Politicisation of banks

Izabarack · Guru

RE: Politicisation of banks

Whenarewethere · Guru

https://www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/swedes-turn-against-cashlessness-3311.html

' It should be obvious that Sweden's preparedness would be weakened if, in a serious crisis or war, we had not decided in advance how households and companies would pay for fuel, supplies and other necessities. '

Bicyclecamper · Guru

I live in a very small village, of less then 350 people, only 2 shops have an eptos machine, the rest of the shops are cash only/cheques, due to the $56-87 rental fee of the machine weekly plus $2 per transaction. These shops that deal in cash only earn gross less then a $1000 per week, they will close when we go cashless. Same with buying wood for our fires, all cash, you cannot expect someone like them to carry around a machine, and have internet capabilities in the vehicle for to pay them. If the government is serious with this, their will be bloody lot more people on the dole, if they want to stop people working in the bush, just stop cash. Another thing is, we have lost doctors, medical supports, chemists, a functional hospital, state and federal services, so even tually we bushy's will all have to live in the cities, their wont be anybody out here anymore, so country tourism will cease to exist, but you city people all want this, we have no votes to stop it! You assume wrongly that all us country people are tax dodgers, NUTS!

-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Wednesday 16th of August 2023 12:04:25 PM

dorian · Guru

What about "Tap on Phone"?

Whenarewethere · Guru

I have cut the aerial around the edge of the card so paywave doesn't work.

You will see the wire with a bright light underneath. Then push a scalpel blade through the wire.

Bicyclecamper · Guru

Currently their is 6 million people in country Australia, I would hazard a guess 2 million of them deal in cash only, 2 million more people on the dole, see how you city people will like to pay %50 or more of your earnings in tax to pay for them, because this is what is coming for you. You city people don't ever think of the big picture though. This will hurt Australia, so much that we will be at the GDP of Mexico by the end of it. We all will be very poor.

Cuppa · Guru

dogbox wrote:

were do YOU draw the line as far as who is considered to be wealthy, an should be contributing to the less wealthy?

A good question, the answer to which (regardless who gives it) is bound to be more or less controversial, but controversial nevertheless.

What do you think?

I tend to think along the lines of the obvious is a good place to draw a line that the majority could reach a consensus on - the so called super rich, the multibillionaires, the huge corporations, the people for whom making ever more money is only about control & power, the 1% or whatever the tiny figure is of the percentage who control the majority of the world's finances.The people & organisations who's wealth brings power without accountability. The puppeteers who pull government strings.

Personally, although unwilling to put a figure on it, I see no need for anyone to own more wealth than is required to be 'comfortable' whilst there remain people struggling to survive without the basics of food & shelter. To be more specific, especially in this environment, only invites pointless argument. Defining 'comfortable' is of course a 'variable' term just as 'wealthy' is.

I think few would be surprised to know that idealistically what I consider 'enough' might be at the lower end of the wealth scale than some, as I would certainly advocate for a redistribution of wealth to greatly reduce the extremes between the 'haves' & the 'have nots' in our community, & would extend that thinking to a global scale as an aid to working collectively instead of engaging in conflict. Certainly I see no excuse for any Australian to be existing below the poverty line whilst others have more wealth than they could spend in multiple lifetimes, & use it only to create more wealth for themselves & self serving dynasties for their families.

In the context of this thread it is the 'super rich' who's wealth gives them undue influence in our democracies who need to be reigned in. Those whose undue influence is used primarily to subvert our democracy for their own benefit at the expense of us all.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 16th of August 2023 01:11:11 PM

dogbox · Guru

anyone who thinks that you have more than them thinks you are rich. people might look at you and be a little envious and think i wish i could do what you do an live the life style you lead green is the color of envy. some people might even question how you can afford your life style to them you might be considered super rich

the "super rich" the movers and shakers that create wealth/power are the ones who also create employment/opportunities for people who wish to move upwards which in turn means more taxes are paid. if these "super rich" decided to layback do nothing because the rewards verses risk was over the top and closed their business an just lead a comfortable life because they have more money than they can spend. where would that leave the rest of us that have been depending on them for years. one sure way to have a successful small business is to start with a successful big business.

you will always have people who will need to be looked after by the community and they should be looked after

but we hear people crying poor because they can not manage on the benefits that are paid by the people who pay taxes

young people who claim we should try and live on $ 65 a day, it is a helping hand to get people over a rough patch not a living wage

as long as the "super rich" stay motivated they will probably pay more tax one way or another in a year than the rest of us pay in a life time.

Cuppa · Guru

dogbox, I really don't want to get into a typical Grey Nomads forum bunfight with you.

Just some comments to add to the views you have expressed. (Which I appreciate you doing).

- Clearly there was never going to be a single correct answer to the question you asked & which I answered.

- The argument in favour of the employment creating super rich is not new & like most reasonable sounding arguments has some aspects of truth to it. Particularly the bit about motivation (reward vs risk), but at some level of income/wealth I suggest that is no longer a motivating factor. It is also however part of the unobtainable dream that capitalism offers the one which says that if you work hard you can move upwards & better yourself. Sadly, whilst this applies to some, there are many folk who work their butt off all their lives just to survive. That they are in jobs which lead them nowhere is often not a matter of choice. These are not people who are lesser in some way. They are people & as such deserve respect. That respect is not shown by big business & is often denied in the managed divisions rife in modern society. These are largely exacerbated by 'seeded' division ..... simplistically to keep our eyes away from those in the shadows. And let us not forget that it is 'big business' which is seeking to make their jobs obsolete if they think they can make more profit by doing so. The most obvious daily exposure to such things are the checkouts in supermarkets - the tip of an iceberg.
This is happening because big business mostly has no social conscience & only cares about profits which go to the CEO's etc & the shareholders. CEO's who earn obscene amounts that most folk could only dream about.

Making wealth from wealth is what shareholding is about. Not much chop for those who work their butts off just to put food on the table & keep a roof over their heads. BUT .. without these workers the folk who profit from the company profits & shareholding wouldn't be able to do so.

It is big business & the super rich who routinely minimise the taxes they pay, that is why the big 4 accounting firms are so big. Even what they legally make is not enough for them, they have to steal from what the lower earning taxpayers pay to the government for the collective good. Systemic greed without conscience. Not paying tax is an industry in itself. No social conscience. If big business saw providing stable employment & contributing to the community's tax base as a social responsibility I would agree with what you have said, but by & large they don't.

My financial standing says nothing about what I think about the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth. But yes I consider we are luckier than some but have far less than many others. We live how we live out of choice, which means going without a great deal that others consider the norm to be able to do so.

To get back to the point of this sub topic of wealth in a thread about a cashless society, those who influence the banks & pretty much everything else in our daily lives, do so to maintain the benefits of the power & control they don't want to lose. These are the few who manipulate us the masses. Keep us in our place. Encouraging the finger pointing among ourselves. Blaming the governments etc All so they can do what they do without accountability to anyone but themselves. The cashless society is but one step toward ever greater control, to keep us 'worker bees' producing the honey for them. Personally I see that as unjust & unfair.

I don't aspire to some utopian society where everyone has the same wealth, but I do very much think that the super rich/Big business needs a) to be accountable to society & b) to be seen to exercise social responsibility in line with their financial ability to do so. I would like to see the corporations, instead of secretly courting governments, courting the general public via a competitive & transparent structure of 'giving back' to earn their social capital. They owe it to us, because they could make the profits they do without us.

Because of the bun fighting history here I feel the need to say I expect you (& others) to respect what I have put thought into posting regardless of whether you agree with my thoughts. I feel strongly about fairness, social justice etc but I know others have other ways of looking at the same things. I ask that any response is more than trying to pick fault.
If anyone does see things differently to me & wants to post what they think, I'm happy to listen & maybe even respond, but I am not interested in responding to what appears to be the 'tribalism' frequently seen on these pages. 'Prevailing' is pointless. We all understand Left & Right, & attempts to dismiss/undermine/attack etc achieve nothing.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 16th of August 2023 04:33:55 PM

peter67 · Guru

The American economy boomed after WW2 and the trickle down economy was very fair, the company did well, so you did too. That's long gone now. Didn't we bail banks out with tax payers money a few years back? and then there was the the royal commission into bank practices. Matt Comlyn CBA CEO played down the 10.1bn profit at the shareholders recent meeting. didn't even smile, that's how embarressing those riches really are.

Dick0 · Guru

dorian wrote:
Dick0 wrote:
dorian wrote:
Dick0 wrote:
dorian wrote:
Cash is the currency of tax dodgers and criminals. How will they operate in a cashless society? Will cryptocurrency fill the void? But crypto is ultimately traceable, is it not? Interesting times ahead.
Well, there you go! I have now been branded a criminal and tax dodger by a Grey Nomad because of my choice of Legal Tender. Take a note everyone and stay clear of Dick0.
Many tax dodgers and criminals use cash, but all who use cash are not tax dodgers and criminals.
A dog is an animal, but not all animals are dogs.
Do you now understand your logical fallacy?
No logical fallacy there...you are just back-peddling now.
Your accusation is offensive. My own elderly mother would be lost without cash, and she is neither a tax dodger or a criminal.

It's your accusation that is offensive. YOU STATED "Cash is the currency of tax dodgers and criminals". I am neither a tax dodger or a criminal but use cash mostly as it is still LEGAL TENDER. You have offended your own mother without knowing it!

dorian · Guru

Dick0 wrote:
dorian wrote:
Dick0 wrote:
dorian wrote:
Dick0 wrote:
dorian wrote:
Cash is the currency of tax dodgers and criminals. How will they operate in a cashless society? Will cryptocurrency fill the void? But crypto is ultimately traceable, is it not? Interesting times ahead.
Well, there you go! I have now been branded a criminal and tax dodger by a Grey Nomad because of my choice of Legal Tender. Take a note everyone and stay clear of Dick0.
Many tax dodgers and criminals use cash, but all who use cash are not tax dodgers and criminals.
A dog is an animal, but not all animals are dogs.
Do you now understand your logical fallacy?
No logical fallacy there...you are just back-peddling now.
Your accusation is offensive. My own elderly mother would be lost without cash, and she is neither a tax dodger or a criminal.
It's your accusation that is offensive. YOU STATED "Cash is the currency of tax dodgers and criminals". I am neither a tax dodger or a criminal but use cash mostly as it is still LEGAL TENDER. You have offended your own mother without knowing it!

I've already explained myself to you in terms that even the most obtuse simpleton can understand.

deverall11 · Guru

Tony Bev wrote:
....

Also, I simply refuse to use any self service checkout machine, as they are doing someone out of a job

.....

That is nothing more then a myth. Increase volume means retailers have to deal with it in some way.

Are We Lost · Guru

I do not reject self service checkout as strongly as Tony Bev, but will still choose a cashiered one in preference unless I perceive the wait may be a lot longer.

Deverall, regardless of the increase in volume, if I have to do the scanning that is saving the supermarket from having to pay someone to do it. If the supermarket volume increases, then hire more staff.

The supermarkets are making record profits, and part of that reason is due to reduction in staff costs. If those reduced staff costs were reflected in lower prices I would accept it better, but those prices are going up much faster than staff costs and inflation in general. Maybe they should offer a discount for those who self checkout.

Knightrider · Senior Member

Reading some of this "conspiracy" rubbish and "I don't like change" comments is like watching an episode of The Benny Hill Show. Just love it when "old farts" get together and have a whinge.

Long Weekend · Guru

Another switch - from banks to supermarkets.
In the case of our local supermarkets - Coles and Woolworths - both have actually increased their staff employment with the adoption of delivery services. Each time I visit I see about a number of people pushing trolleys through the aisles selecting items for on-line orders. Then there are the drivers delivering the groceries to the customers' homes.

But back to banks. I believe the problems all started when banks convinced businesses and government departments that they could save money and manpower by having their employees' wages paid directly into bank accounts.

The promise was that everybody would be better off with no costs. However, once the banks got hold of everybody's money it became the banks money! First of all, if the worker wanted cash they had to visit a bank or a 'hole in the wall.' Instead of being able to pay with cash, write a cheque - that'll be a couple of dollars per cheque thank you.

Get a credit card - there is an annual fee for one.

Luckily, we have a small interest earning account for our pensions. However, I understand that some banks charge account keeping fees to look after the employee's own money!

Murray

Izabarack · Guru

Tony Bev wrote:

I simply refuse to use any self service checkout machine, as they are doing someone out of a job

How do you get on at the petrol station?

Dick0 · Guru

dorian wrote:
I've already explained myself to you in terms that even the most obtuse simpleton can understand.

Not only are you offensive but now abusive.

deverall11 · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
I do not reject self service checkout as strongly as Tony Bev, but will still choose a cashiered one in preference unless I perceive the wait may be a lot longer.
Deverall, regardless of the increase in volume, if I have to do the scanning that is saving the supermarket from having to pay someone to do it. If the supermarket volume increases, then hire more staff.
The supermarkets are making record profits, and part of that reason is due to reduction in staff costs. If those reduced staff costs were reflected in lower prices I would accept it better, but those prices are going up much faster than staff costs and inflation in general. Maybe they should offer a discount for those who self checkout.

Employing more staff means greater costs. These have to be offset somewhere/somehow. Usually it is by increasing prices. Contrary to popular belief,

these record profits you mention are demanded by shareholders who are looking at their dividends. The higher the profit, the higher the dividend.

If in doubt about that, look no further then the CBA. They announced record profit which in turn generated record dividend at $2.40. A record.

msg · Guru

The thing that annoys me most is, why don't the people with the power to either affirm or deny speak up on questions. Plans need to be clearly communicated to allay all the fears people have or at least they should get a decent amount of discussion about things they don't agree with. It can't all be related to national security.

All you seem to get is no reporting by the media who totally ignore issues, removal of posts on social media determined to be misinformation (reasoning not explained) they just disappear, and everything not deemed to be the correct narrative as a conspiracy theory (reasoning not explained). Perhaps there is no reason or is it we might learn something we are not supposed to know about. Regardless, this attitude leaves an angry and confused population.