The Cashless SocietyFollow

Well it is 35 for 5 GB - which, if I ever used it to say, stream movies or anything would be gone in a flash - after that you get charged by the kb. There are no unlimited plans. That said, I am on a flex plan, so I am basically paying 5 bucks a month for the option to use it if I really wanted to, but I make a point of almost never using it because I'm cheap as hell.

I didn't realize that you guys got dinged so hard in the states as well, just looking at the verizon plan, looks like Americans get a better deal than us for up to 2 GB but a worse deal than us from 2-5 GB

Edited, Apr 3rd 2012 2:45pm by Olorinus

You'll have to pry my checkbook out of my cold dead hands!

As several people have pointed out, paper does have certain advantages in that you can engage in a transaction with legal force *without* needing to have power and some form of network connection. That's useful for a variety of situations. Additionally, there is a privacy/security issue. While you are still providing some information to a vendor when paying with a check, you only have to do so with those you trust, and the check information itself is never transmitted electronically except between banking institutions. Contrast with electronic checks or credit/debit, where you're basically handing the account information needed to withdraw funds to the vendor in electronic form in an environment that by necessity must be directly attached to an active network. Instead of just trusting the banks to have good secure networks, you're putting your trust in some random shop set up in a mall which may not be there next year.

The privacy issue is a matter of marketing data IMO. Obviously, if you don't care about this then it doesn't matter to you. But some of us are concerned when it's not just the total amount of a sale that is in a format easily accessible for marketing purposes, but also exactly what you purchased. Go look at your credit card statement. If it's like mine, it includes an electronic receipt for whatever you purchased (for every purchase over the month). This is useful to verify that extra charges aren't appearing, but it also means that the credit card company knows everything you buy. And it's under no requirement not to use that information. Also, each vendor has an association between your name and what you purchased. Maybe this is just an annoyance to some, but it is information you should not be required to hand to someone just for buying something. Increasingly though, it's impossible to avoid if you use any form of electronic purchasing methodology.


Whether you use checks or cards is kind of a matter of choice, but you should still only use them at major vendors that you have a degree of trust in (at least enough to know they'll be around for you to get your money back if your account info gets stolen). And we can argue about which is "better" for that purpose. Getting rid of cash is incredibly problematic though. For the issue of use when services are out of course, but even more for the privacy issue. Right now, I can go to my bank and withdraw cash, then go to a store and pay for something with cash, and the bank doesn't know what I used the money for, and the store doesn't know who made the purchase. Take away cash and there is no way to ever buy something without someone having a record of that fact. IMO, that's an incredibly pervasive infringement of our privacy and I find it odd that so many people who would normally fight tooth and nail against governments infringing on their privacy seem blissfully willing to give it up for a small amount of convenience.


You're free to use that convenience if you want, but I don't think that the government should mandate it by eliminating cash. IMO, anything that limits Big Brother is a good thing.

Sure. But the same information is encoded on your debit card. So anyone with physical access to either a check or a debit card can access your account. Hence, needing to trust the people you do business with. The difference is that the data on the card can be picked up electronically. There are a host of methods, some of them very hard to detect, to read that data without having to steal the card itself. While I suppose someone could set up a hidden camera near a POS to read the routing numbers off checks being used, I've never heard of anyone actually doing this.

People generally do check fraud by creating accounts with bogus names and then passing the checks and taking advantage of the delay in fund withdrawal to maximize the amount they can steal. This is why the banks prefer folks using cards. But the checks are actually far less likely to result in *your* money being taken from you. Hence why I mentioned the issue of security.



It something which can be done, but is less likely to. In order for your bank to know what you purchased with your check, the vendor has to have some extra system set up to do this. Most vendors treat checks like cash purchases. They get the authorization to accept the check, put the check in the drawer (just like cash) and then drop it at their bank when they make their next deposit. The bank handles the details on the back end, but there's no innate way for the bank to know what was purchased with any given check.

Obviously, the vendor *can* implement a system which correlates checks to specific items purchased, but that's not an innate feature of using the check. Many vendors attempt to collect name, phone number, etc when you buy something from them no matter what method you use. Having a check with that information on it just lets them easily do this. But credit or debit purchases actually include the receipt with the financial information. That information is then available to both sides of the transaction and you kinda don't have a choice about it.

It's not about absolutes, but degrees. You're also missing that most credit/debit transactions should be replaced with cash, not a check. Checks are for occasional largish purchases either from specific vendors, or usually for paying bills of some sort. You don't buy a bag of chips and a soda with a check. You pay cash *or* use a credit/debit card. That's the most common comparison and IMO cash is much easier to use, much more secure, and absolutely more private.

Oh. And silly commercials aside, it's faster.

Not automatically. It depends on the POS equipment. There are many places where you use your debit or credit card and it's a separate piece of paper from the actual receipt because the POS and the debit/credit terminal aren't linked.

Sure. But in order from "most likely to include purchase information with the financial transaction to least likely" it goes: Credit cards -> debit cards -> checks -> cash. Right?

gbaji, I will agree with you on the point about RFID chips at least. Those things make me incredibly uncomfortable. I don't know why anyone would want one on their passport or driver's license, and I REALLY don't know why anyone would voluntarily get one implanted in their body. That's an entirely different topic though.

Also, you don't need to pay to transfer money between banks. I transfer between different ones all the time.

If your bank charges for outgoing ACH transfers or doesn't even offer them, your bank sucks.

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 4:26am by Sweetums

I only use credit unions, and every credit union I've ever had a membership with has charged to transfer money between banks. I very rarely need to use that service, so I'll take the perks of using a credit union over a bank, in exchange for getting charged for a service I almost never use (that you have to use to get charged for, just to clarify).

I bank with USAA and I've been nothing but pleased.

Banks aren't inherently bad, and credit unions aren't inherently good.

Yeah I've actually had way better experiences with my bank than with credit unions. My bank treats me like gold... when I tried to sign up for a credit union they made me cry. (I was young and stressed out, but still not cool)

Edited, Apr 4th 2012 4:05pm by Olorinus

Yes Aethien, that ING. They don't have any physical branches in Australia, I don't think. Anyway, my accounts with them are purely internet, with a 24/7 phone line to them to sort out problems. Their phone line has been really useful and friendly.

People using bank/account information they stole generally don't call the banks though. They use electronic and online systems, which use the number on the card/check. I suppose if you're talking about ID theft in general, the information on a check could be useful, but that's separate from the question of security of your money from theft. The casual thief is always going to prefer credit cards to debit or checks because he can run around using it until the card doesn't clear anymore and get free stuff. The other two both require additional stuff (pin and/or ID) which a casual thief isn't going to bother with. A professional is going to make use of any credit card numbers and bank routing numbers he can get his hands on. But those guys usually get the numbers electronically, not physically. They pay folks to steal numbers for them. They need a lot of them to cover the overhead of maintaining bogus IDs, bank accounts, front businesses, etc. The occasional individual who happens to write down a check number at a cash register just isn't on the radar screen for them. The guy they can get to attach a scanner to the register to record the number of every card used *is*.

I suppose that's true, I've just heard very few good things about national banks. Bank of America and USBank in particular are pretty nasty. USBank I have personal experience with. Any institution that charges you PER DAY for having your account overdrawn is just evil imo.