Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 8 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Debit card article in Reader's Digest
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/30646f032f4ff9e6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:05 pm
From: George Grapman

SMS 斯蒂文* 夏 wrote:
> Rick Blaine wrote:
>> SMS ???* ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, these are very easy to find. They are issued upon request. The
>>> problem is that you're equating what the bank does by default
>>> (sending a Visa/MC Logo card) with "hard to find" when in fact they
>>> are not hard to find at all.
>>>
>>
>> By hard to find, I mean the bank does not advertise it, make it easy
>> to get and
>> in some cases, will refuse to issue this type of debit card.
>
> Well I only have three examples from the banks I use, but none of them
> refused to issue it, nor did they make it hard to get. You just had to
> ask them for it. But as you state, the reason they don't push these
> cards out is because they're less profitable for the bank, and less
> risky for the account holder.
>
> It's almost like buying insurance--whatever they don't want to sell you
> is what you really want to buy.
>
>>> These are the ones that should be avoided. You lose all the federal
>>> protections of the Fair Credit Billing Act, you are at great risk if
>>> the card is lost or stolen, and of course there is no advantage to
>>> you to use one versus a credit card.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed 100%.
>
> A good rule of thumb when dealing with banks, insurance companies, and
> car dealers is that whatever they do want to sell you is what you don't
> want.
>
>>> The real question is why anyone would ever want to use a MC/Visa
>>> debit card rather than a credit card. The advantages of using a
>>> credit card are overwhelming. The banks, as well as Mastercard and
>>> Visa really want you to use the MC/Visa debit card rather than a
>>> credit card. That should be enough to convince anyone that it's
>>> better to use a credit card!
>>
>> Minor clarification: The real question is why anyone would want to use
>> a MC/Visa
>> signature (offline) debit card for the reasons you cited. Some people
>> have valid
>> reasons for using online (PIN required) debit. That's no different and
>> much
>> safer than carrying cash. While there's nothing wrong with using an
>> MC/Visa card
>> in the online mode (ie with a PIN), the fact that the card could be
>> used by a
>> thief without a PIN makes it a poor choice to carry.
>
> Yes, I can see some reasons to use an ATM-only card (or the Maestro or
> Electron card) but no reason to ever use a Mastercard or Visa debit
> card, though maybe someone can come up with a valid reason (other than
> the card holder can't qualify for a credit card).

Some parents give their children a debit card,especially if they
are at college or otherwise away from home. Each month they put money in
the account and that has to last until the next month. The parents make
sure not to link it to their accounts.

== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:09 pm
From: SMS 斯蒂文* 夏

LDC wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:38:16 -0700, Rick Blaine <dont@bother.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There are three types of ATM or Debit cards these days:
>>
>> - The classic bank ATM card which works at local ATMs. It may work at local
>> online retailers, if they all belong to a local or regional ATM network. These
>> are almost impossible to find, but banks can issue them. There's no advantage to
>> using one though.
>
> Unless, of course, you want to use it in the classic manner:
> extracting cash from an ATM.

Some businesses take pin-based cards and nothing else, i.e. Arco gas
stations, and they charge a fee to do so. Other than Costco and one
local discount gas station chain, "Rotten Robbie," Arco has the cheapest
gas by 10-20¢/gallon. In northern California, the Arco gasoline all
comes from the Shell refinery.

== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:07 pm
From: George Grapman

SMS 斯蒂文* 夏 wrote:
> George Grapman wrote:
>
>> I use mine because any time I need cash I can go to a store,buy
>> something with the card and get cash back with no charge. Beats having
>> to drive around looking for an ATM.
>
> You can do the same thing with a Maestro, Electron, or plain bank ATM
> card. No need to risk using a Mastercard or Visa debit card. I've done
> this on occasion, when going to an ATM was inconvenient.

Some straight ATM cards without the Visa or Mastercard logo will not
work at some stores. The thing I like most about my debit card is that I
can use it at almost any 7-11 ATM with no fees.

== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:16 pm
From: Rick Blaine

LDC <ldcolton@san.spamblocker.com> wrote:

>Unless, of course, you want to use it in the classic manner:
>extracting cash from an ATM.

The branded online cards work equally as well for withdrawning funds to a linked
account at an ATM...

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:27 pm
From: krw

In article <Yg1aj.196$El5.146@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
misc.consumers, sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <Mj0aj.238$6%.136@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, misc.consumers,
> > sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <476873c2$0$84208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >>> misc.consumers, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
> >>>> imascot wrote:
> >>>>> Anyone read the article warning people about debit cards in the new RD?
> >>>>> Here's the website version, looks like the same one:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.rd.com/content/debit-card-traps-and-fees-to-avoid/
> >>>>> I was surprised at the growing popularity of debit cards, I thought most
> >>>>> people were getting into trouble with credit cards.
> >>>> Debit cards are extremely dangerous. Never allow any business access to
> >>>> your checking account. Never let a debit card out of your sight, i.e. to
> >>>> pay a restaurant bill where they take it from you.
> >>> If you're going to be that paranoid, don't have a checking account.
> >>> Paying by check is no better than debit transaction.
> >>>
> >>>> It's amazing that anyone uses a debit card at all. You get none of the
> >>>> consumer protections you get with a credit card, you don't get the
> >>>> rewards programs that credit cards offer, and you risk losing your
> >>>> entire checking account balance.
> >>> No, you really don't. You may be in for a hassle, but it's not
> >>> lost. Again, paying by check is no better, if you're that
> >>> paranoid.
> >> Actually it is worse as more people see your account details.
> >
> > I agree, but that little fact would burst the pinhead OP's head.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> A surprising number of people do not see this. I have a friend who
> refuses to pay for anything via electronic checking yet regularly uses
> paper checks for retail purchases.

Yes, the banking system in the US is a "pull" system. With the
account numbers and routing info (on every check) one can *pull* as
much money out of an account as one wants. Of course it's fraud,
but that never stopped a criminal. Yet, I see the whine about
debit cards here constantly. No one complains about the "pull"
system (Europeans, AIUI, have a "push" system, which make far more
sense, IMO).

> I know people who take their pay checks to their employers bank
> (often incurring a fee) because they do no want anyone in the company to
> have their account number.

....at least their employer doesn't have their bank account
numbers. ;-) ...of course they're the least likely to do anything
mischievous with them.

At least NY (haven't looked at others - no interest ;) has a law
that makes paying by check a privilege, requiring a permit from the
state. To get the permit the employer must guarantee that the
check was easily convertible to cash, without fee. My PPOE had
accounts in every bank in the area so that employees could cash
their checks. When they went to direct deposit they had to make
exceptions for the Luddites you describe.

--
Keith

== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 6:26 pm
From: George Grapman

krw wrote:
> In article <Yg1aj.196$El5.146@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> misc.consumers, sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
>> krw wrote:
>>> In article <Mj0aj.238$6%.136@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, misc.consumers,
>>> sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> In article <476873c2$0$84208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>>>>> misc.consumers, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>>>>>> imascot wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyone read the article warning people about debit cards in the new RD?
>>>>>>> Here's the website version, looks like the same one:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.rd.com/content/debit-card-traps-and-fees-to-avoid/
>>>>>>> I was surprised at the growing popularity of debit cards, I thought most
>>>>>>> people were getting into trouble with credit cards.
>>>>>> Debit cards are extremely dangerous. Never allow any business access to
>>>>>> your checking account. Never let a debit card out of your sight, i.e. to
>>>>>> pay a restaurant bill where they take it from you.
>>>>> If you're going to be that paranoid, don't have a checking account.
>>>>> Paying by check is no better than debit transaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's amazing that anyone uses a debit card at all. You get none of the
>>>>>> consumer protections you get with a credit card, you don't get the
>>>>>> rewards programs that credit cards offer, and you risk losing your
>>>>>> entire checking account balance.
>>>>> No, you really don't. You may be in for a hassle, but it's not
>>>>> lost. Again, paying by check is no better, if you're that
>>>>> paranoid.
>>>> Actually it is worse as more people see your account details.
>>> I agree, but that little fact would burst the pinhead OP's head.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>> A surprising number of people do not see this. I have a friend who
>> refuses to pay for anything via electronic checking yet regularly uses
>> paper checks for retail purchases.
>
> Yes, the banking system in the US is a "pull" system. With the
> account numbers and routing info (on every check) one can *pull* as
> much money out of an account as one wants. Of course it's fraud,
> but that never stopped a criminal. Yet, I see the whine about
> debit cards here constantly. No one complains about the "pull"
> system (Europeans, AIUI, have a "push" system, which make far more
> sense, IMO).
>
>> I know people who take their pay checks to their employers bank
>> (often incurring a fee) because they do no want anyone in the company to
>> have their account number.
>
> ....at least their employer doesn't have their bank account
> numbers. ;-) ...of course they're the least likely to do anything
> mischievous with them.
>
> At least NY (haven't looked at others - no interest ;) has a law
> that makes paying by check a privilege, requiring a permit from the
> state. To get the permit the employer must guarantee that the
> check was easily convertible to cash, without fee. My PPOE had
> accounts in every bank in the area so that employees could cash
> their checks. When they went to direct deposit they had to make
> exceptions for the Luddites you describe.
>
Many banks in CA charge a fee to cash a check drawn on that bank if
you are not a customer.
One of those co-workers I described was very paranoid about any paper
trail and did not even have a banking account. For some unexplained
reason he either did not have or did not want to show a bank any ID.
Each Friday we would get paid around 4. He would wait an hour or more
until one of the owners went to the bank. He would sign his check back
to them they would cash it and then give him the cash. He was a very
intelligent person but I think years of drinking clouded his thinking.
When he was laid off he never filed for unemployment. He apparently
had a legitimate Social Security card as the deductions were never
questioned.
He also played the ponies. A few times I asked what he would do if he
won a bet that required either identification or withholding. He
explained to me and I later verified that,lacking identification, one
could have the track take out 32 percent instead of 29 percent. If the
payout was only subject to reporting he could still get paid minus 32
percent so on a $700 ticket he would lose over $200.

== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 6:30 pm
From: George Grapman

SMS 斯蒂文* 夏 wrote:
> Vic Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:39:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> SMS ???. ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd love to know any reason that someone would use a MC/Visa logo
>>>> debit card rather than an actual credit card, because I can't think
>>>> of any good reasons.
>>> One obvious reason is that you dont have to fart around paying the
>>> card off in full every month.
>> That can be done via automatic fund transfer from your bank account.
>> I don't do that, since that's when I look over the CC registry for any
>> suspicious charge. If there is a charge I want to dispute, and there
>> have been a few over the years, I call the CC customer service, and
>> don't send that piece in my payment. But it's just another monthly
>> online payment with Quicken. Basically click on the payee, plug in
>> the amount, and hit send.
>
> In fact it's much simpler to make a single credit card payment after a
> quick scan of the credit card bill, than to have to keep track of every
> single debit on a checking account. George just proved that with his
> statement that he checks his account twice a day to see the activity on
> the account. Talk about using technology to make your life as
> complicated as possible!
Yes, that 60 seconds a day sure ties me up especially when I do it
while drinking my coffee or talking on the phone.

== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 6:38 pm
From: Bill

George Grapman wrote:
>
> Vic Smith wrote:
> > You really don't do that, do you?
> > I can't imagine being forced to look at my bank account twice a day
> > to make sure no fraud has occurred.
> >
> > --Vic
> A whole 60 seconds a day while I am doing other things.

It's still ridiculous to be using an account that you are so
distrustful of that you have to check on it twice a day (and
even more ridiculous to think that it's perfectly normal).

Bill

== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 6:43 pm
From: George Grapman

Bill wrote:
>
> George Grapman wrote:
>> Vic Smith wrote:
>>> You really don't do that, do you?
>>> I can't imagine being forced to look at my bank account twice a day
>>> to make sure no fraud has occurred.
>>>
>>> --Vic
>> A whole 60 seconds a day while I am doing other things.
>
> It's still ridiculous to be using an account that you are so
> distrustful of that you have to check on it twice a day (and
> even more ridiculous to think that it's perfectly normal).
>
> Bill
What I distrust is my own forgetting to enter purchases when I make
them or to neglect recurring automatic payments.
Wonder if you also think it is abnormal to check my stocks a few times
a day.

== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 6:56 pm
From: SMS 斯蒂文* 夏

George Grapman wrote:

> Some parents give their children a debit card,especially if they are
> at college or otherwise away from home. Each month they put money in the
> account and that has to last until the next month. The parents make sure
> not to link it to their accounts.

My bank has this but it's much safer because it's a prepaid debit
Mastercard, and it isn't linked to a specific checking account.

Visa has a product like this called the PAYjr Visa Buxx card but it's
full of onerous fees. The prepaid debit Mastercard from my bank has no fees.

Be sure that there is no activation fee, no annual fee, no monthly fee,
no inactivity fee, and no reload fee. I.e. the Visa PAYjr Visa Buxx card
has the following fees: $4.95 activation fee, $2.95 monthly fee, $5
inactivity fee (no activity in 120 days) and a 50¢ reload fee.

== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:20 pm
From: krw

In article <tpkaj.357$6%.124@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, misc.consumers,
sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <Yg1aj.196$El5.146@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > misc.consumers, sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >>> In article <Mj0aj.238$6%.136@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, misc.consumers,
> >>> sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
> >>>> krw wrote:
> >>>>> In article <476873c2$0$84208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >>>>> misc.consumers, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
> >>>>>> imascot wrote:
> >>>>>>> Anyone read the article warning people about debit cards in the new RD?
> >>>>>>> Here's the website version, looks like the same one:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.rd.com/content/debit-card-traps-and-fees-to-avoid/
> >>>>>>> I was surprised at the growing popularity of debit cards, I thought most
> >>>>>>> people were getting into trouble with credit cards.
> >>>>>> Debit cards are extremely dangerous. Never allow any business access to
> >>>>>> your checking account. Never let a debit card out of your sight, i.e. to
> >>>>>> pay a restaurant bill where they take it from you.
> >>>>> If you're going to be that paranoid, don't have a checking account.
> >>>>> Paying by check is no better than debit transaction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It's amazing that anyone uses a debit card at all. You get none of the
> >>>>>> consumer protections you get with a credit card, you don't get the
> >>>>>> rewards programs that credit cards offer, and you risk losing your
> >>>>>> entire checking account balance.
> >>>>> No, you really don't. You may be in for a hassle, but it's not
> >>>>> lost. Again, paying by check is no better, if you're that
> >>>>> paranoid.
> >>>> Actually it is worse as more people see your account details.
> >>> I agree, but that little fact would burst the pinhead OP's head.
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >> A surprising number of people do not see this. I have a friend who
> >> refuses to pay for anything via electronic checking yet regularly uses
> >> paper checks for retail purchases.
> >
> > Yes, the banking system in the US is a "pull" system. With the
> > account numbers and routing info (on every check) one can *pull* as
> > much money out of an account as one wants. Of course it's fraud,
> > but that never stopped a criminal. Yet, I see the whine about
> > debit cards here constantly. No one complains about the "pull"
> > system (Europeans, AIUI, have a "push" system, which make far more
> > sense, IMO).
> >
> >> I know people who take their pay checks to their employers bank
> >> (often incurring a fee) because they do no want anyone in the company to
> >> have their account number.
> >
> > ....at least their employer doesn't have their bank account
> > numbers. ;-) ...of course they're the least likely to do anything
> > mischievous with them.
> >
> > At least NY (haven't looked at others - no interest ;) has a law
> > that makes paying by check a privilege, requiring a permit from the
> > state. To get the permit the employer must guarantee that the
> > check was easily convertible to cash, without fee. My PPOE had
> > accounts in every bank in the area so that employees could cash
> > their checks. When they went to direct deposit they had to make
> > exceptions for the Luddites you describe.
> >
> Many banks in CA charge a fee to cash a check drawn on that bank if
> you are not a customer.

AIUI, in NY banks couldn't charge a fee if either was a customer.
I do so little business with banks that I'm not sure of the policy
in VT (and don't have an account here).

> One of those co-workers I described was very paranoid about any paper
> trail and did not even have a banking account. For some unexplained
> reason he either did not have or did not want to show a bank any ID.
> Each Friday we would get paid around 4. He would wait an hour or more
> until one of the owners went to the bank. He would sign his check back
> to them they would cash it and then give him the cash. He was a very
> intelligent person but I think years of drinking clouded his thinking.

There must be something else to it. I know one guy that did
something similar, but was keeping money cash hidden from the IRS.
He was afraid they'd seize his accounts, so kept cash (coin, in
fact).

> When he was laid off he never filed for unemployment. He apparently
> had a legitimate Social Security card as the deductions were never
> questioned.

Years ago, my wife refused to collect unemployment, even though she
could have. I was transferred out-of-state during a layoff. Since
it was a layoff and I "saved" someone else's job (by transferring
to another division), she was eligible, but didn't take it. She
might even be now, but won't file.

> He also played the ponies. A few times I asked what he would do if he
> won a bet that required either identification or withholding. He
> explained to me and I later verified that,lacking identification, one
> could have the track take out 32 percent instead of 29 percent. If the
> payout was only subject to reporting he could still get paid minus 32
> percent so on a $700 ticket he would lose over $200.

He's have to pay the tax anyway, so he didn't lose all that much.
300:1 payoffs don't happen all that often (spread the bets on
different tickets), though my friend from above had taxes withheld
on a $68 payout. He was pissed and I laughed my ass off.

--
Keith

== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:37 pm
From: LDC

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:30:32 -0800, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>SMS ???* ? wrote:
>> Vic Smith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:39:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SMS ???. ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'd love to know any reason that someone would use a MC/Visa logo
>>>>> debit card rather than an actual credit card, because I can't think
>>>>> of any good reasons.
>>>> One obvious reason is that you dont have to fart around paying the
>>>> card off in full every month.
>>> That can be done via automatic fund transfer from your bank account.
>>> I don't do that, since that's when I look over the CC registry for any
>>> suspicious charge. If there is a charge I want to dispute, and there
>>> have been a few over the years, I call the CC customer service, and
>>> don't send that piece in my payment. But it's just another monthly
>>> online payment with Quicken. Basically click on the payee, plug in
>>> the amount, and hit send.
>>
>> In fact it's much simpler to make a single credit card payment after a
>> quick scan of the credit card bill, than to have to keep track of every
>> single debit on a checking account. George just proved that with his
>> statement that he checks his account twice a day to see the activity on
>> the account. Talk about using technology to make your life as
>> complicated as possible!
> Yes, that 60 seconds a day sure ties me up especially when I do it
>while drinking my coffee or talking on the phone.

Too bad you never take a vacation, you really should try it
sometime. I'm am frequently out of the country for more than a
month at a time and have no need to worry about the status of my
accounts. A once a month check of my CU accounts is more than
sufficient. Living in front of a computer is a waste.

== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:41 pm
From: George Grapman

krw wrote:
> In article <tpkaj.357$6%.124@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, misc.consumers,
> sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
>> krw wrote:
>>> In article <Yg1aj.196$El5.146@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> misc.consumers, sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> In article <Mj0aj.238$6%.136@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, misc.consumers,
>>>>> sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <476873c2$0$84208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>>>>>>> misc.consumers, scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
>>>>>>>> imascot wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anyone read the article warning people about debit cards in the new RD?
>>>>>>>>> Here's the website version, looks like the same one:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rd.com/content/debit-card-traps-and-fees-to-avoid/
>>>>>>>>> I was surprised at the growing popularity of debit cards, I thought most
>>>>>>>>> people were getting into trouble with credit cards.
>>>>>>>> Debit cards are extremely dangerous. Never allow any business access to
>>>>>>>> your checking account. Never let a debit card out of your sight, i.e. to
>>>>>>>> pay a restaurant bill where they take it from you.
>>>>>>> If you're going to be that paranoid, don't have a checking account.
>>>>>>> Paying by check is no better than debit transaction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's amazing that anyone uses a debit card at all. You get none of the
>>>>>>>> consumer protections you get with a credit card, you don't get the
>>>>>>>> rewards programs that credit cards offer, and you risk losing your
>>>>>>>> entire checking account balance.
>>>>>>> No, you really don't. You may be in for a hassle, but it's not
>>>>>>> lost. Again, paying by check is no better, if you're that
>>>>>>> paranoid.
>>>>>> Actually it is worse as more people see your account details.
>>>>> I agree, but that little fact would burst the pinhead OP's head.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>> A surprising number of people do not see this. I have a friend who
>>>> refuses to pay for anything via electronic checking yet regularly uses
>>>> paper checks for retail purchases.
>>> Yes, the banking system in the US is a "pull" system. With the
>>> account numbers and routing info (on every check) one can *pull* as
>>> much money out of an account as one wants. Of course it's fraud,
>>> but that never stopped a criminal. Yet, I see the whine about
>>> debit cards here constantly. No one complains about the "pull"
>>> system (Europeans, AIUI, have a "push" system, which make far more
>>> sense, IMO).
>>>
>>>> I know people who take their pay checks to their employers bank
>>>> (often incurring a fee) because they do no want anyone in the company to
>>>> have their account number.
>>> ....at least their employer doesn't have their bank account
>>> numbers. ;-) ...of course they're the least likely to do anything
>>> mischievous with them.
>>>
>>> At least NY (haven't looked at others - no interest ;) has a law
>>> that makes paying by check a privilege, requiring a permit from the
>>> state. To get the permit the employer must guarantee that the
>>> check was easily convertible to cash, without fee. My PPOE had
>>> accounts in every bank in the area so that employees could cash
>>> their checks. When they went to direct deposit they had to make
>>> exceptions for the Luddites you describe.
>>>
>> Many banks in CA charge a fee to cash a check drawn on that bank if
>> you are not a customer.
>
> AIUI, in NY banks couldn't charge a fee if either was a customer.
> I do so little business with banks that I'm not sure of the policy
> in VT (and don't have an account here).

>
>> One of those co-workers I described was very paranoid about any paper
>> trail and did not even have a banking account. For some unexplained
>> reason he either did not have or did not want to show a bank any ID.
>> Each Friday we would get paid around 4. He would wait an hour or more
>> until one of the owners went to the bank. He would sign his check back
>> to them they would cash it and then give him the cash. He was a very
>> intelligent person but I think years of drinking clouded his thinking.
>
> There must be something else to it. I know one guy that did
> something similar, but was keeping money cash hidden from the IRS.
> He was afraid they'd seize his accounts, so kept cash (coin, in
> fact).

I think it was the thin line between genius and insanity. This man
was pretty much living from pay check to pay check and his income was
being reported. He would take BART to work. For those who do not know
BART fares are based on distance. You buy a ticket and slide it when you
enter the station. Leaving you do the same and it deducts your fare. Not
only would he never buy a discount ticket he would not even buy a round
trip which,of course, delayed his return trip because he had to go to
the machine. He told me that he had been cheated a few times on larger
tickets. Even though I only use it 4 or 5 times a month I find it
easier to pay $20 at a time (my normal fare downtown is $1.50).

>
>> When he was laid off he never filed for unemployment. He apparently
>> had a legitimate Social Security card as the deductions were never
>> questioned.
>
> Years ago, my wife refused to collect unemployment, even though she
> could have. I was transferred out-of-state during a layoff. Since
> it was a layoff and I "saved" someone else's job (by transferring
> to another division), she was eligible, but didn't take it. She
> might even be now, but won't file.

>
>> He also played the ponies. A few times I asked what he would do if he
>> won a bet that required either identification or withholding. He
>> explained to me and I later verified that,lacking identification, one
>> could have the track take out 32 percent instead of 29 percent. If the
>> payout was only subject to reporting he could still get paid minus 32
>> percent so on a $700 ticket he would lose over $200.
>
> He's have to pay the tax anyway, so he didn't lose all that much.
> 300:1 payoffs don't happen all that often (spread the bets on
> different tickets), though my friend from above had taxes withheld
> on a $68 payout. He was pissed and I laughed my ass off.
>
You can buy smaller tickets but let's say that instead of doing a $1
trifecta box you buy six $1 tickets. If one of those tickets pays over
$600 it gets reported.
The unfair part is people who go deep in the Pick 6 and bet,say,200
combinations for $400.. If one bet pays $800 it is reported even though
your overall result was even money because as far as the IRS is
concerned you made 200 unrelated wagers even though they might all be on
one ticket. The other unfair part is you pay a tax on every bet ,win or
lose.
The most I ever won was $580 on a P6 consolation which,of course, was
better than winning $600.
The CA tracks now offer a 10 cent perfecta which pays 10 percent of
the one dollar payoff. Some people buy 10 dime bets instead of a single
$1 wager to avoid the IRS. I never played it before because a $24 4
horse and a $120 5 horse were too steep for me but $2.40 or $12 are
doable. Best I had was $2.40 box that returned $80.

== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:53 pm
From: George Grapman

LDC wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:30:32 -0800, George Grapman
> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> SMS ???* ? wrote:
>>> Vic Smith wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:39:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SMS ???. ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'd love to know any reason that someone would use a MC/Visa logo
>>>>>> debit card rather than an actual credit card, because I can't think
>>>>>> of any good reasons.
>>>>> One obvious reason is that you dont have to fart around paying the
>>>>> card off in full every month.
>>>> That can be done via automatic fund transfer from your bank account.
>>>> I don't do that, since that's when I look over the CC registry for any
>>>> suspicious charge. If there is a charge I want to dispute, and there
>>>> have been a few over the years, I call the CC customer service, and
>>>> don't send that piece in my payment. But it's just another monthly
>>>> online payment with Quicken. Basically click on the payee, plug in
>>>> the amount, and hit send.
>>> In fact it's much simpler to make a single credit card payment after a
>>> quick scan of the credit card bill, than to have to keep track of every
>>> single debit on a checking account. George just proved that with his
>>> statement that he checks his account twice a day to see the activity on
>>> the account. Talk about using technology to make your life as
>>> complicated as possible!
>> Yes, that 60 seconds a day sure ties me up especially when I do it
>> while drinking my coffee or talking on the phone.
>
> Too bad you never take a vacation, you really should try it
> sometime. I'm am frequently out of the country for more than a
> month at a time and have no need to worry about the status of my
> accounts. A once a month check of my CU accounts is more than
> sufficient. Living in front of a computer is a waste.

You are right. My last vacation was only three weeks long in August.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Exploding television...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/354f162529b27d4f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:10 pm
From: John Savage

maryatbeach@webtv.net (Mary Mathews) writes:
>My sister's friend's TV exploded. The two ladies there were hurt and
>taken to the hospital. The house burned to the ground. Does anyone here
>know about exploding TV's and what we can do to prevent such an
>accident? Thanks. Mary

Were your friends injured by pieces of exploding tv, or by the fire?

The possibilities? Maybe the set had taken a heavy bump at some time,
(even as far back as when it was transported from factory to retailer)
weakening the glass of the picture tube in some area, and eventually
thermal stresses exceeded its breaking point and the collapse caused
electrical sparking that set fire to something flammable.

If the set was old, an accumulation of dust inside the set where high
voltages are present could have caused a partial short circuit that
overheated plastic, causing it to smoulder and burst into flame. (It
doesn't even need an accumulation of dust; a component failure in a
critical location can do that.)
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 6:10 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:12:07 -0800, Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:22:33 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:59:33 -0000, gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> cornformal
>>>
>>>
>>> Sigh. Two finger typing and sleepy eyes. 6 point type isn't
>>> exactly kind on casual proof-reading.
>>>
>>> To address another's comment. Smashing a TV crt is a staple
>>> expression of anger in movies. The glass breaks and the bright
>>> light goes fizz. For effect the prop guy may add a puff of smoke,
>>> probably using black powder, and dub in the fizz soundtrack too.
>>> No electronic component smokes that way. But no flying shards of
>>> glass that cut the actor or another actor nearby.
>>
>> Most of us understand that movies are make-believe and don't make a
>> very compelling argument against actual firsthand personal
>> experience.
>
> I had fixed many computer monitors, CRT and LCD displays (job related)
> and my own TV sets. After being zapped once 30 years ago I had
> never been zapped thereafter. I can find my way around any CRT or
> LCD display without breaking or smoking any parts. In that sense I
> don't have much experience with dangerous CRTs. I have never come
> across one myself or heard of a piece of consumer electronics
> equipment bursting into flames from people in the
> electronics/electrical equipment trade. For the hell of it I tried
> breaking a 23 inch TV set to find out what it would take to do it.
> Believe me they build them real strong. You can drop it off a table
> for example and the box will be dinged badly without the tube
> shattering.
>
> In modern equipment (ie anything 20 years old or newer) the parts are
> so small and draw so little juice that even if a component does smoke
> (short circuit) the worst that happens is a charred spot smaller than
> a shirt button. Often you cannot even spot the part that failed.
> Ergo modern electronics are not repairable on account of very highly
> integrated parts (a whole function block in a single chip). The
> electrical interconnects are thinner than a human hair and the whole
> board is sealed under a thick polymer coating. The slightest
> electrical surge and some electrical trace will vaporize somewhere.
> There is no heat build-up to start any sparks or flames. A 32 inch
> CRT TV has only a single board. If that goes the only option is to
> replace the whole board.

Thats wrong. There are still a few components on that that can be
replaced cheaply if they are what has failed, most obviously with the
diodes that rectify the mains etc and they are often what has failed
because they are the most highly electrically stressed components.

> And since model changes happen in less than a year that TV, and
> just about every modern electronics gadget, is as good as a tosser.

Depends on whether you are paying for your time or not.

>>> They use real TV sets not props (need
>>> the video with scan lines or it'll look fake.) The stunt
>>> co-ordinator knows the danger zone around smashing a TV set.
>>> Exploding glass from an implosion there may be but they don't go
>>> far.
>>
>> *smirk* Now who's making things up?
>
> When a TV tube implodes some fragments will bounce. They don't go
> far. I know what I am talking about. If you want to worry yourself
> about exploding TV tubes be my guest.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ice cream shrinks again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/cf443aea01762c8b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:28 pm
From: "The Henchman"

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:97bhm3d1lvbo9kvjkvoi7b1q5rn0tccmr4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:15:15 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Shawn
> Hirn
> <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <DJY9j.3$Ks5.0@newsfe11.lga>, imascot <imnot@mycomputer.now>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I see that a "half gallon" of ice cream has now shrunk from 1.75 quarts
>>> to
>>> 1.5
>>> From what I've gathered, anything that has corn in it or used to eat
>>> corn has
>>> gone up in price, for instance, corn muffins, which used to the same
>>> price as
>>> blueberry, are now a dollar more for a package of six.
>>>
>>> I'd rather have expanding prices than shrinking product size, though.
>>
>>The price of corn and products that use it is on the way up because corn
>>has become a popular crop for ethanol.
>
>
> I suppose the price of everything sweetened with corn will go up. Maybe
> they
> will switch back to sugar for sweetening processed foods. Will that raise
> the
> price of sugars?

Sugar is used in Brasil for fuel.......

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:41 pm
From: Parallax

imascot wrote:
> I see that a "half gallon" of ice cream has now shrunk from 1.75 quarts to 1.5
> From what I've gathered, anything that has corn in it or used to eat corn has
> gone up in price, for instance, corn muffins, which used to the same price as
> blueberry, are now a dollar more for a package of six.
>
> I'd rather have expanding prices than shrinking product size, though.
>
> J.

Man, the price for Corn ice cream is gonna hit the roof.

Replace '???????' with 'hotmail' to e-mail me.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 9:12 pm
From: imascot

In article <So%9j.9938$c82.5888@trnddc01>, catalpa@entertab.org says...
> Which brands of ice cream? Breyers and all the others I see are still 1.75
> quarts.
>
>
Turkey Hill has done it already, at least here (Long Island, NY). Corn
flavor is even smaller, LOL.

Here's an Economist article explaining corn shortages are caused by
demand for meat in China and India, due to increasing incomes there, and
demand for ethanol.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal living in Paris, France
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e9d796248d30f812?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:55 pm
From: poldy

In article
<883c91a8-dfeb-4b04-932b-c1d8eb4b536b@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Joe <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Paris.html

Hmm, a lot of stuff to wade through.

The brusque dismissal of restaurants strains credibility, especially if
there aren't any suggestion about grocery and cooking options beyond
spaghetti and making crepes.

Seems this part of the article/FAQ/whatever is more suited to travelers
than people living in Paris.

Maybe the regulars on this group will send suggestions to the author.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Recommendations for Online Consumer Electronics Retailer
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1531ca038d6e5ff2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:30 pm
From: mavigozler

I already have one that I use when I was doing mail-order before there was
even an internet.

Typically the best place to buy any consumer electronics---digicam, flat
panel display of any type, you-name-it----is from the high-volume places
they have in New York City. It was true 20, 30, 40 years ago, and it seems
true today. No California sales tax (which gets more outrageous with each
change in the Legislature), and typically free shipping on many
orders...even free next-day air on purchases of a certain amount. That's
what I like about them.

I want to know what your favorite online electronics retailer is (and I bet
they are located in New York City). I want to feel satisfied that I am
dealing with the best and most inexpensive.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did hot air popcorn machines go extinct?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1cd18f9995361a81?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 6:45 pm
From: Rick

Hey all

Can't find them when I went looking for one.

Well, I can find two. They both have the same design problems and spew
uncooked kernels and popcorn everywhere. The first disaster is a $9.99
item carried by Walgreens. The other one looks stupid enough - the red
"pop corn vendor" cart model. Target carries it and there are a ton of
bad on line reviews at Amazon. It costs up to three times as much as the
Walgreens one but is designed pretty much the same way and does the same
thing: The way they are designed they "spin" the popcorn around in hot
air, and that seems to make it fly everywhere - both the popcorn and hot
kernels - once a few kernels start to pop. Which leads to hot kernels
exploding in the bowl of popcorn - which sends the popped stuff in the
bowl flying everywhere. In a way, it's kind of funny. But then you try
it maybe once more with the same results - not funny any longer - and
then you return it to the store...

Kinda tired of the cost per unit for that prepackaged microwave popcorn.
And - if anyone remembers - the microwave stuff is good, but it's kinda
soggy compared to hot air popcorn. But shocked I am to find out that
popcorn machines - especially hot air poppers - seemed to have vanished.
Not looking for a hot oil machine - Presto has reinvented the "Stir
Crazy" hot oil machine this year - already seen it.

Rick

==============================================================================
TOPIC: So quiet in here. Everyone Chrismas shopping?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/14ff3a2698c21c95?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:55 pm
From: Marsha

Dennis wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:04:47 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone really need a live tree that bad? Can't you make an
>>artificial one just as lovely? I don't mean to offend anyone, but to
>>cut down a live tree and then discard it when you're done just does not
>>make sense to me, even if it is from a "tree farm".
>
>
> By buying a real tree from my neighbor's lot, I am helping support a
> small farmer in my community. Some of the money is used to plant and
> maintain more trees.
>
> Dennis (evil)

I'm all for helping support small farmers, but correct me if this is
wrong. New trees can't grow as fast as the old ones are cut down, right?

Marsha/Ohio

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:57 pm
From: Marsha

Don K wrote:

> "Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:fk79s2$u43$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>>Does anyone really need a live tree that bad? Can't you make an artificial one just as
>>lovely? I don't mean to offend anyone, but to cut down a live tree and then discard it
>>when you're done just does not make sense to me, even if it is from a "tree farm".
>>
>
>
> The first year I bought my house I got a live tree with a rootbag.
> I decorated it and kept it on the deck outside a sliding glass door
> to the living room.
>
> Then after the New Year, I planted it.
>
> I also had sent off 5 or 10 bucks for some Norway Spruce seed.
> I was surprised when I got a few thousand seeds in the mail!
>
> I planted a couple hundred, but we moved before they grew to a
> useable height.
>
> Don

Now that's something I heartily support! It would be great if more
people would re-plant their live Christmas trees or, if they couldn't,
give them to someone who could.

Marsha/Ohio

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free Taste Sample From Lewis Laboratories! Dietary Products
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a0f0cf8654e0c3ac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 7:57 pm
From: "FreebiesPl.us"

Free Taste Sample From Lewis Laboratories! Dietary Products
http://www.freebiespl.us/?p=121

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

No comments: