> On Nov 5, 1:22 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Milt wrote:
> > > You highly doubt it? I had a problem with my bank one time a few > > > months ago. They were holding checks I deposited, but they didn't tell > > > me. I actually went into the bank and purchased a $2500 cashier's > > > check which, unbeknownst to me, was not fully covered, because they > > > were holding one of my deposited checks, and the teller who sold me > > > the check didn't even say anything. By the time I was finished that > > > day, there were eight overdrafts on the account, all but one of was > > > because of the overdrafts that occurred because they were holding a > > > check. I called and got the money returned to my account, but the bank > > > gave me a "scolding," similar to the one this guy describes. The check > > > was deposited on Friday, and the cashier's check was purchased on > > > Monday. If they had just TOLD me the $1500 check that had been > > > deposited into the account had been held, I could have put off buying > > > the cashier's check and a couple of other purchases, no problem.
> > I think they have to tell you, but I'm not sure. In any case, you > > are foolish to bank like you are describing. Automatic payments > > should not be coming out of debit cards (unless there's just no > > other way). The checking/debit card account that pays your credit > > cards should have a line of credit to make sure things work (or you > > can validly complain and get it fixed).
> I don't auto-pay all that many things.
Autopaying the minimums on credit cards means that you avoid any obvious blow ups, such as not quite having enough in the account to fully pay off the card because some check didn't instantly go through. Autopaying the minimum doesn't mean that you shouldn't also pay the entire bill off each month. That is juts done after review.
> Mostly, it's small charges that > don't amount to much, and there is no other way to pay them. There are > an increasing number of companies that won't take a check as payment, > although there is little difference between a check and a debit card > purchase, anyway. The only large payment I have on auto-pay is my car > insurance, although that's actually not through my debit card, > exactly, but rather, through an ACH, which means they take it directly > from my bank account.
Essentially you've given them access to your bank account. I think this is crazy.
> The reason they refunded most of my fees is because they screwed up.
I've had them screw up on a batch of checks and insist that they didn't to the of nearly four digits. I finally after about six months was able to get the company that gave the check to prove to the bank that they'd stolen my money. Then they refuted it but without any interest, as I recall. A lawsuit is in order? Tons of fun. I'll let the credit card company be my first line of defence.
> One of the most irritating things about that bank involves how they > notify you of an overdraft in the first place. They still send > automated notices by snail mail, and they could take more than a week > to arrive. There is no e-mail notification or anything like that. > Hell; one time, they actually let me withdraw $60; it wasn't until I > had the money in my hand, and got the receipt that I realized there > was a problem. Luckily for me, that time I had gone to the ATM. Most > of the time, I just get cash from a store when I make a purchase.
You find this more convenient than a credit card?
> > > By the way, Chase and Bank of America have started to feel some heat, > > > apparently, because they've put caps on fees that just took effect > > > November 1.
> > New laws are coming into place. There's a lot of uncertainty right > > now.
> Yeah, as there should be. Banks should be able to penalize people who > screw up and don't follow the rules. I didn't ask for all of the money > back, because it wasn't all their fault. But most of the overdrafts > were caused by them not communicating that there was a problem. In > recent months, they implemented a program whereby I get a text message > if the checking account goes below $100, and I can use my phone to > make a transfer from savings, or from PayPal.
This is easier than a credit card? The potential exposure for a lot of two buck purchases that go into the overdraft is incredible.
> > > Chase credits deposits the same day if they're made before 8 PM. But > > > hey; you know what his "contract" says; why don't you tell us. And > > > then explain why Chase has to charge $30-35 each for overdrafts. If > > > they hadn't yet credited the deposit, why did the debits go through?
> > Because they give you overdraft protection at $35 per instance, > > allowing it to go through but charging you for the privilege. It's > > a "feature". The real question is what happens when the bank > > declines the transaction, after you've opted out. Are you charged?
> You can't opt out; that's the problem. I asked them to opt out, and > they absolutely won't allow it.
That's being changed.
> I'm ok with then declining a > transaction; most of the automatic payments don't make a big deal out > of it. Most of them, in fact, would just send me an e-mail and let me > know they'll try again in 5 days. But the bank doesn't decline it; > instead, they pay it, and call it a "courtesy payment" (which is what > they call it; I wish I was kidding!), and debit my account $35 for > each one. Some "courtesy." They don't charge on that rare occasion > when they decline something at point of sale. But it's rare when they > do that.
You find this easier than credit cards?
-- What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:45:39 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >On Nov 5, 1:22 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > >exactly, but rather, through an ACH, which means they take it directly > >from my bank account.
> Now having an autopay is really stupid... giving someone direct > access to your account..
Autopay into your checking account (which is what using debit card is doing) is foolish. But you are going to need to use autopay to something for things like internet access. In that case, I would only use a credit card.
> It's much better to do online check writing > is a much better way. I have a built in reminder from the bank about > payments that are due.. in many cases the biller actually sends the > bill amount to the bank or else I simply a pre-set reminder that I set > up. In either case, the bank e-mails me as they come do and all I > have to do is log on, put a check mark next to the payment(s), and > sign off. The bank send the check and guarantees it'll get there on > or before the required date...
This is what I'd do with payments in full to credit cards. You want to know exactly what is going on when you are talking about high three digit and into four digit amounts. But I would not risk being late on a credit card, because of the onerous default charges and rate increases.
-- What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:56:57 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> > wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 6:52 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:23:17 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> > >> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:30:45 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> > >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:54 +0000, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius > >> >> >> vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Foxtrot wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Here's Ed Mierzwinski's advice for consumers: Don't use a debit card at > >> >> >> >> >> all, but if you do, always imagine that you have $100 less than your > >> >> >> >> >> balance says you have.
> >> >> >> >> >I've told people for years not to use debit cards. If the bank > >> >> >> >> >won't let you opt out of their 'overdraft protection', *and* not be > >> >> >> >> >charged if you accidentally try to use more than the card has at > >> >> >> >> >that instant, I would say run away from the things right away. The > >> >> >> >> >only reason to every use a debit card is to get cash.
> >> >> >> >> There's nothing wrong with debit cards as long as you watch your > >> >> >> >> balance. Millions use them every day. They're a sensible alternative > >> >> >> >> to borrowing as credit cards do, or writing checks.
> >> >> >> >They actually are not sensible except as a means to get "cash > >> >> >> >back". There is no reason not to use a credit card in place of a > >> >> >> >debit card for ordinary purchases. The only issue is whether or not > >> >> >> >the person holding the credit card will behave if he has access to > >> >> >> >credit. Can you behave?
> >> >> >> Errrr, if you use a credit card, why are you afraid of a debit card?
> >> >> >A debit card used with a PIN is considerably different than a credit > >> >> >card > >> >> >used with or without a valid signature.
> >> >> You think using a pin is enough to make you afraid of it?
> >> >> >> >> If you're careless enough to let yourself get ticked with NSF, they'll > >> >> >> >> screw you without vaseline for it.
> >> >> >> >You shouldn't put a lot of money in a debt card account because if > >> >> >> >your card is stolen, someone can use it. Since it likely has the > >> >> >> >Visa/MC logo and can be used as a credit card without a PIN, anyone > >> >> >> >can become you. I think I'd rather have the protections that a > >> >> >> >credit card gives me.
> >> >> >> Debt cards have the identical same protection as a credit card, Bill. > >> >> >> *** IDENTICAL *****
> >> >> >No, they do not.
> >> >> Yeah, actually they do..
> >> >And, after being shown he's wrong, he still sticks with his stupid > >> >assertion.
> >> >Typical, really.
> >> >Try again, this time, READ the law.
> >> >Matt
> >> Here's a simple fact, Matt. If you have a Visa debit card, you have > >> pretty much the same protections as a Visa Credit card..
> >Here's a simple statement in English, Steve. If you have "pretty much" > >the same protections, you don't have IDENTICAL protections.
> >Matt
> The protections arrive at the same identical point, Dummy, even though > they come from different laws..
http://www.consumer-action.org/helpdesk/articles/can_i_dispute_a_purc... #begin quote When you buy things with your debit card, save all your receipts. When a problem arises about a purchase made with your debit card, try initially to resolve the dispute with the merchant. If a merchant won’t resolve the dispute with you, ask your card issuer for help. In most cases you will be bound by the store’s policy on returns and defective merchandise, so before you make important purchases ask how returns and defective merchandise claims are handled. Dispute resolution may only apply to debit card purchases made with a signature. This is an important consideration in deciding whether or not to sign or use your PIN. #end quote
-- What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
> > > > > > > >> Here's Ed Mierzwinski's advice for consumers: Don't use a debit card at > > > > > > > >> all, but if you do, always imagine that you have $100 less than your > > > > > > > >> balance says you have.
> > > > > > > > I've told people for years not to use debit cards. If the bank won't let > > > > > > > > you opt out of their 'overdraft protection', *and* not be charged if you > > > > > > > > accidentally try to use more than the card has at that instant, I would > > > > > > > > say run away from the things right away. The only reason to every use a > > > > > > > > debit card is to get cash.
> > > > > > > Good advice. Especially since the banks are bumping the overdraft fees > > > > > > > again.
> > > > > > Again? How high can they go?
> > > > > Actually, several big banks are feeling the heat and putting caps on > > > > > the fees. If they end up getting sued, they're fucked, because they > > > > > really can't justify the charges...
> > > > If you aren't careful, you might be paying to just have debit and > > > > credit cards soon. They have to make some profits somewhere.
> > > If they would stop investing in toxic securities, they'd be fine.
> > What are these toxic assets? They are loans to people to buy houses > > or loans to people in the form of credit cards. They are > > investments in business development. Lots of things that are not > > bad things in themselves.
> > > It's kind of strange, though. For some reason, banks seemed to do > > > quite well back in the days when there were usury laws and they > > > actually engaged activities that entailed risk, but not insane risk.
> > By raising rates, they are *increasing* the risk. This is what I > > can't seem to get across to them. Of course they probably aren't > > reading usenet too carefully so maybe someone should tell them this > > more directly.
> I did. And more people are. Which is why they so readily gave me most > of my money back. I have no problem with penalties for activity that > is detrimental to their bottom line. But $25-35 per item is too much,
It's a profit centre. They are using it to make money, not pay their costs.
> and frankly, they cause a lot of the overdrafts themselves. Everything
Because this lets them make more money.
> is so automated now, there is no way it costs that much to deal with > an overdraft. The rules need to change so that the fees for an > overdraft are reflective of their costs, plus a reasonable penalty.
So where are they going to make money? Right now, you don't usually pay a fee to have a credit or debit card. If the various ways to make a profit are removed, you might have to pay. Since I avoid paying those fees, for example I'm not stupid enough to use a debit card, at least for anything other than cash back, I'll be paying if you aren't paying. I'd rather you pay.
> > I've said over and over that the laws should not protect, support > > or help in any way companies whose goal is to make money by > > destroying their customers. And companies that value their > > customers do win in the long term, if they survive the beating they > > get for not taking unfair advantage in the short run.
> To me, regulation has to be a balance. It has to protect both > consumers and businesses equally. But I'm with you, largely. I've > found that American businesses, including banks, just don't look at > the long term anymore. Everything is about increasing profits now, > with no thought to what might happen to profits in the future. Which > is why the government has to end the bailout madness.
Is there more bailout madness going on? I thought everyone was mostly past that.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:56:57 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> > wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 6:52 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:23:17 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> > >> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:30:45 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> > >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:54 +0000, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius > >> >> >> vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Foxtrot wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Here's Ed Mierzwinski's advice for consumers: Don't use a debit card at > >> >> >> >> >> all, but if you do, always imagine that you have $100 less than your > >> >> >> >> >> balance says you have.
> >> >> >> >> >I've told people for years not to use debit cards. If the bank > >> >> >> >> >won't let you opt out of their 'overdraft protection', *and* not be > >> >> >> >> >charged if you accidentally try to use more than the card has at > >> >> >> >> >that instant, I would say run away from the things right away. The > >> >> >> >> >only reason to every use a debit card is to get cash.
> >> >> >> >> There's nothing wrong with debit cards as long as you watch your > >> >> >> >> balance. Millions use them every day. They're a sensible alternative > >> >> >> >> to borrowing as credit cards do, or writing checks.
> >> >> >> >They actually are not sensible except as a means to get "cash > >> >> >> >back". There is no reason not to use a credit card in place of a > >> >> >> >debit card for ordinary purchases. The only issue is whether or not > >> >> >> >the person holding the credit card will behave if he has access to > >> >> >> >credit. Can you behave?
> >> >> >> Errrr, if you use a credit card, why are you afraid of a debit card?
> >> >> >A debit card used with a PIN is considerably different than a credit > >> >> >card > >> >> >used with or without a valid signature.
> >> >> You think using a pin is enough to make you afraid of it?
> >> >> >> >> If you're careless enough to let yourself get ticked with NSF, they'll > >> >> >> >> screw you without vaseline for it.
> >> >> >> >You shouldn't put a lot of money in a debt card account because if > >> >> >> >your card is stolen, someone can use it. Since it likely has the > >> >> >> >Visa/MC logo and can be used as a credit card without a PIN, anyone > >> >> >> >can become you. I think I'd rather have the protections that a > >> >> >> >credit card gives me.
> >> >> >> Debt cards have the identical same protection as a credit card, Bill. > >> >> >> *** IDENTICAL *****
> >> >> >No, they do not.
> >> >> Yeah, actually they do..
> >> >And, after being shown he's wrong, he still sticks with his stupid > >> >assertion.
> >> >Typical, really.
> >> >Try again, this time, READ the law.
> >> >Matt
> >> Here's a simple fact, Matt. If you have a Visa debit card, you have > >> pretty much the same protections as a Visa Credit card..
> >Here's a simple statement in English, Steve. If you have "pretty much" > >the same protections, you don't have IDENTICAL protections.
> >Matt
> The protections arrive at the same identical point, Dummy, even though > they come from different laws..
No, Steve, they don't. You were already shown this. You are just arguing because, like the small child you are, you absolutely, positively, cannot handle being wrong.
> > In article <4AF315CB.A5813...@yahoo.co.uk>, tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk > > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) says...
> > > > Avoiding plastic altogether is the best route to take.
> > > So you are going to pay cash? How do you buy airline tickets online > > > with cash? And what dispute mechanisms exist with cash? I have no > > > trouble with cash, I just think that the proper use of credit > > > cards, low credit lines paid off entirely each month, is better. If > > > you have a history of getting in trouble with credit, of course you > > > want to consider whether you've reached a point of maturity that > > > you can handle not going nuts just because you now have the right > > > to spend money that isn't yours.
> > Dave Ramsey would disagree fully... I heard it on his program yesterday.
> > Cut all credit cards in half, use only debit cards... all temptation > > removed.
> I don't know who Dave Ramsey is but debit cards are what's crazy. > And the worry about credit cards with small limits is misplaced for > most people. If you can't control your spending, then you'll go out > and get a payday loan. Is that better? Or you'll not save any > money. Is that better? The only way to be financially free and > successful is to control your spending to meet whatever your > earnings are.
Well, that's true whether you use debit, credit, checks, loans, whatever. If you spend more than you take in, you are in trouble. The real problem with debit cards came about when the banks started allowing people to overdraw, rather than simply denying the charge. This started out as a 'nice thing' for them to do, and has turned into a profit center.
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:56:57 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> >> wrote:
>> >On Nov 6, 6:52 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:23:17 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:30:45 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:54 +0000, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius >> >> >> >> vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Foxtrot wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> Here's Ed Mierzwinski's advice for consumers: Don't use a debit card at >> >> >> >> >> >> all, but if you do, always imagine that you have $100 less than your >> >> >> >> >> >> balance says you have.
>> >> >> >> >> >I've told people for years not to use debit cards. If the bank >> >> >> >> >> >won't let you opt out of their 'overdraft protection', *and* not be >> >> >> >> >> >charged if you accidentally try to use more than the card has at >> >> >> >> >> >that instant, I would say run away from the things right away. The >> >> >> >> >> >only reason to every use a debit card is to get cash.
>> >> >> >> >> There's nothing wrong with debit cards as long as you watch your >> >> >> >> >> balance. Millions use them every day. They're a sensible alternative >> >> >> >> >> to borrowing as credit cards do, or writing checks.
>> >> >> >> >They actually are not sensible except as a means to get "cash >> >> >> >> >back". There is no reason not to use a credit card in place of a >> >> >> >> >debit card for ordinary purchases. The only issue is whether or not >> >> >> >> >the person holding the credit card will behave if he has access to >> >> >> >> >credit. Can you behave?
>> >> >> >> Errrr, if you use a credit card, why are you afraid of a debit card?
>> >> >> >A debit card used with a PIN is considerably different than a credit >> >> >> >card >> >> >> >used with or without a valid signature.
>> >> >> You think using a pin is enough to make you afraid of it?
>> >> >> >> >> If you're careless enough to let yourself get ticked with NSF, they'll >> >> >> >> >> screw you without vaseline for it.
>> >> >> >> >You shouldn't put a lot of money in a debt card account because if >> >> >> >> >your card is stolen, someone can use it. Since it likely has the >> >> >> >> >Visa/MC logo and can be used as a credit card without a PIN, anyone >> >> >> >> >can become you. I think I'd rather have the protections that a >> >> >> >> >credit card gives me.
>> >> >> >> Debt cards have the identical same protection as a credit card, Bill. >> >> >> >> *** IDENTICAL *****
>> >> >> >No, they do not.
>> >> >> Yeah, actually they do..
>> >> >And, after being shown he's wrong, he still sticks with his stupid >> >> >assertion.
>> >> >Typical, really.
>> >> >Try again, this time, READ the law.
>> >> >Matt
>> >> Here's a simple fact, Matt. If you have a Visa debit card, you have >> >> pretty much the same protections as a Visa Credit card..
>> >Here's a simple statement in English, Steve. If you have "pretty much" >> >the same protections, you don't have IDENTICAL protections.
>> >Matt
>> The protections arrive at the same identical point, Dummy, even though >> they come from different laws..
>http://www.consumer-action.org/helpdesk/articles/can_i_dispute_a_purc... >#begin quote >When you buy things with your debit card, save all your receipts. >When a problem arises about a purchase made with your debit card, >try initially to resolve the dispute with the merchant. If a >merchant won’t resolve the dispute with you, ask your card issuer >for help. In most cases you will be bound by the store’s policy on >returns and defective merchandise, so before you make important >purchases ask how returns and defective merchandise claims are >handled. Dispute resolution may only apply to debit card purchases >made with a signature. This is an important consideration in >deciding whether or not to sign or use your PIN. >#end quote
Never had a problem... don't ever expect to.
--
Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody owes you anything.
>On Nov 6, 9:11 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:56:57 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> >> wrote:
>> >On Nov 6, 6:52 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:23:17 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:30:45 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:54 +0000, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius >> >> >> >> vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Foxtrot wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> Here's Ed Mierzwinski's advice for consumers: Don't use a debit card at >> >> >> >> >> >> all, but if you do, always imagine that you have $100 less than your >> >> >> >> >> >> balance says you have.
>> >> >> >> >> >I've told people for years not to use debit cards. If the bank >> >> >> >> >> >won't let you opt out of their 'overdraft protection', *and* not be >> >> >> >> >> >charged if you accidentally try to use more than the card has at >> >> >> >> >> >that instant, I would say run away from the things right away. The >> >> >> >> >> >only reason to every use a debit card is to get cash.
>> >> >> >> >> There's nothing wrong with debit cards as long as you watch your >> >> >> >> >> balance. Millions use them every day. They're a sensible alternative >> >> >> >> >> to borrowing as credit cards do, or writing checks.
>> >> >> >> >They actually are not sensible except as a means to get "cash >> >> >> >> >back". There is no reason not to use a credit card in place of a >> >> >> >> >debit card for ordinary purchases. The only issue is whether or not >> >> >> >> >the person holding the credit card will behave if he has access to >> >> >> >> >credit. Can you behave?
>> >> >> >> Errrr, if you use a credit card, why are you afraid of a debit card?
>> >> >> >A debit card used with a PIN is considerably different than a credit >> >> >> >card >> >> >> >used with or without a valid signature.
>> >> >> You think using a pin is enough to make you afraid of it?
>> >> >> >> >> If you're careless enough to let yourself get ticked with NSF, they'll >> >> >> >> >> screw you without vaseline for it.
>> >> >> >> >You shouldn't put a lot of money in a debt card account because if >> >> >> >> >your card is stolen, someone can use it. Since it likely has the >> >> >> >> >Visa/MC logo and can be used as a credit card without a PIN, anyone >> >> >> >> >can become you. I think I'd rather have the protections that a >> >> >> >> >credit card gives me.
>> >> >> >> Debt cards have the identical same protection as a credit card, Bill. >> >> >> >> *** IDENTICAL *****
>> >> >> >No, they do not.
>> >> >> Yeah, actually they do..
>> >> >And, after being shown he's wrong, he still sticks with his stupid >> >> >assertion.
>> >> >Typical, really.
>> >> >Try again, this time, READ the law.
>> >> >Matt
>> >> Here's a simple fact, Matt. If you have a Visa debit card, you have >> >> pretty much the same protections as a Visa Credit card..
>> >Here's a simple statement in English, Steve. If you have "pretty much" >> >the same protections, you don't have IDENTICAL protections.
>> >Matt
>> The protections arrive at the same identical point, Dummy, even though >> they come from different laws..
>No, Steve, they don't. You were already shown this. You are just >arguing >because, like the small child you are, you absolutely, positively, >cannot >handle being wrong.
>You are wrong, Steve.
That's from Matt Tellus who still doesn't know what a platform token on explorer is....
>Matt
<LOL> I'm really getting tired of schooling you, Matt
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:45:39 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> >On Nov 5, 1:22 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >> >exactly, but rather, through an ACH, which means they take it directly >> >from my bank account.
>> Now having an autopay is really stupid... giving someone direct >> access to your account..
>Autopay into your checking account (which is what using debit card >is doing) is foolish. But you are going to need to use autopay to >something for things like internet access. In that case, I would >only use a credit card.
>> It's much better to do online check writing >> is a much better way. I have a built in reminder from the bank about >> payments that are due.. in many cases the biller actually sends the >> bill amount to the bank or else I simply a pre-set reminder that I set >> up. In either case, the bank e-mails me as they come do and all I >> have to do is log on, put a check mark next to the payment(s), and >> sign off. The bank send the check and guarantees it'll get there on >> or before the required date...
>This is what I'd do with payments in full to credit cards. You want >to know exactly what is going on when you are talking about high >three digit and into four digit amounts. But I would not risk being >late on a credit card, because of the onerous default charges and >rate increases.
Well I never have to worry about that...
--
Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody owes you anything.
On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:45:39 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > >On Nov 5, 1:22 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > > >exactly, but rather, through an ACH, which means they take it directly > > >from my bank account.
> > Now having an autopay is really stupid... giving someone direct > > access to your account..
Again... how does a "rich guy" not know how this shit works? An ACH doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment every month. They literally can't debit the account until that day each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
> Autopay into your checking account (which is what using debit card > is doing) is foolish. But you are going to need to use autopay to > something for things like internet access. In that case, I would > only use a credit card.
Which is why you use a debit card, and not a check. There's actually more protection with a debit card than a credit card, and FAR more than when you use an automatic check.
Internet access, small payments for services that can't be paid with a check; the debit card works better for all of them, although like I said, Paypal seems to work the best, with those few things by which you can pull it off. The reason I use my debit card is because it has the Visa logo. If I cancel and they continue to debit, I can contact Visa and get the charge reversed. I can't really do that with any other form of payment, except credit cards. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened once or twice. I don't like to use my credit card for anything but emergencies, because they suck, pure and simple.
The only time it's a problem is when the bank doesn't communicate, like when they don't tell you a deposit is being held. It also annoys me that they can hold a deposit, but they can't hold a payment, or at least charge less than their current overdraft fee for such occurrences. Personally, I think they should charge a fee per day for being overdrawn, and drop this whole "per transaction" idea; that's where the problem is. Like I said; I have no problem with them charging a penalty for being overdrawn, but there is no way anyone who is overdrawn by $20 should have to pay a penalty upwards of $150-200, which is possible today. Using cash should not cost you more than using credit, yet that's how things are these days...
In paying for things, there is little difference between oaying with a credit card and paying with a debit card, except that banks are unregulated when it comes to debit cards, and regulated when it comes to credit cards, albeit insufficiently.
> > It's much better to do online check writing > > is a much better way. I have a built in reminder from the bank about > > payments that are due.. in many cases the biller actually sends the > > bill amount to the bank or else I simply a pre-set reminder that I set > > up. In either case, the bank e-mails me as they come do and all I > > have to do is log on, put a check mark next to the payment(s), and > > sign off. The bank send the check and guarantees it'll get there on > > or before the required date...
> This is what I'd do with payments in full to credit cards. You want > to know exactly what is going on when you are talking about high > three digit and into four digit amounts. But I would not risk being > late on a credit card, because of the onerous default charges and > rate increases.
> -- > What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 03:11:22 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Steve wrote:
>> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:45:39 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> > >On Nov 5, 1:22 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >> > >exactly, but rather, through an ACH, which means they take it directly >> > >from my bank account.
>> > Now having an autopay is really stupid... giving someone direct >> > access to your account..
>Again... how does a "rich guy" not know how this shit works?
Irony anyone? See below:
>An ACH >doesn't give them access to your account.
<ROTFL> Yes it does.. that's exactly how it works, you pathetic moron.
>It allows them to debit a >payment on specific days with your authorization.
Bullshit... the debit is completely initiated from the biller.. at his discretion... Your bank simply does what he asks....
> They can't write a >check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes.
Well, not from your piddly little account anyway.... and it isn't a check, you ignorant dweeb, it's an electronic transfer...
>There is >no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment >every month.
<LOL> Really? No difference, huh?
>They literally can't debit the account until that day >each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount.
Bullshit! The only "authorization" involved is that you've authorized them to have direct access to your account you hapless moron.
> But >the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my >debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
<LOL> I wouldn't be surprised if Shook doesn't have car insurance given his current jobless status...
>> Autopay into your checking account (which is what using debit card >> is doing) is foolish. But you are going to need to use autopay to >> something for things like internet access. In that case, I would >> only use a credit card.
>Which is why you use a debit card, and not a check. There's actually >more protection with a debit card than a credit card, and FAR more >than when you use an automatic check.
Automatic check?????? I suppose the moron is talking about automatic billpay where the bank sends the check automatically without you authorizing it each time..... and that, of course, is, by far, the safest way to make automatic payments if one was going to do the automatic payment thing..,, because unlike all the other ways, it's initiated from your bank and not the biller....
>Internet access, small payments for services that can't be paid with a >check; the debit card works better for all of them, although like I >said, Paypal seems to work the best, with those few things by which >you can pull it off. The reason I use my debit card is because it has >the Visa logo. If I cancel and they continue to debit, I can contact >Visa and get the charge reversed. I can't really do that with any >other form of payment, except credit cards. It doesn't happen often, >but it has happened once or twice. I don't like to use my credit card >for anything but emergencies, because they suck, pure and simple.
>The only time it's a problem is when the bank doesn't communicate, >like when they don't tell you a deposit is being held. It also annoys >me that they can hold a deposit, but they can't hold a payment, or at >least charge less than their current overdraft fee for such >occurrences. Personally, I think they should charge a fee per day for >being overdrawn, and drop this whole "per transaction" idea; that's >where the problem is. Like I said; I have no problem with them >charging a penalty for being overdrawn, but there is no way anyone who >is overdrawn by $20 should have to pay a penalty upwards of $150-200, >which is possible today. Using cash should not cost you more than >using credit, yet that's how things are these days...
The simplest solution, loser, is for you to stop overdrawing your account..
>In paying for things, there is little difference between oaying with a >credit card and paying with a debit card, except that banks are >unregulated when it comes to debit cards, and regulated when it comes >to credit cards, albeit insufficiently.
more bullshit from the moron...
--
Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody owes you anything.
> On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:45:39 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > >On Nov 5, 1:22 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > > > >exactly, but rather, through an ACH, which means they take it directly > > > >from my bank account.
> > > Now having an autopay is really stupid... giving someone direct > > > access to your account..
> Again... how does a "rich guy" not know how this shit works? An ACH > doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a > payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a > check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is > no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment > every month.
Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
>They literally can't debit the account until that day > each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But > the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my > debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment. When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
> > Autopay into your checking account (which is what using debit card > > is doing) is foolish. But you are going to need to use autopay to > > something for things like internet access. In that case, I would > > only use a credit card.
> Which is why you use a debit card, and not a check. There's actually > more protection with a debit card than a credit card, and FAR more > than when you use an automatic check.
> Internet access, small payments for services that can't be paid with a > check; the debit card works better for all of them, although like I > said, Paypal seems to work the best, with those few things by which > you can pull it off. The reason I use my debit card is because it has > the Visa logo. If I cancel and they continue to debit, I can contact > Visa and get the charge reversed. I can't really do that with any > other form of payment, except credit cards. It doesn't happen often, > but it has happened once or twice. I don't like to use my credit card > for anything but emergencies, because they suck, pure and simple.
> The only time it's a problem is when the bank doesn't communicate, > like when they don't tell you a deposit is being held. It also annoys > me that they can hold a deposit, but they can't hold a payment, or at > least charge less than their current overdraft fee for such > occurrences. Personally, I think they should charge a fee per day for > being overdrawn, and drop this whole "per transaction" idea; that's > where the problem is. Like I said; I have no problem with them > charging a penalty for being overdrawn, but there is no way anyone who > is overdrawn by $20 should have to pay a penalty upwards of $150-200, > which is possible today. Using cash should not cost you more than > using credit, yet that's how things are these days...
> In paying for things, there is little difference between oaying with a > credit card and paying with a debit card, except that banks are > unregulated when it comes to debit cards, and regulated when it comes > to credit cards, albeit insufficiently.
> > > It's much better to do online check writing > > > is a much better way. I have a built in reminder from the bank about > > > payments that are due.. in many cases the biller actually sends the > > > bill amount to the bank or else I simply a pre-set reminder that I set > > > up. In either case, the bank e-mails me as they come do and all I > > > have to do is log on, put a check mark next to the payment(s), and > > > sign off. The bank send the check and guarantees it'll get there on > > > or before the required date...
> > This is what I'd do with payments in full to credit cards. You want > > to know exactly what is going on when you are talking about high > > three digit and into four digit amounts. But I would not risk being > > late on a credit card, because of the onerous default charges and > > rate increases.
> > -- > > What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
> On Nov 7, 6:11 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Steve wrote:
> > An ACH > > doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a > > payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a > > check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is > > no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment > > every month.
> Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between > authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
If you give them access to your account for an electronic payment, they may consider it the right to remove funds on an ongoing basis. In fact, removing funds on an ongoing basis is the whole point of autopaying. I would *not* do that with a checking account which is nearly the same as saying I would not do that with a debit card.
> >They literally can't debit the account until that day > > each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But > > the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my > > debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
> I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit > card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment.
What does "authorization" mean? if you call me up and agree to one payment of $1000 and I later insist that you agree to 10 payments of $1000, who is correct?
> When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I > authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even > begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the > four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, > but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
This is a direct connection to your money, your bank account. If things are messed up, you could easily have your account and your money in limbo. I can't imagine finding that acceptable when I can use a credit card and it's the bank that is on the hook to find a solution.
>> On Nov 7, 6:11 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >> > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > Steve wrote:
>> > An ACH >> > doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a >> > payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a >> > check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is >> > no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment >> > every month.
>> Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between >> authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
> If you give them access to your account for an electronic payment, they > may consider it the right to remove funds on an ongoing basis. In fact, > removing funds on an ongoing basis is the whole point of autopaying. I > would *not* do that with a checking account which is nearly the same as > saying I would not do that with a debit card.
>> >They literally can't debit the account until that day >> > each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But >> > the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my >> > debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
>> I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit >> card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment.
> What does "authorization" mean? if you call me up and agree to one > payment of $1000 and I later insist that you agree to 10 payments of > $1000, who is correct?
>> When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I >> authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even >> begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the >> four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, >> but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
> This is a direct connection to your money, your bank account. If things > are messed up, you could easily have your account and your money in > limbo. I can't imagine finding that acceptable when I can use a credit > card and it's the bank that is on the hook to find a solution.
I do pay by electronic check sometimes, and I do a screen capture of the screen that emphasizes that I'm authorizing a one-time payment only. Obviously, I'm not dealing with "Darth Vader's Crack Shack" or websites like that, but rather well-known, reputable outfits. But I make that copy anyway.
Most of them, on the payment received print out, repeat that anyway.
> > On Nov 7, 6:11 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Steve wrote:
> > > An ACH > > > doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a > > > payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a > > > check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is > > > no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment > > > every month.
> > Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between > > authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
> If you give them access to your account for an electronic payment, > they may consider it the right to remove funds on an ongoing basis.
No, they can't. ACH is actually a clearing house that is very closely watched by regulators. Each and every transaction must have a specific authorization. That's one reason why everyone in the world will take a Visa debit card, but almost no one will set you up for ACH payments.
> In fact, removing funds on an ongoing basis is the whole point of > autopaying. I would *not* do that with a checking account which is > nearly the same as saying I would not do that with a debit card.
It's a little different from a debit card, in that each transaction requires a specific authorization. A lot of smallish transactions, even with a credit card, don't even need a signature anymore. ACH payments always need a signature...
> > >They literally can't debit the account until that day > > > each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But > > > the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my > > > debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
> > I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit > > card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment.
> What does "authorization" mean? if you call me up and agree to one > payment of $1000 and I later insist that you agree to 10 payments > of $1000, who is correct?
Unless they have a separate authorization for each of the ten, I am. They can't do what you describe. They have to have an authorization each payment.
> > When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I > > authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even > > begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the > > four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, > > but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
> This is a direct connection to your money, your bank account.
It's not, though. It's through a clearinghouse. They have to run it through the clearinghouse, and the clearinghouse has to see an authorization for each transaction.
> If > things are messed up, you could easily have your account and your > money in limbo.
Yes, and of course, that never happened in the days when people wrote checks. Google Frank Abingnale for a clue. Anyone who really wants to can always find a way to steal your money. You just have to be aware of what's happening on your account. That's how I caught the bank screwing me; I download my account every weekday, and that's how I knew they had screwed me on the overdrafts. It was also why I got most of the money back.
This whole thread is about banks screwing you. If banks are screwing depositors, then any thought of safety is truly an illusion.
> I can't imagine finding that acceptable when I can > use a credit card and it's the bank that is on the hook to find a > solution.
You think so? I know an awful lot of people who have unauthorized charges on their credit cards, and who had to wait years to get satisfaction. In the meantime, black marks go all over your credit report. If you use your credit card to pay for something at a store, for instance, it's pure trust, because there is little to stop a store employee from using your card number to buy a computer online. And you may not find out about it until you get your statement a month later. At least with a debit card, you'll find out about it within a few days. And they won't jack the interest rate up to 30% when you refuse to pay for it and they investigate. There are actually a million reasons to NOT use a credit card for something like that. The key is to get the banks to be fair about fees. Not stop them entirely, but to be fair about them.
> Here's Ed Mierzwinski's advice for consumers: Don't use a debit card at > all, but if you do, always imagine that you have $100 less than your > balance says you have.
> 29 Overdraft Fees In 27 Days: Birthday Spoiled By Bank Statement
> Matthew Miller of San Pedro, Calif. spent $2,395 from his checking > account during the month of October. He deposited $3,445 on top of a > starting balance of $394. His ending balance: two bucks in the red.
> Where did the rest of his money go?
> To Chase Bank, in the form of overdraft charges, non-sufficient funds > charges and other fees totaling $1,446. Miller said he called Chase > repeatedly to try to figure out where he went wrong.
> "Nobody can tell me what they're for," Miller said in an interview with > the Huffington Post. "All they can tell me is, 'Yeah, it's wiping out > your bank account.'"
> Clearly, Miller's mistake was to use a debit card without much cash in > his checking account. But it's impossible to tell from the statement > exactly what he did wrong.
> For instance, the statement shows that on Oct. 5, he made a $400 deposit > at an ATM that brought his balance to $421. It was immediately clobbered > with seven straight non-sufficient funds charges for $33 each that > brought it down to $190. (Chase said in a recent statement that it > doesn't charge > more than six overdrafts per day)
> Ed Mierzwinski, program director for consumer advocacy group U.S. PIRG, > reviewed Miller's statement and called the fee situation "one of the > worst I have ever seen."
> "On Oct. 5 you can see that they post his balance as if he appears to > have a full $421.97 after that $400 transfer," Mierzwinski wrote. "But, > they then take all the micro-transactions out first, against the $21.97, > not the $421.97, causing a ripple of NSF charges... Basically, at the end > of the day, they re-order the transactions to maximize the fees."
> Similar batches of fees popped up on the 8th, 14th, and 19th.
> On the day Miller deposited that $400, he used his debit card for a $16 > set of boxing wraps from the gym, a $23 meal, a $6 smoothie, and a $4 > download from iTunes. Did those purchases cost him $231?
> Chase spokesman Tom Kelly declined to comment on an individual customer, > but he said Chase wouldn't do things that way. He explained that NSF > charges -- which Kelly said apply when the bank refuses to cover a > payment -- post one business day after a transaction is rejected.
> So what were the seven payments Chase rejected from Oct. 2, the previous > business day? The statement doesn't say, and Miller has no idea. He said > that over the course of the month, Chase apparently refused to honor the > monthly phone bill, computer payment, credit card payment, and gym dues > -- but those should amount to only a handful of NSF charges for the > month, not two dozen. And if the statement is to be believed, Chase > honored no fewer than a dozen transactions for more than what was in the > account.
> Chase's policy on posting order contradicts Mierzwinski's interpretation > of what happened:
> Generally, deposits will be credited to your account first and then we'll > pay your items (e.g. checks, debit card transactions, ATM transactions > and other debits to your account) from highest to lowest dollar amount > each business day. Certain transactions such as wire transfers may post > before others.
> But Miller's statement appears to contradict that policy: his deposits > are credited before debits only half the time. And as for the difference > between overdraft charges and NSF charges, not even the statement can > keep them straight -- the end of the document lists all 29 overdraft and > NSF penalties as overdraft fees.
> All this confusion could be attributable to the fact that Miller started > his account with Washington Mutual. He became a Chase customer after > Chase took over WaMu, the largest bank failure in U.S. history, last > fall. Kelly said that Chase phased out the old WaMu computer system for > California customers last week, and that proper Chase billing statements > are more detailed. So maybe Miller's next statement will make some sense.
> Chase and Bank of America both announced changes to their overdraft > policies under threat of a congressional crackdown. The Chase policy, > which will go into effect next year, will require customers to opt-in, > will modify posting order "to recognize debit-card transactions and ATM > withdrawals as they occur," and will limit overdraft fees to no more than > three per day.
> What makes Miller sad is that today is his 36th birthday.
> "You birthday is a time of evaluation," he said.
> (He wrote in email that he'd celebrate with a can of beans and a Twinkie; > pressed about this, he said he'd go out to dinner with his mother and > daughter.)
> Here's Ed Mierzwinski's advice for consumers: Don't use a debit card at > all, but if you do, always imagine that you have $100 less than your > balance says you have.
> -- > Slavery: The belief that people can be property > Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
I only use my debit card at the bank to identify myself and at the banks ATM machine. Any other use of it is risky. That's what a banker and a cop told me. Don't ever use it at any other ATM machine.
> On Nov 6, 2:07 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > GaryDeWaay wrote:
> > > In article <4AF315CB.A5813...@yahoo.co.uk>, tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk > > > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) says...
> > > > > Avoiding plastic altogether is the best route to take.
> > > > So you are going to pay cash? How do you buy airline tickets online > > > > with cash? And what dispute mechanisms exist with cash? I have no > > > > trouble with cash, I just think that the proper use of credit > > > > cards, low credit lines paid off entirely each month, is better. If > > > > you have a history of getting in trouble with credit, of course you > > > > want to consider whether you've reached a point of maturity that > > > > you can handle not going nuts just because you now have the right > > > > to spend money that isn't yours.
> > > Dave Ramsey would disagree fully... I heard it on his program yesterday.
> > > Cut all credit cards in half, use only debit cards... all temptation > > > removed.
> > I don't know who Dave Ramsey is but debit cards are what's crazy. > > And the worry about credit cards with small limits is misplaced for > > most people. If you can't control your spending, then you'll go out > > and get a payday loan. Is that better? Or you'll not save any > > money. Is that better? The only way to be financially free and > > successful is to control your spending to meet whatever your > > earnings are.
> Well, that's true whether you use debit, credit, checks, loans, > whatever. If you spend more than you take in, you are in trouble. > The real problem with debit cards came about when the banks > started allowing people to overdraw, rather than simply denying the > charge. This started out as a 'nice thing' for them to do, and has > turned > into a profit center.
Even before that, the debit card was a direct connection to your bank account. A credit card is a connection to credit extended by the bank.
-- What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
> On Nov 7, 1:01 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Milt wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 6:11 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > > > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Steve wrote:
> > > > An ACH > > > > doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a > > > > payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a > > > > check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is > > > > no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment > > > > every month.
> > > Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between > > > authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
> > If you give them access to your account for an electronic payment, > > they may consider it the right to remove funds on an ongoing basis.
> No, they can't. ACH is actually a clearing house that is very closely > watched by regulators. Each and every transaction must have a specific > authorization. That's one reason why everyone in the world will take a > Visa debit card, but almost no one will set you up for ACH payments.
I was just recently talking with someone who'd had her internet bill taken out of her debit card. She cancelled the internet from that company and then cancelled the card. Later, she got a letter with a fee claiming that she'd authorized a debit after closing her account. I think she got everything reversed, but the trouble itself is clear. She'd had this autopaying on her debit card for *years*.
> > In fact, removing funds on an ongoing basis is the whole point of > > autopaying. I would *not* do that with a checking account which is > > nearly the same as saying I would not do that with a debit card.
> It's a little different from a debit card, in that each transaction > requires a specific authorization. A lot of smallish transactions, > even with a credit card, don't even need a signature anymore. ACH > payments always need a signature...
How does that work when you agree to the autopayment over the phone out of your checking account?
> > > >They literally can't debit the account until that day > > > > each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But > > > > the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my > > > > debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
> > > I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit > > > card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment.
> > What does "authorization" mean? if you call me up and agree to one > > payment of $1000 and I later insist that you agree to 10 payments > > of $1000, who is correct?
> Unless they have a separate authorization for each of the ten, I am. > They can't do what you describe. They have to have an authorization > each payment.
How do they do autopayment for years without asking you again?
> > > When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I > > > authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even > > > begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the > > > four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, > > > but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
> > This is a direct connection to your money, your bank account.
> It's not, though. It's through a clearinghouse. They have to run it > through the clearinghouse, and the clearinghouse has to see an > authorization for each transaction.
How do they do autopayment for years?
> > If > > things are messed up, you could easily have your account and your > > money in limbo.
> Yes, and of course, that never happened in the days when people wrote > checks. Google Frank Abingnale for a clue. Anyone who really wants to > can always find a way to steal your money.
Checks should only be used to pay trusted or reasonably trusted companies or similarly situated people.
> You just have to be aware > of what's happening on your account. That's how I caught the bank > screwing me; I download my account every weekday, and that's how I > knew they had screwed me on the overdrafts. It was also why I got most > of the money back.
I separate out the autopays on bills to a credit card so that I have various dispute rights I wouldn't have if it came directly out of a checking account. Since it's also not coming out of my money directly, I don't have as much to worry about if the account needs to be shut down because fraud might be going on. I wouldn't want that to happen to my accounts with my money in them.
> This whole thread is about banks screwing you. If banks are screwing > depositors, then any thought of safety is truly an illusion.
I recommend having a banking relationship with a major bank and with a credit union. Credit cards you have should not *all* come from either of those two financial institutions. If you want to also have a smaller regional or local bank, that's fine too. These are difficult times and you should protect yourself.
> > I can't imagine finding that acceptable when I can > > use a credit card and it's the bank that is on the hook to find a > > solution.
> You think so? I know an awful lot of people who have unauthorized > charges on their credit cards, and who had to wait years to get > satisfaction.
Of course that can happen. But whose money is out? It's the bank's.
> In the meantime, black marks go all over your credit > report. If you use your credit card to pay for something at a store, > for instance, it's pure trust, because there is little to stop a store > employee from using your card number to buy a computer online.
There's nothing to stop them from using your debit card since it can be turned into a "credit" card and used without the PIN at any time. Generally you want to avoid non-swiped transactions. This is why it is important to have a selection of credit cards. The exact exposure possible isn't yet clear to me since there is caselaw saying that you can be dinged for beyond what your credit limit is. I would hope that hasn't been upheld.
> And you > may not find out about it until you get your statement a month later. > At least with a debit card, you'll find out about it within a few > days.
When everything else you run through there starts bouncing. You really should think this through. If you have 20 things that blow up, you've got to call up each of those blow ups and convince them not to assess their bad check fees (or whatever you want to call them). So even if your bank will give you a break, it's still a huge pain.
> And they won't jack the interest rate up to 30% when you refuse > to pay for it and they investigate.
Actually, if you properly dispute a credit card transaction, you should not have to pay until it is resolved and you should not have to pay interest.
> There are actually a million > reasons to NOT use a credit card for something like that. The key is > to get the banks to be fair about fees. Not stop them entirely, but to > be fair about them.
Of course they aren't being fair right now, but that's another issue.
-- What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:01:46 +0000, Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > recirculation' ) wrote:
> > Milt wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 6:11 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > >> > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > Steve wrote:
> >> > An ACH > >> > doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a > >> > payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a > >> > check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is > >> > no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment > >> > every month.
> >> Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between > >> authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
> > If you give them access to your account for an electronic payment, they > > may consider it the right to remove funds on an ongoing basis. In fact, > > removing funds on an ongoing basis is the whole point of autopaying. I > > would *not* do that with a checking account which is nearly the same as > > saying I would not do that with a debit card.
> >> >They literally can't debit the account until that day > >> > each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But > >> > the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my > >> > debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
> >> I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit > >> card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment.
> > What does "authorization" mean? if you call me up and agree to one > > payment of $1000 and I later insist that you agree to 10 payments of > > $1000, who is correct?
> >> When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I > >> authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even > >> begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the > >> four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, > >> but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
> > This is a direct connection to your money, your bank account. If things > > are messed up, you could easily have your account and your money in > > limbo. I can't imagine finding that acceptable when I can use a credit > > card and it's the bank that is on the hook to find a solution.
> I do pay by electronic check sometimes, and I do a screen capture of the > screen that emphasizes that I'm authorizing a one-time payment only. > Obviously, I'm not dealing with "Darth Vader's Crack Shack" or websites > like that, but rather well-known, reputable outfits. But I make that > copy anyway.
> Most of them, on the payment received print out, repeat that anyway.
The above is good. I would also save the screen from any payments I make on anything.
-- What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
>On Nov 7, 6:11 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Steve wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:45:39 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote:
>> > > >On Nov 5, 1:22 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >> > > >exactly, but rather, through an ACH, which means they take it directly >> > > >from my bank account.
>> > > Now having an autopay is really stupid... giving someone direct >> > > access to your account..
>> Again... how does a "rich guy" not know how this shit works? An ACH >> doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a >> payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a >> check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is >> no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment >> every month.
>Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between >authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
<LOL> Shook has no idea...
>>They literally can't debit the account until that day >> each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But >> the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my >> debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
>I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit >card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment.
Actually, it does no such thing..
>When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I >authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even >begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the >four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, >but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
Shook probably has no car insurance since that is NOT how an ACH works. If you set that up with a regular biller like an insurance company they will bill your account regularly...
>> > Autopay into your checking account (which is what using debit card >> > is doing) is foolish. But you are going to need to use autopay to >> > something for things like internet access. In that case, I would >> > only use a credit card.
>> Which is why you use a debit card, and not a check. There's actually >> more protection with a debit card than a credit card, and FAR more >> than when you use an automatic check.
>> Internet access, small payments for services that can't be paid with a >> check; the debit card works better for all of them, although like I >> said, Paypal seems to work the best, with those few things by which >> you can pull it off. The reason I use my debit card is because it has >> the Visa logo. If I cancel and they continue to debit, I can contact >> Visa and get the charge reversed. I can't really do that with any >> other form of payment, except credit cards. It doesn't happen often, >> but it has happened once or twice. I don't like to use my credit card >> for anything but emergencies, because they suck, pure and simple.
>> The only time it's a problem is when the bank doesn't communicate, >> like when they don't tell you a deposit is being held. It also annoys >> me that they can hold a deposit, but they can't hold a payment, or at >> least charge less than their current overdraft fee for such >> occurrences. Personally, I think they should charge a fee per day for >> being overdrawn, and drop this whole "per transaction" idea; that's >> where the problem is. Like I said; I have no problem with them >> charging a penalty for being overdrawn, but there is no way anyone who >> is overdrawn by $20 should have to pay a penalty upwards of $150-200, >> which is possible today. Using cash should not cost you more than >> using credit, yet that's how things are these days...
>> In paying for things, there is little difference between oaying with a >> credit card and paying with a debit card, except that banks are >> unregulated when it comes to debit cards, and regulated when it comes >> to credit cards, albeit insufficiently.
>> > > It's much better to do online check writing >> > > is a much better way. I have a built in reminder from the bank about >> > > payments that are due.. in many cases the biller actually sends the >> > > bill amount to the bank or else I simply a pre-set reminder that I set >> > > up. In either case, the bank e-mails me as they come do and all I >> > > have to do is log on, put a check mark next to the payment(s), and >> > > sign off. The bank send the check and guarantees it'll get there on >> > > or before the required date...
>> > This is what I'd do with payments in full to credit cards. You want >> > to know exactly what is going on when you are talking about high >> > three digit and into four digit amounts. But I would not risk being >> > late on a credit card, because of the onerous default charges and >> > rate increases.
>> > -- >> > What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
--
Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody owes you anything.
>On Nov 7, 1:01 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Milt wrote:
>> > On Nov 7, 6:11 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of >> > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > > Steve wrote:
>> > > An ACH >> > > doesn't give them access to your account. It allows them to debit a >> > > payment on specific days with your authorization. They can't write a >> > > check for $1000 to pay for a trip to Tahiti. for Chrissakes. There is >> > > no difference between authorizing an ACH for a car insurance payment >> > > every month.
>> > Oops; forgot to finish the thought. There is no difference between >> > authorizing an ACH and writing one specific check.
>> If you give them access to your account for an electronic payment, >> they may consider it the right to remove funds on an ongoing basis.
>No, they can't. ACH is actually a clearing house that is very closely >watched by regulators. Each and every transaction must have a specific >authorization. That's one reason why everyone in the world will take a >Visa debit card, but almost no one will set you up for ACH payments.
>> In fact, removing funds on an ongoing basis is the whole point of >> autopaying. I would *not* do that with a checking account which is >> nearly the same as saying I would not do that with a debit card.
>It's a little different from a debit card, in that each transaction >requires a specific authorization.
Nope... not unless you set it up specifying only one transfer...
>A lot of smallish transactions, >even with a credit card, don't even need a signature anymore. ACH >payments always need a signature...
not for each transaction..
>> > >They literally can't debit the account until that day >> > > each month, and they can only debit it for the authorized amount. But >> > > the car insurance company now takes Visa, anyway, so now they use my >> > > debit card. And it's preferable to writing checks.
>> > I will add this, though. ACH is a lot more restrictive than a debit >> > card, because it requires a separate authorization for each payment.
>> What does "authorization" mean? if you call me up and agree to one >> payment of $1000 and I later insist that you agree to 10 payments >> of $1000, who is correct?
>Unless they have a separate authorization for each of the ten, I am. >They can't do what you describe. They have to have an authorization >each payment.
Absolutely wrong.. Obviously Shook has never done this..
>> > When I authorize the car insurance company to debit my account, I >> > authorize each one to happen on a specific day, and they can't even >> > begin to add an extra payment to that, because I only authorize the >> > four, on specific dates. So, ACH is probably safer than debit cards, >> > but my car insurance isn't that high, anyway.
>> This is a direct connection to your money, your bank account.
>It's not, though. It's through a clearinghouse. They have to run it >through the clearinghouse, and the clearinghouse has to see an >authorization for each transaction.
>> If >> things are messed up, you could easily have your account and your >> money in limbo.
>Yes, and of course, that never happened in the days when people wrote >checks. Google Frank Abingnale for a clue. Anyone who really wants to >can always find a way to steal your money. You just have to be aware >of what's happening on your account. That's how I caught the bank >screwing me; I download my account every weekday, and that's how I >knew they had screwed me on the overdrafts. It was also why I got most >of the money back.
>This whole thread is about banks screwing you. If banks are screwing >depositors, then any thought of safety is truly an illusion.
>> I can't imagine finding that acceptable when I can >> use a credit card and it's the bank that is on the hook to find a >> solution.
>You think so? I know an awful lot of people who have unauthorized >charges on their credit cards, and who had to wait years to get >satisfaction. In the meantime, black marks go all over your credit >report. If you use your credit card to pay for something at a store, >for instance, it's pure trust, because there is little to stop a store >employee from using your card number to buy a computer online. And you >may not find out about it until you get your statement a month later. >At least with a debit card, you'll find out about it within a few >days. And they won't jack the interest rate up to 30% when you refuse >to pay for it and they investigate. There are actually a million >reasons to NOT use a credit card for something like that. The key is >to get the banks to be fair about fees. Not stop them entirely, but to >be fair about them.
--
Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody owes you anything.
> > On Nov 6, 2:07 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > GaryDeWaay wrote:
> > > > In article <4AF315CB.A5813...@yahoo.co.uk>, tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk > > > > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) says...
> > > > > > Avoiding plastic altogether is the best route to take.
> > > > > So you are going to pay cash? How do you buy airline tickets online > > > > > with cash? And what dispute mechanisms exist with cash? I have no > > > > > trouble with cash, I just think that the proper use of credit > > > > > cards, low credit lines paid off entirely each month, is better. If > > > > > you have a history of getting in trouble with credit, of course you > > > > > want to consider whether you've reached a point of maturity that > > > > > you can handle not going nuts just because you now have the right > > > > > to spend money that isn't yours.
> > > > Dave Ramsey would disagree fully... I heard it on his program yesterday.
> > > > Cut all credit cards in half, use only debit cards... all temptation > > > > removed.
> > > I don't know who Dave Ramsey is but debit cards are what's crazy. > > > And the worry about credit cards with small limits is misplaced for > > > most people. If you can't control your spending, then you'll go out > > > and get a payday loan. Is that better? Or you'll not save any > > > money. Is that better? The only way to be financially free and > > > successful is to control your spending to meet whatever your > > > earnings are.
> > Well, that's true whether you use debit, credit, checks, loans, > > whatever. If you spend more than you take in, you are in trouble. > > The real problem with debit cards came about when the banks > > started allowing people to overdraw, rather than simply denying the > > charge. This started out as a 'nice thing' for them to do, and has > > turned > > into a profit center.
> Even before that, the debit card was a direct connection to your > bank account. A credit card is a connection to credit extended by > the bank.
This is true... but... anytime you write a check, you create a direct connection to your bank account. Giving the number accomplishes that.
> On Nov 7, 3:14 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Matt wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 2:07 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of > > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > GaryDeWaay wrote:
> > > > > In article <4AF315CB.A5813...@yahoo.co.uk>, tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk > > > > > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) says...
> > > > > > > Avoiding plastic altogether is the best route to take.
> > > > > > So you are going to pay cash? How do you buy airline tickets online > > > > > > with cash? And what dispute mechanisms exist with cash? I have no > > > > > > trouble with cash, I just think that the proper use of credit > > > > > > cards, low credit lines paid off entirely each month, is better. If > > > > > > you have a history of getting in trouble with credit, of course you > > > > > > want to consider whether you've reached a point of maturity that > > > > > > you can handle not going nuts just because you now have the right > > > > > > to spend money that isn't yours.
> > > > > Dave Ramsey would disagree fully... I heard it on his program yesterday.
> > > > > Cut all credit cards in half, use only debit cards... all temptation > > > > > removed.
> > > > I don't know who Dave Ramsey is but debit cards are what's crazy. > > > > And the worry about credit cards with small limits is misplaced for > > > > most people. If you can't control your spending, then you'll go out > > > > and get a payday loan. Is that better? Or you'll not save any > > > > money. Is that better? The only way to be financially free and > > > > successful is to control your spending to meet whatever your > > > > earnings are.
> > > Well, that's true whether you use debit, credit, checks, loans, > > > whatever. If you spend more than you take in, you are in trouble. > > > The real problem with debit cards came about when the banks > > > started allowing people to overdraw, rather than simply denying the > > > charge. This started out as a 'nice thing' for them to do, and has > > > turned > > > into a profit center.
> > Even before that, the debit card was a direct connection to your > > bank account. A credit card is a connection to credit extended by > > the bank.
> This is true... but... anytime you write a check, you create a direct > connection to your bank account. Giving the number accomplishes > that.
That's right. It used to be that they'd have to duplicate the check but now that they can just fake the check and do a transfer, using checks isn't very sensible either. I'd limit them to businesses that can be reasonably trusted. I'd also have more than one checking account.
I've had a bank tell me that I didn't give them checks worth the amount I gave them. It took a long time to clear it up. It was enough money that it mattered to me. If an account is compromised and needs to be shut down for a time, do you want to be completely without access to your funds? I don't.
-- What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
|
