No cash accepted

[Ed Pawlowski]

The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/07/13/visa_challenge_offers_small_businesses_10_000_to_eliminate_cash_rely_on.html

There is something knowing about the title of Visa’s latest initiative,
the Visa Challenge, in which the payment company will offer 50
restaurants, cafes, and food trucks $10,000 each to eliminate cash
payments. “We are declaring war on cash,” a Visa spokesman told the
Associated Press.

[Stormin' Norman]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.

Did you mean to write "use cash"? Not picking on a typo, but I just
want to make sure.

Post by Ed Pawlowski
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/07/13/visa_challenge_offers_small_businesses_10_000_to_eliminate_cash_rely_on.html
There is something knowing about the title of Visa’s latest initiative,
the Visa Challenge, in which the payment company will offer 50
restaurants, cafes, and food trucks $10,000 each to eliminate cash
payments. “We are declaring war on cash,” a Visa spokesman told the
Associated Press.

I saw that story, I haven't looked into it, but the whole concept of
"legal tender for all debts public and private" might seem to be in
conflict with this plan.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by Stormin' Norman

Post by Ed Pawlowski
The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.

Did you mean to write "use cash"? Not picking on a typo, but I just
want to make sure.

Should be cash. Cans are worth 5 cents to redeem though.

[Frank]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Stormin' Norman

Post by Ed Pawlowski
The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.

Did you mean to write "use cash"? Not picking on a typo, but I just
want to make sure.

Should be cash. Cans are worth 5 cents to redeem though.

I blame spell check. They let stuff go if spelled correctly even if
sentence does not make sense.

Used to get a 5 cent return on bottles here in DE but now we throw away
the bottles and the state still charges the deposit but they keep it to
help pay for recycling at the dump.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 07/16/2017 06:11 PM, Frank wrote:

[snip]

Post by Frank
I blame spell check. They let stuff go if spelled correctly even if
sentence does not make sense.

I've had problems with that now. Often, the "mutant words" and 'not' and
'now', which can give the sentence opposite meaning. Worse than
lose/loose or breath/breathe, some of the cost common errors.

Post by Frank
Used to get a 5 cent return on bottles here in DE but now we throw away
the bottles and the state still charges the deposit but they keep it to
help pay for recycling at the dump.

Here, they have "curbside recycling" where they take mixed paper,
plastic, and metal (no glass). Sometimes I've wondered it it's really
just a way to get people to wash most of their trash.

[g***@aiol.com]

Post by Mark Lloyd
Here, they have "curbside recycling" where they take mixed paper,
plastic, and metal (no glass). Sometimes I've wondered it it's really
just a way to get people to wash most of their trash.

Recycling is just a make work program for people unqualified to do
anything else. The only thing that actually have a cash value is
aluminum cans in most places. Paper and plastic ends up costing more
to ship than it is worth and the environmental impact is usually worse
too. Glass is really totally useless.
We should be putting aluminum and maybe steel in the recycle, paper
and plastic should be in the burn barrel (for a waste to energy plant)
and everything else should just go to the land fill either before or
after it is burned.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by g***@aiol.com
Recycling is just a make work program for people unqualified to do
anything else. The only thing that actually have a cash value is
aluminum cans in most places. Paper and plastic ends up costing more
to ship than it is worth and the environmental impact is usually worse
too. Glass is really totally useless.

Why is glass useless? It may not be economically sensible to ship glass
scrap very far, but the glass plant near us used every bit they could
get. They made mostly bottles and jars.

[rbowman]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by g***@aiol.com
Recycling is just a make work program for people unqualified to do
anything else. The only thing that actually have a cash value is
aluminum cans in most places. Paper and plastic ends up costing more
to ship than it is worth and the environmental impact is usually worse
too. Glass is really totally useless.

Why is glass useless? It may not be economically sensible to ship glass
scrap very far, but the glass plant near us used every bit they could
get. They made mostly bottles and jars.

There was a local scheme to crush glass and use it to partially replace
aggregate in asphalt. Glassphalt is not a new idea but it didn't work out.

[g***@aol.com]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by g***@aiol.com
Recycling is just a make work program for people unqualified to do
anything else. The only thing that actually have a cash value is
aluminum cans in most places. Paper and plastic ends up costing more
to ship than it is worth and the environmental impact is usually worse
too. Glass is really totally useless.

Why is glass useless? It may not be economically sensible to ship glass
scrap very far, but the glass plant near us used every bit they could
get. They made mostly bottles and jars.

Clear glass may be good for jars but mixed, colored glass is not
useful for much except maybe brown beer bottles and they seem too
uniform to be using much in the way of other colors.
I agree, if you can hit the glass plant throwing your empty, it may be
worth recycling them but trucking glass half way across the country is
not.

[rbowman]

Post by g***@aol.com
Clear glass may be good for jars but mixed, colored glass is not
useful for much except maybe brown beer bottles and they seem too
uniform to be using much in the way of other colors.
I agree, if you can hit the glass plant throwing your empty, it may be
worth recycling them but trucking glass half way across the country is
not.

I once hauled aluminum cans for LA to the Kaiser Mead smelter north of
Spokane. That marvelous idea, energy deregulation, put paid to that. It
eventually became more profitable for Kaiser to resell the electricity
than run a smelter.

The smelter was originally run by Alcoa and its output helped build the
planes that won WWII. It's like the Springsteen song 'Youngstown':

"Well my daddy come on the Ohio works
When he come home from World War Two
Now the yard's just scrap and rubble
He said "Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do."
These mills they built the tanks and bombs
That won this country's wars
We sent our sons to Korea and Vietnam
Now we're wondering what they were dyin' for "

Somebody made money from deregulation but it wasn't the 400 people that
were laid off when the smelter was shut down and scrapped for the copper.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@montana.com
says...

Post by rbowman
I once hauled aluminum cans for LA to the Kaiser Mead smelter north of
Spokane. That marvelous idea, energy deregulation, put paid to that. It
eventually became more profitable for Kaiser to resell the electricity
than run a smelter.

There is an Alcoa smelter near me. A number of years ago the made more
off selling the electricity than aluminum. I thinkthey quit or really
scaled back on the smelting and just sold electricity.

[Tekkie®]

rbowman posted for all of us...

Post by rbowman

Post by g***@aol.com
Clear glass may be good for jars but mixed, colored glass is not
useful for much except maybe brown beer bottles and they seem too
uniform to be using much in the way of other colors.
I agree, if you can hit the glass plant throwing your empty, it may be
worth recycling them but trucking glass half way across the country is
not.

I once hauled aluminum cans for LA to the Kaiser Mead smelter north of
Spokane. That marvelous idea, energy deregulation, put paid to that. It
eventually became more profitable for Kaiser to resell the electricity
than run a smelter.
The smelter was originally run by Alcoa and its output helped build the
"Well my daddy come on the Ohio works
When he come home from World War Two
Now the yard's just scrap and rubble
He said "Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do."
These mills they built the tanks and bombs
That won this country's wars
We sent our sons to Korea and Vietnam
Now we're wondering what they were dyin' for "
Somebody made money from deregulation but it wasn't the 400 people that
were laid off when the smelter was shut down and scrapped for the copper.

Al Gore

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by g***@aol.com

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by g***@aiol.com
Recycling is just a make work program for people unqualified to do
anything else. The only thing that actually have a cash value is
aluminum cans in most places. Paper and plastic ends up costing more
to ship than it is worth and the environmental impact is usually worse
too. Glass is really totally useless.

Why is glass useless? It may not be economically sensible to ship glass
scrap very far, but the glass plant near us used every bit they could
get. They made mostly bottles and jars.

Clear glass may be good for jars but mixed, colored glass is not
useful for much except maybe brown beer bottles and they seem too
uniform to be using much in the way of other colors.
I agree, if you can hit the glass plant throwing your empty, it may be
worth recycling them but trucking glass half way across the country is
not.

Clear glas must be clear. When our town started recycling at the dump
they has a container for clear, another for colored. One colored bottle
would contaminate a big container of clear. There was always some
idiot. . .

I've been told the best glass has some content of recycled in it.
http://www.gpi.org/recycling/glass-recycling-facts

Never thought about it going into fiberglass but they take it too.

[g***@aol.com]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by g***@aol.com

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by g***@aiol.com
Recycling is just a make work program for people unqualified to do
anything else. The only thing that actually have a cash value is
aluminum cans in most places. Paper and plastic ends up costing more
to ship than it is worth and the environmental impact is usually worse
too. Glass is really totally useless.

Why is glass useless? It may not be economically sensible to ship glass
scrap very far, but the glass plant near us used every bit they could
get. They made mostly bottles and jars.

Clear glass may be good for jars but mixed, colored glass is not
useful for much except maybe brown beer bottles and they seem too
uniform to be using much in the way of other colors.
I agree, if you can hit the glass plant throwing your empty, it may be
worth recycling them but trucking glass half way across the country is
not.

Clear glas must be clear. When our town started recycling at the dump
they has a container for clear, another for colored. One colored bottle
would contaminate a big container of clear. There was always some
idiot. . .
I've been told the best glass has some content of recycled in it.
http://www.gpi.org/recycling/glass-recycling-facts
Never thought about it going into fiberglass but they take it too.

That does not change the fact that most glass in "recycle bins" gets
sent to the land fill. We don't sort ours before we set it on the
curb, creating make work jobs for a bunch of low skilled workers and I
think they burn everything but the metal. They were just shipping it
to the landfill until the paper got wind of that. This is a boondoggle
all around because the indians get the first shot at the electricity
coming out of the waste to energy plant at a nickel a KWH for their
reservations and casinos. Granted we are 500-1000 miles away from any
reprocessing plants for just about any recyclable. Even the scrap
value of metal has dropped to the point that we do not have
"scrappers" anymore. It used to be that any piece of metal you set on
the curb was gone in a day. Now they don't even come for copper and
aluminum.

[rbowman]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
Clear glas must be clear. When our town started recycling at the dump
they has a container for clear, another for colored. One colored bottle
would contaminate a big container of clear. There was always some
idiot. . .
I've been told the best glass has some content of recycled in it.
http://www.gpi.org/recycling/glass-recycling-facts

I worked for a company that made the polystyrene foam clamshells for
McDonalds. One of the advantages of thermoplastics is you can grind the
defective product and feed it back into the line. The clamshells had a
tan color rather than the pure white of virgin styrene, part of which
was due to the amount of regrind being used. McDonald's is a very
demanding customer and would use colorimeters to ensure the product was
the same exact shade. If the process was running right and there wasn't
much regrind that required tinkering.

That whole history is educational. McDonalds went from the original
paper wrapping to foam to save the trees or something. Then they went
back to paper/cardboard to save the landfills. Both were marketing
decisions based on what the public's perception was at the moment.

I've been out of that industry for a long time and don't know what is
used today but we were using freon by the railroad tank car for the
blowing agent. That wouldn't fly today. The best part of the job was ice
cream cones were made in another part of the plant. You could eat the
defective parts. Sugar cones hot off the press are good!

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by rbowman
I worked for a company that made the polystyrene foam clamshells for
McDonalds. One of the advantages of thermoplastics is you can grind the
defective product and feed it back into the line. The clamshells had a
tan color rather than the pure white of virgin styrene, part of which
was due to the amount of regrind being used. McDonald's is a very
demanding customer and would use colorimeters to ensure the product was
the same exact shade. If the process was running right and there wasn't
much regrind that required tinkering.
That whole history is educational. McDonalds went from the original
paper wrapping to foam to save the trees or something. Then they went
back to paper/cardboard to save the landfills. Both were marketing
decisions based on what the public's perception was at the moment.
I've been out of that industry for a long time and don't know what is
used today but we were using freon by the railroad tank car for the
blowing agent. That wouldn't fly today. The best part of the job was ice
cream cones were made in another part of the plant. You could eat the
defective parts. Sugar cones hot off the press are good!

I worked in foam plastics for 47 years. Our blowing agen was pentane.
About 15 years ago we had to capture emission, but it did not have the
bad rap that CFCs had. Nevertheless, all foam plastics were bad to an
uninformed public.

[Frank]

Post by rbowman

Post by Ed Pawlowski
Clear glas must be clear. When our town started recycling at the dump
they has a container for clear, another for colored. One colored bottle
would contaminate a big container of clear. There was always some
idiot. . .
I've been told the best glass has some content of recycled in it.
http://www.gpi.org/recycling/glass-recycling-facts

I worked for a company that made the polystyrene foam clamshells for
McDonalds. One of the advantages of thermoplastics is you can grind the
defective product and feed it back into the line. The clamshells had a
tan color rather than the pure white of virgin styrene, part of which
was due to the amount of regrind being used. McDonald's is a very
demanding customer and would use colorimeters to ensure the product was
the same exact shade. If the process was running right and there wasn't
much regrind that required tinkering.
That whole history is educational. McDonalds went from the original
paper wrapping to foam to save the trees or something. Then they went
back to paper/cardboard to save the landfills. Both were marketing
decisions based on what the public's perception was at the moment.
I've been out of that industry for a long time and don't know what is
used today but we were using freon by the railroad tank car for the
blowing agent. That wouldn't fly today. The best part of the job was ice
cream cones were made in another part of the plant. You could eat the
defective parts. Sugar cones hot off the press are good!

Company I worked for used recycle polymer in two of their most
profitable products. There was a color problem but these products did
not have to be clear. They did not brag about being environmentally
friendly by using recycle. Customer did not need to know and might want
to pay less.

Our dump takes glass, paper, cans and plastic but does not want
polystyrene or plastic bags. People do not realize that all this crap
must be separated and cleaned. I keep telling this to my wife that it
does not matter if she washes PET soda bottles or not. Only reason to
do is perhaps keep down smell of trash can in the garage.

[rbowman]

Post by Frank
Company I worked for used recycle polymer in two of their most
profitable products. There was a color problem but these products did
not have to be clear. They did not brag about being environmentally
friendly by using recycle. Customer did not need to know and might want
to pay less.

I think it was '71, sometime during the oil embargo, when I was at the
NPE in Chicago and material of any type was hard to come by. I remember
talking to one guy who had to take two carloads of styrene toilet seats
for regrind to get one of virgin styrene. We sold thermoset molding
systems so regrind wasn't an option. There was a lot creativity with
replacing compounds with stuff derived from furfural. The stuff flowed
like water and the moldmakers had fits adapting to it.

[Frank]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Frank
I blame spell check. They let stuff go if spelled correctly even if
sentence does not make sense.

I've had problems with that now. Often, the "mutant words" and 'not' and
'now', which can give the sentence opposite meaning. Worse than
lose/loose or breath/breathe, some of the cost common errors.

Post by Frank
Used to get a 5 cent return on bottles here in DE but now we throw
away the bottles and the state still charges the deposit but they keep
it to help pay for recycling at the dump.

Here, they have "curbside recycling" where they take mixed paper,
plastic, and metal (no glass). Sometimes I've wondered it it's really
just a way to get people to wash most of their trash.

Same crap here. Incredibly stupid. Dump was originally recycling at
the dump but could not afford it but now they could with getting tax
they could. This is as it is done in some other places. I hard in
Florida someplace 5 separate containers required. Ever other vehicle on
the road there must be a garbage truck. This is what happens when
politicians give a solution to a technical problem.

[Muggles]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/07/13/visa_challenge_offers_small_businesses_10_000_to_eliminate_cash_rely_on.html
There is something knowing about the title of Visa’s latest initiative,
the Visa Challenge, in which the payment company will offer 50
restaurants, cafes, and food trucks $10,000 each to eliminate cash
payments. “We are declaring war on cash,” a Visa spokesman told the
Associated Press.

Such businesses will probably lose more than $10K in cash business, so,
the initial payout of $10K might be attractive, but what happens when
those businesses revert back to cash businesses when they start losing
money?

[Ralph Mowery]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/07/13/visa_challenge_offers_small_businesses_10_000_to_eliminate_cash_rely_on.html
There is something knowing about the title of Visa?s latest initiative,
the Visa Challenge, in which the payment company will offer 50
restaurants, cafes, and food trucks $10,000 each to eliminate cash
payments. ?We are declaring war on cash,? a Visa spokesman told the
Associated Press.

I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

I use cards all the time when I can. I pay them off and use the one
that gives the most cash back. That means carrying around abut 5 cards,
not counting on the store discount/rewards cards.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 07/16/2017 11:29 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

That happened when I needed a money order, and the store would only take
cash. It seemed strange that they had no objection to my getting cash
from the ATM five feet from the counter (that is, I actually used a
debit card).

[Ralph Mowery]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

That happened when I needed a money order, and the store would only take
cash. It seemed strange that they had no objection to my getting cash
from the ATM five feet from the counter (that is, I actually used a
debit card).

The store does not own or have any thing to do with the money you get
out of it. Say your credit card is fake and you buy from the store, the
store may be out of money. If you use the same card on the ATM, it is
the bank that is out of that money and not the store. You might as well
go to an ATM 5 miles away as far as the store is concerned.

[Stormin' Norman]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:35:43 -0400, Ralph Mowery

Post by Ralph Mowery

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

That happened when I needed a money order, and the store would only take
cash. It seemed strange that they had no objection to my getting cash
from the ATM five feet from the counter (that is, I actually used a
debit card).

The store does not own or have any thing to do with the money you get
out of it. Say your credit card is fake and you buy from the store, the
store may be out of money. If you use the same card on the ATM, it is
the bank that is out of that money and not the store. You might as well
go to an ATM 5 miles away as far as the store is concerned.

Actually, there are many privately owned ATMs, especially in places
like convenience stores. Such machines can be extremely profitable
for those that operate them. A local casino has a number of private
ATM's throughout the facility and they charge a $3 fee for each
withdrawal. Considering the electronic transaction fee being paid by
the owner of the machine is only couple of cents (if any), that is a
great profit margin.

They want cash for the money orders because they would have to add the
merchant fees into the fees they are charging for the money order. In
ten states it is still illegal to surcharge the customer for using a
credit card.

[g***@aiol.com]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

That happened when I needed a money order, and the store would only take
cash. It seemed strange that they had no objection to my getting cash
from the ATM five feet from the counter (that is, I actually used a
debit card).

They do not own that ATM and the bank will be on the hook if there is
any fraud. The merchant also will not be paying the swipe or
percentage charge on the card transaction.

[h***@ccanoemail.ca]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

That happened when I needed a money order, and the store would only take
cash. It seemed strange that they had no objection to my getting cash
from the ATM five feet from the counter (that is, I actually used a
debit card).

... duh just think about it - how could a business pay the
credit card company their cut < 4 or 5 per cent >
and still offer you a money order for nearly no fee .. ?
John T.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

That happened when I needed a money order, and the store would only take
cash. It seemed strange that they had no objection to my getting cash
from the ATM five feet from the counter (that is, I actually used a
debit card).

Makes sense. Let's say you buy a $100 money order. They charge you $2
for it. You pay with a debit card and they pay a transaction fee of 2
1/2% or $2.50. Not a very good business model. Plus you could reverse
the transaction on your card, etc.

So, you go to the in-store ATM and pay $3 service charge. The store
gets a part of that so now they made $3 from you instead of losing 50
cents.

[rbowman]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
I know of some small bussiness that only take cash. No checks or credit
cards. Mainly restraints. Some of them do have a bank cash machine in
them where you can put in your card and get cash back.

That happened when I needed a money order, and the store would only take
cash. It seemed strange that they had no objection to my getting cash
from the ATM five feet from the counter (that is, I actually used a
debit card).

Why would they object? If the ATM dispensed cash on a bogus debit card
that wouldn't be their problem,

[rbowman]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
There is something knowing about the title of Visa’s latest initiative,
the Visa Challenge, in which the payment company will offer 50
restaurants, cafes, and food trucks $10,000 each to eliminate cash
payments. “We are declaring war on cash,” a Visa spokesman told the
Associated Press.

Wonderful. I've noticed in the supermarket checkout line that the new
chipped credit cards take even longer to validate than previously. The
only thing worse than standing there while someone fumbles with a card
to buy a $5 sandwich is when the charge is declined.

Things go much faster with a $20 bill.

[notbob]

Post by rbowman
Things go much faster with a $20 bill.

I can only see one of those after cashing a "cash-back" check at a
sprmkt check-out line.

What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Makes no difference. Banks are gonna go with the least "overhead" for
them. Why do you think "autonomous" car technology has been so
eagerly developed. It's not fer your benefit! It's so corps don't
hafta pay drivers (read trucks/taxis/labor//unions/overhead, etc). ;)

nb

[Cindy Hamilton]

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Picking up a week's pay at the "payroll window"? What is this, 1917?
My company doesn't even issue checks anymore; everybody has to have
direct deposit.

Cindy Hamilton

[Taxed and Spent]

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Picking up a week's pay at the "payroll window"? What is this, 1917?
My company doesn't even issue checks anymore; everybody has to have
direct deposit.
Cindy Hamilton

In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Post by Taxed and Spent

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Picking up a week's pay at the "payroll window"? What is this, 1917?
My company doesn't even issue checks anymore; everybody has to have
direct deposit.
Cindy Hamilton

In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

I'm so relieved that California protects its citizens in this way.

Cindy Hamilton

[Taxed and Spent]

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by Taxed and Spent

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Picking up a week's pay at the "payroll window"? What is this, 1917?
My company doesn't even issue checks anymore; everybody has to have
direct deposit.
Cindy Hamilton

In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

I'm so relieved that California protects its citizens in this way.
Cindy Hamilton

Yes, I was loosing sleep over this until I found out.

[Unquestionably Confused]

Post by Taxed and Spent

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 2:04:27 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent

Post by Taxed and Spent

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at
the "payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for
using a debit/credit card.

Picking up a week's pay at the "payroll window"? What is this,
1917? My company doesn't even issue checks anymore; everybody
has to have direct deposit.
Cindy Hamilton

In California an employer cannot require an employee to have
direct deposit.

I'm so relieved that California protects its citizens in this way.
Cindy Hamilton

Yes, I was loosing sleep over this until I found out.

Yep, California takes their paychecks and then doles out an allowance
after they take their cut and piss it away. <g>

"notbob"? If I may ask a question to which I would seriously like to
know the real answer: What job issues cash at a payroll window on a
weekly basis? (other than maybe a landscaping crew or pickup laborers
found milling about Home Depot at 7:30AM)

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by Taxed and Spent

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Picking up a week's pay at the "payroll window"? What is this, 1917?
My company doesn't even issue checks anymore; everybody has to have
direct deposit.
Cindy Hamilton

In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

I'm so relieved that California protects its citizens in this way.
Cindy Hamilton

It is still problematic. There are some low income people that don;t
have the ability to manage a checking account with direct deposit. The
state says give them a check so not they go to a check cashing place and
pay a fee.

Some banks will allow you to use a debit card and overdraw with a fee.
We had a guy at work that fell into that trap with his first or second
direct deposit pay. he racked up a couple of hundred in charges for a
series of small purchases. Fortunately, someone at the bank talked to
him and eliminated the frees.

[Roger Blake]

Post by Taxed and Spent
In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

I would not work for a company that required direct deposit.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Taxed and Spent
In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

I would not work for a company that required direct deposit.

So I guess you won't be getting Social Security either.

I've had direct deposit for 35 years. Never missed a pay on time.

[Ralph Mowery]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Taxed and Spent
In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

I would not work for a company that required direct deposit.

So I guess you won't be getting Social Security either.
I've had direct deposit for 35 years. Never missed a pay on time.

I like direct deposit also. Probably 30 years of it from work, 10 from
pension, and 5 from social security and never missed.

When working if on vacation or due to my schedule, off on payday, had to
wait or make a special trip when they were issuing pay checks.

I do not like companies wanting to take money out of my bank account
every month like Cable TV or the power company. I usually pay them by
going on line and telling my credit union who, how much and when to pay.
So far it has worked well for 10 years.

[notbob]

I usually pay them by going on line and telling my credit union who,
how much and when to pay. So far it has worked well for 10 years.

Watch fer changes.

Usta be, Century-Link (my phone/broadband company) let ppl pay by CC
or e-check, online, for free. They recently changed their policy and
now charge for paying by CC. Only e-check payments are now free of
charge. If I did not have a routing/acct e-check number, I would
hafta pay a fee. 8|

nb

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@nothome.com
says...

Post by notbob

I usually pay them by going on line and telling my credit union who,
how much and when to pay. So far it has worked well for 10 years.

Watch fer changes.
Usta be, Century-Link (my phone/broadband company) let ppl pay by CC
or e-check, online, for free. They recently changed their policy and
now charge for paying by CC. Only e-check payments are now free of
charge. If I did not have a routing/acct e-check number, I would
hafta pay a fee. 8|
nb

I take it the CC is a credit card. I can see that a CC fee would be
charged as the CC comapanies charge a few percent. My state lets you
pay by CC and the local tax office does too, but they charge for that.
The credit union I have does a direct electronic transfer without a fee
for most of my bills I pay.

The way I understand it, the CC companies made the stores sell it to you
for the same pirce, cash or CC or they would pull your ability to do any
CC with them. I think the Feds made it so the sotres could charge a CC
fee several years ago.

When I am buying something, I ask how much it is for cash and not a CC.
If they say it is the same, I use the CC as I get a percentage back. If
they want more, I decide if I get back more on the CC or a bigger
discount.

One gas station had the electronic sign that said something like Cash $
2.00 per gallon and $ 2.10 credit.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by Ralph Mowery
When I am buying something, I ask how much it is for cash and not a CC.
If they say it is the same, I use the CC as I get a percentage back. If
they want more, I decide if I get back more on the CC or a bigger
discount.

Works with small local stores. Not so much at WalMart.

Post by Ralph Mowery
One gas station had the electronic sign that said something like Cash $
2.00 per gallon and $ 2.10 credit.

Typical difference here in CT is 6 cents.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 07/16/2017 05:02 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

[snip]

Post by Ralph Mowery
One gas station had the electronic sign that said something like Cash $
2.00 per gallon and $ 2.10 credit.

For awhile, gas stations around here would charge extra for credit. Then
it became illegal (?).

Then the stations offered a discount for paying cash. It took awhile
before people figured out it was really the same thing.

I usually pay by CC at the pump, because it avoids trouble with the
"assumption of guilt" thing ('pay in advance', which requires 2 or more
trips in for a fill-up).

[Roger Blake]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
So I guess you won't be getting Social Security either.

I have no interest in going on the dole.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Ed Pawlowski
So I guess you won't be getting Social Security either.

I have no interest in going on the dole.

Good, more for the rest of us. I paid into it for 55 years so I'm taking
out every penny I can. It will be in my account next Wednesday.

[Terry Coombs]

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Ed Pawlowski
So I guess you won't be getting Social Security either.

I have no interest in going on the dole.

Since when is getting money that *I* PAID IN being "on the dole" ?
Yer an idiot .

--

Snag

[dpb]

On 07/16/2017 4:44 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
...

Since when is getting money that *I* PAID IN being "on the dole" ?...

'Cepting it's not an actuarially sound program; the larger number by far
collect more than they paid in plus what typical earnings would've been...

--

[Wage Slave]

...

Since when is getting money that *I* PAID IN being "on the dole" ?...

'Cepting it's not an actuarially sound program; the larger number by far collect more than they paid in plus what typical earnings would've been...
--

That may be true for the SS disability fraudsters but not for most workers.

If you log in to the SS site, you can see your yearly contributions since you started slavery. Take those yearly contributions and plug them in to any good investment calculator with a modest rate of return and you can see the lump of money you'd have
today. There's no way I'll ever get all of mine back.

The problem is that the democrats have been using the Social Security funds to fund lazy people.

[Frank]

Post by Wage Slave

Post by dpb
...

Since when is getting money that *I* PAID IN being "on the dole" ?...

'Cepting it's not an actuarially sound program; the larger number by
far collect more than they paid in plus what typical earnings would've
been...
--

That may be true for the SS disability fraudsters but not for most workers.
If you log in to the SS site, you can see your yearly contributions
since you started slavery. Take those yearly contributions and plug
them in to any good investment calculator with a modest rate of return
and you can see the lump of money you'd have today. There's no way
I'll ever get all of mine back.
The problem is that the democrats have been using the Social Security
funds to fund lazy people.

Absolutely right. I contributed less to my 401k having to retire from
the company very early and now I get back more than my SS.

Only something like 60% goes to retired seniors and disabled and widows
and orphans get the rest, not to mention government stealing for other
programs.

[g***@aol.com]

Post by Frank

Post by Wage Slave
The problem is that the democrats have been using the Social Security
funds to fund lazy people.

Absolutely right. I contributed less to my 401k having to retire from
the company very early and now I get back more than my SS.
Only something like 60% goes to retired seniors and disabled and widows
and orphans get the rest, not to mention government stealing for other
programs.

The real problem with all of these programs is there is no investment
or savings. The government spends the money as soon as they get it so
current beneficiaries are depending on taxes on working people and we
have a ratio of around 2.5 workers per recipient. This was a very
successful program when it was around 16:1 but it is unsustainable
now. There was never a "trust fund". The surplus money was always
spent.

[Frank]

Post by g***@aol.com

Post by Frank

Post by Wage Slave
The problem is that the democrats have been using the Social Security
funds to fund lazy people.

Absolutely right. I contributed less to my 401k having to retire from
the company very early and now I get back more than my SS.
Only something like 60% goes to retired seniors and disabled and widows
and orphans get the rest, not to mention government stealing for other
programs.

The real problem with all of these programs is there is no investment
or savings. The government spends the money as soon as they get it so
current beneficiaries are depending on taxes on working people and we
have a ratio of around 2.5 workers per recipient. This was a very
successful program when it was around 16:1 but it is unsustainable
now. There was never a "trust fund". The surplus money was always
spent.

Al Gores balls should be put in his lock box.

[Tekkie®]

Frank posted for all of us...

Post by Frank

Post by g***@aol.com

Post by Frank

Post by Wage Slave
The problem is that the democrats have been using the Social Security
funds to fund lazy people.

Absolutely right. I contributed less to my 401k having to retire from
the company very early and now I get back more than my SS.
Only something like 60% goes to retired seniors and disabled and widows
and orphans get the rest, not to mention government stealing for other
programs.

The real problem with all of these programs is there is no investment
or savings. The government spends the money as soon as they get it so
current beneficiaries are depending on taxes on working people and we
have a ratio of around 2.5 workers per recipient. This was a very
successful program when it was around 16:1 but it is unsustainable
now. There was never a "trust fund". The surplus money was always
spent.

Al Gores balls should be put in his lock box.

I thought they were gnawed off...

[rbowman]

Post by Frank

Post by g***@aol.com

Post by Frank

Post by Wage Slave
The problem is that the democrats have been using the Social Security
funds to fund lazy people.

Absolutely right. I contributed less to my 401k having to retire from
the company very early and now I get back more than my SS.
Only something like 60% goes to retired seniors and disabled and widows
and orphans get the rest, not to mention government stealing for other
programs.

The real problem with all of these programs is there is no investment
or savings. The government spends the money as soon as they get it so
current beneficiaries are depending on taxes on working people and we
have a ratio of around 2.5 workers per recipient. This was a very
successful program when it was around 16:1 but it is unsustainable
now. There was never a "trust fund". The surplus money was always
spent.

Al Gores balls should be put in his lock box.

You would have to find them first.

[Taxed and Spent]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Roger Blake

Post by Taxed and Spent
In California an employer cannot require an employee to have direct deposit.

I would not work for a company that required direct deposit.

So I guess you won't be getting Social Security either.
I've had direct deposit for 35 years. Never missed a pay on time.

Back when direct deposit was a new thing, I went to payroll and they
asked how much $ I wanted deposited and the rest would be on the payroll
check. I said I wanted 100% deposited. They said they couldn't do
percentages. Since my paycheck varied, I wrote down that I wanted
$10,000.00 per pay period direct deposited. She looked askance, checked
the records a couple of times and said "you don't make nearly that
much!" So, I asked what would happen. And she said my direct deposit
could not exceed my earnings. So I said "yeah, 100%". She was a bit
perplexed, said it wouldn't work, and I said I am not changing my
instructions. She said "you may not get your paycheck if there is an
error." I said "well, let's just find out, shall we?"

Worked like a charm. Not sure she ever got it into her head, though. I
think back then the concept of somebody directly depositing the entire
paycheck meant you were not going to spend any of it, at least any time
soon.

[Ralph Mowery]

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Picking up a week's pay at the "payroll window"? What is this, 1917?
My company doesn't even issue checks anymore; everybody has to have
direct deposit.

Well over 15 maybe 25 years ago the company I worked for went to direct
deposit and issued a piece of paper that told how much had been
deposited, the tax and other deductions.

Later on they quit that and the only way to see was to look it up on a
computer. You could do that from your computer,or any of many at work.

[rbowman]

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Which third world country do you live in? I've never been paid in cash
but then I've only been working for the last 50 years or so. I do
remember the days when you could walk into a bar and a guy sitting at a
table in the back would cash your paycheck. Robbing that operation would
have been a major mistake.

Now I get paid by direct deposit and hit the ATM every now and then for
a couple hundred bucks of walking around money. The ATM is from my bank
so no fee. About the only thing I use plastic for is gasoline and CostCo
runs. Oh, and REI purchases since my membership number is on the credit
card so if I dig it out I might as well use it.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by rbowman

Post by notbob
What's worse. Getting robbed after picking up a weeks pay at the
"payroll window" or getting clipped for a service fee for using a
debit/credit card.

Which third world country do you live in? I've never been paid in cash
but then I've only been working for the last 50 years or so. I do
remember the days when you could walk into a bar and a guy sitting at a
table in the back would cash your paycheck. Robbing that operation would
have been a major mistake.

Last year one of the big restaurant chains was paying people on a debit
card. I don't recall the details but they could incur fees.

OK, I found this
http://gothamist.com/2015/05/29/debit_card_payroll_law.php
Attorney General Schneiderman proposed the Payroll Card Act last year,
when he looked into the matter, and found that many payroll card
programs charge fees for all ATM withdrawals and point-of-sale
transactions. 75% of the employees at 38 local and national companies
that contributed data to Schneiderman's study, including Wal-Mart,
McDonald's, and Walgreens, were charged fees while attempting to access
their wages.

[rbowman]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
OK, I found this
http://gothamist.com/2015/05/29/debit_card_payroll_law.php
Attorney General Schneiderman proposed the Payroll Card Act last year,
when he looked into the matter, and found that many payroll card
programs charge fees for all ATM withdrawals and point-of-sale
transactions. 75% of the employees at 38 local and national companies
that contributed data to Schneiderman's study, including Wal-Mart,
McDonald's, and Walgreens, were charged fees while attempting to access
their wages.

Yet another reason to avoid businesses that make Simon LeGree look like
Mother Theresa. The people who haven't figured out how to open a
checking account don't help either.

When my employer figured out how to do direct deposit after about 20
years most people were happy. I do miss walking two blocks to the bank
to deposit my check though -- Winter was kinda cute. I never did get up
the courage to ask why her parents named her Winter or if she had a
sister called Summer.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 07/16/2017 12:19 PM, notbob wrote:

[snip]

Post by notbob
Why do you think "autonomous" car technology has been so
eagerly developed. It's not fer your benefit! It's so corps don't
hafta pay drivers (read trucks/taxis/labor//unions/overhead, etc). ;)
nb

Such cars need to communicate. Makes it easier to install tracking so
some company can figure out which annoying ads to make you watch.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 07/16/2017 12:04 PM, rbowman wrote:

[snip]

Post by rbowman
Wonderful. I've noticed in the supermarket checkout line that the new
chipped credit cards take even longer to validate than previously. The
only thing worse than standing there while someone fumbles with a card
to buy a $5 sandwich is when the charge is declined.
Things go much faster with a $20 bill.

I normally use cash for anything $20 or less.

One exception is for a $1.09 root beer float at Sonic. At the time, it
was easier than dealing with change.

[rbowman]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by rbowman
Wonderful. I've noticed in the supermarket checkout line that the new
chipped credit cards take even longer to validate than previously. The
only thing worse than standing there while someone fumbles with a card
to buy a $5 sandwich is when the charge is declined.
Things go much faster with a $20 bill.

I normally use cash for anything $20 or less.
One exception is for a $1.09 root beer float at Sonic. At the time, it
was easier than dealing with change.

That's my stealth savings account. Pay cash, get change, throw the
change into a 3lb cottage cheese tub every night. When the tub is full,
take it to the coin machine at the supermarket. There is no fee if you
get a gift card instead of cash and Amazon is one of the available
cards. You don't actually get a card, just a code you can enter into
your Amazon account. A full tub nets out between two and three hundred.

[Uncle Monster]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/07/13/visa_challenge_offers_small_businesses_10_000_to_eliminate_cash_rely_on.html
There is something knowing about the title of Visa’s latest initiative,
the Visa Challenge, in which the payment company will offer 50
restaurants, cafes, and food trucks $10,000 each to eliminate cash
payments. “We are declaring war on cash,” a Visa spokesman told the
Associated Press.

There are conspiracy theories about the "War On Cash" being pushed by financial institutions at the behest of governments in order to control the citizenry. Do as you're told or your money will be turned off. Governments can't take the cash in your possession except at gunpoint so it's easier to press a few key on a keyboard to turn off your credit/debit card and seize your bank account. If you go to your bank and withdraw a large enough amount of cash, the bank contacts the government because it makes you suspected of some criminal activity. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Cashless Monster

[Frank]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
The banks want to rule the world and take a little piece from all of
us.. i use debit and credit cards at times, but I prefer to use cans for
most purchases, especially under about $100. I see no reason a bank
should get a cut of the deal.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/07/13/visa_challenge_offers_small_businesses_10_000_to_eliminate_cash_rely_on.html
There is something knowing about the title of Visa’s latest initiative,
the Visa Challenge, in which the payment company will offer 50
restaurants, cafes, and food trucks $10,000 each to eliminate cash
payments. “We are declaring war on cash,” a Visa spokesman told the
Associated Press.

We never use a credit card when we go out to eat. When we pay we do not
want to see our credit card disappear for a few minutes as that is how
a lot of credit card info is stolen by unscrupulous waitresses.

I'll normally use a credit card for transactions above $20 but make
exception and try to use cash only at local hardware store that always
gives me the 5% senior discount. They make some of it back in not
having to pay the credit card company for me using it there.