal has now been removed in many cases.)
Right now, there are a large number of people in the UK who do not know with certainty whether they will be allowed to maintain legal residence in the next few years or not. So far, non-UK EU citizens do not need visas or similar documentation while being resident in the UK, even for their whole lives. This means they don't tend to keep a strong paper trail. But that is probably about to change, and for many of them this already creates uncertainty about their future rights, because the UK has a harsh reputation for refusing long-term residence for bogus reasons, such as a gap in perfect record of household bills going back a few years, or failing to purchase some obscure kind of private health insurance a few years ago which nobody knew was needed but is now cited.
The situation to come is worse for, for example, non-EU spouses of UK citizens, who obtained the right to bring their spouse into the UK via EU law (the human right to a family life). Surprisingly, a UK citizen does not have an automatic right to have their spouse live with them in the UK - there is a substantial earnings threshold. This may force spouses who thought they were settled here to have to leave the UK and their families, over the next few years.
When any of these events happens, you are denied the ability to rent privately (even in cash), to have a bank account, or to use health services.
Very few of these people have a bank account in their home country. Why would they? They've been living and settled in the UK for years. Working, married, with families, all legally, until the day they find out they aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of not having your own private bank account that isn't shared with your significant other or anyone else baffles me.
Why? It baffles me that a husband and wife don't trust each other enough to pool their resources.
This is a problem in cases where (typically) a husband is abusing his wife, by withholding her access to the funds unless she does what he wants.
The solution which is finally being looked at is to revert to paying each person their benefit entitlement separately.
That's not even something the abused spouse can choose for themselves because they "don't trust". It requires the state to recognise it is important to treat each spouse separately, automatically for all of them, to limit the possibility of abuse via joint accounts.