I can't speak for the US but I can tell you that, outside of genuine issues of life and death, the authorities cannot simply ring up the bank and get a complete break down of anyone's transaction history. A certain amount of info maybe, perhaps to confirm intel that a suspect uses a particular pub at a particular time, but in general an order from the Crown Court will be required to access an individuals full account. Access is also restricted to properly accredited Financial Investigators not your average bobby.
Two assumptions in your point are that...
1. Governments don't easily get access anyway, regardless if they have the right to or not.
2. That having banks being able to see everything we spend is somehow acceptable.
We know already via Edward Snowden that the government (including Britain) routinely break the law to listen to phone conversations, use our cell phones to track our location, etc. Given this, the idea they don't follow our money seems terribly naive, especially given banks have government financial backing built into their very existence. Also, I am not sure whether banks having all that knowledge might not even be.... worse.
If you’re not breaking the law, why do you care?
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act
The right to a private life.
Surely there is an equivalent Human Rights Act in China. Oh wait ...
I’m not sure a bank being able to access information on what you spend would infringe upon your right to a private life, would it?
The same with the government having access to GPS logs etc, if the end result is a net positive for law abiding citizens, I don’t have any problem with it.
If you honestly think any government in the west is going to start using that information in the same way it’s used here, you’re probably best off moving to a cave.
Banks have given HMRC information about your account for over 25 years ie MIRAS and credit interest on bank accounts including Tessa’s, Isa’s and credit interest on current accounts every April
I definitely spend more when just 'tapping' and not having cash on me.....last Saturday being a prime example, woke up Sunday feeling like death and felt worse when I finally checked my online banking app!
Does the word ‘sequestrate’ have a connection to this topic? Can a stash of cash be sequestrated?
Yes. Although obviously it is easier to get a freezer (and subsequent repayment order) on a bank account than it is to hunt down cash. That said, the danger with cash is that you might find yourself in the position of having to explain where it came from. (See Proceeds of Crime Act.) It is tedious to have to get a magistrate to issue a load of search warrants on different addresses to hunt down cash, but it has been done plenty of times. There are also other assets, like expensive cars, etc that can be hunted down.
Just wait until defi banks start becoming a thing and traditional banks are utterly fucked.
Of course they're not "fucked"!
They might lose a bit of market share, maybe for a bit or maybe permanently, but if you think people having instant knowledge of how much (or how little) they have in their accounts, or having a jazzy App that tells them they have no money, is going to make that much difference is incredibly naive.
Look at the energy market. So many new players, new apps and new innovations (e.g. my supplier pays interest on any credits on your account), but how many people are still unquestioningly with British Gas for absolutely no reason whatsever?
if you could choose between 0.5% interest rates and 5% interest rates on savings, which would you choose? The high street bank is dying, Barclays and Santander have packed up near me. Like blockbusters, they had their opportunity to move with the times and never took it.
Are you asking me or asking Joe Public?
There's always a "better deal" out there. Who can forget the Icelandic banks offering great interest rates (before they went bust) and I even remember a Nigerian bank offering to top those at the time (and all this century, before you ask!)
But the fact is that people stay with what they know, be that banks, energy companies or the brand of beans they buy. It's well understood and proven. It's human nature.
That's why "legacy banks" don't try as hard as new disrupter brands, because they don't need to. Yes, some will eventually fall by the wayside, but the rest will adapt before they make themselves obsolete - its' the way things have always been.
At the end of the day new shiny apps and great customer service isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to 80% of banking customers.
Edit: and just because high street branches are closing doesn't mean the banks are "dying". Barclays make fuck all out of their branches anyway and would probably close most of those left in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.
If they don’t have a decent app, and have shit customer service and are closing all their branches then they really are fucked.
nobody I know my age carries cash anymore. Whenever I need to lend or borrow odd bits from a mate or pay for a taxi/dinner I just monzo the money, so much easier than going through a horribly slow app and getting a fucking pin sentry out.
By the end the only people using legacy banks will be old people, who are then unable to go into a branch and talk to some one if they have an issue. The legacy banks will probably then pivot to being more of a building society/investment company.
I think you’re looking at two ends of the spectrum and not accounting for a great number of us that sit somewhere in the middle.
I’m in my 40s, don’t have a banking app, notifications etc just a current account and savings account (at basically zero) and an isa with a legacy bank. I look online at the account maybe once, twice a month max just to scan through the outs and to see if we’re overdrawn (normally). I’ve been in a branch once in ten years and contacted customer service once in about five years. Wouldn’t know how to make an online transfer to someone so would ask my wife to do that. Like Off It’s example of British Gas never swapped banks or chased a better interest account etc.
Ive never been a money-centric person but it’s quite an eye opener reading this thread just how much interest people take in their banking. I know nothing about any of these new banks, new apps, new functionality etc and suspect there’s many that are similar.
Personally I think it’s something that can mentally be a bit unhealthy to overthink. Some people seem to get a bit obsessive about their money. I’ve always been relatively sensible with money but don’t really think any further than as long as the bills are paid and im planning for anything on the short or medium term horizon (like a future holiday) then that’s pretty much it. Perhaps I need to adapt more.
Definitely think though I’m spending more cashless than I was only using cash, so may consider ditching the card for a bit.
Totaly agree. One of my Mrs freinds is just that, to the point where she told me she (apparently) took a £10k(?) UK government small business grant during the pandemic, and bought £10k worth of premium bonds with it because she didn't actually need the cash.
I think we have a pretty poor relationship with money in this country, where people don't know what they have or how they budget, something I don't think the established banks helped with (a customer in credit isn't profitable) and where the digital banks have forced the change to allow people to have a better idea of how they spend and what they spend on.
I'm glad the Government, HMRC, C&E, DWP, DVLA and other controlled institutions have access to our bank accounts and financial information.
Without it, so many more thieves, liars, cheats, con artists and fraudsters would not be caught. It takes a lot for one of these to persuade a Jury how their Christmas Club suddenly has £50k put into their account or they purchase a new BMW for cash.
As @Stu_of_Kunming says, I've nothing to hide and really, what do the above Governmental Departments really care about my meagre spending, which has followed a similar monthly pattern over the past 40 years.
I used to do my household accounts religiously every month, keeping invoices, double checking CC bills and even updating financial tracker spreadsheets so I could ensure I was not missing out on the 'best deals'.
For the last two years or so, I really can't be arsed anymore - and guess what? It hasn't made a blind bit of difference.
I definitely spend more when just 'tapping' and not having cash on me.....last Saturday being a prime example, woke up Sunday feeling like death and felt worse when I finally checked my online banking app!
That's a very good point. All of the drivers in this area aren't really to make the consumers life easier - although if they do then that's fine. It's all about making life easier for businesses, getting people to spend more and give up their data, which is then commercialised.
It never ceases to amaze me how willing people seem to be to just complicity go along with the whole thing.
"Well, I'm not doing anything wrong so why do I care?" No, indeed. And as far as the bankers and big businesses are concerned, you're doing absolutely everything right!
I'm glad the Government, HMRC, C&E, DWP, DVLA and other controlled institutions have access to our bank accounts and financial information.
Without it, so many more thieves, liars, cheats, con artists and fraudsters would not be caught. It takes a lot for one of these to persuade a Jury how their Christmas Club suddenly has £50k put into their account or they purchase a new BMW for cash.
As @Stu_of_Kunming says, I've nothing to hide and really, what do the above Governmental Departments really care about my meagre spending, which has followed a similar monthly pattern over the past 40 years.
I used to do my household accounts religiously every month, keeping invoices, double checking CC bills and even updating financial tracker spreadsheets so I could ensure I was not missing out on the 'best deals'.
For the last two years or so, I really can't be arsed anymore - and guess what? It hasn't made a blind bit of difference.
You should see some of the plans HMRC have around open banking then
I definitely spend more when just 'tapping' and not having cash on me.....last Saturday being a prime example, woke up Sunday feeling like death and felt worse when I finally checked my online banking app!
That's a very good point. All of the drivers in this area aren't really to make the consumers life easier - although if they do then that's find. It's all about making life easier for businesses, getting people to spend more and give up their data, which is then commercialised.
It never ceases to amaze me how willing people seem to be to just complicity go along with the whole thing.
"Well, I'm not doing anything wrong so why do I care?" No, indeed. And as far as the bankers and big businesses are concerned, you're doing absolutely everything right!
Why? Where is the negative in this?
GDPR and similar afford you rights if you really don't want your personal data shared but otherwise business use data to understand their customers and target them. Struggling to see how you suffer in any meaningful way.
As a logical extension of QE, Central Banks would love to have the option to impose negative interest rates on savers to "persuade" them to spend. While there's paper cash that can be withdrawn from bank accounts and stuck under the mattress, it won't work. Do away with cash and force everyone to bank digitally and all savers would also be forced to swallow the fact that they'll have to pay for the privilege of holding funds with banks. No thanks.
Just wait until defi banks start becoming a thing and traditional banks are utterly fucked.
Of course they're not "fucked"!
They might lose a bit of market share, maybe for a bit or maybe permanently, but if you think people having instant knowledge of how much (or how little) they have in their accounts, or having a jazzy App that tells them they have no money, is going to make that much difference is incredibly naive.
Look at the energy market. So many new players, new apps and new innovations (e.g. my supplier pays interest on any credits on your account), but how many people are still unquestioningly with British Gas for absolutely no reason whatsever?
if you could choose between 0.5% interest rates and 5% interest rates on savings, which would you choose? The high street bank is dying, Barclays and Santander have packed up near me. Like blockbusters, they had their opportunity to move with the times and never took it.
Are you asking me or asking Joe Public?
There's always a "better deal" out there. Who can forget the Icelandic banks offering great interest rates (before they went bust) and I even remember a Nigerian bank offering to top those at the time (and all this century, before you ask!)
But the fact is that people stay with what they know, be that banks, energy companies or the brand of beans they buy. It's well understood and proven. It's human nature.
That's why "legacy banks" don't try as hard as new disrupter brands, because they don't need to. Yes, some will eventually fall by the wayside, but the rest will adapt before they make themselves obsolete - its' the way things have always been.
At the end of the day new shiny apps and great customer service isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to 80% of banking customers.
Edit: and just because high street branches are closing doesn't mean the banks are "dying". Barclays make fuck all out of their branches anyway and would probably close most of those left in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.
If they don’t have a decent app, and have shit customer service and are closing all their branches then they really are fucked.
nobody I know my age carries cash anymore. Whenever I need to lend or borrow odd bits from a mate or pay for a taxi/dinner I just monzo the money, so much easier than going through a horribly slow app and getting a fucking pin sentry out.
By the end the only people using legacy banks will be old people, who are then unable to go into a branch and talk to some one if they have an issue. The legacy banks will probably then pivot to being more of a building society/investment company.
I think you’re looking at two ends of the spectrum and not accounting for a great number of us that sit somewhere in the middle.
I’m in my 40s, don’t have a banking app, notifications etc just a current account and savings account (at basically zero) and an isa with a legacy bank. I look online at the account maybe once, twice a month max just to scan through the outs and to see if we’re overdrawn (normally). I’ve been in a branch once in ten years and contacted customer service once in about five years. Wouldn’t know how to make an online transfer to someone so would ask my wife to do that. Like Off It’s example of British Gas never swapped banks or chased a better interest account etc.
Ive never been a money-centric person but it’s quite an eye opener reading this thread just how much interest people take in their banking. I know nothing about any of these new banks, new apps, new functionality etc and suspect there’s many that are similar.
Personally I think it’s something that can mentally be a bit unhealthy to overthink. Some people seem to get a bit obsessive about their money. I’ve always been relatively sensible with money but don’t really think any further than as long as the bills are paid and im planning for anything on the short or medium term horizon (like a future holiday) then that’s pretty much it. Perhaps I need to adapt more.
Definitely think though I’m spending more cashless than I was only using cash, so may consider ditching the card for a bit.
I can't speak for the US but I can tell you that, outside of genuine issues of life and death, the authorities cannot simply ring up the bank and get a complete break down of anyone's transaction history. A certain amount of info maybe, perhaps to confirm intel that a suspect uses a particular pub at a particular time, but in general an order from the Crown Court will be required to access an individuals full account. Access is also restricted to properly accredited Financial Investigators not your average bobby.
Two assumptions in your point are that...
1. Governments don't easily get access anyway, regardless if they have the right to or not.
2. That having banks being able to see everything we spend is somehow acceptable.
We know already via Edward Snowden that the government (including Britain) routinely break the law to listen to phone conversations, use our cell phones to track our location, etc. Given this, the idea they don't follow our money seems terribly naive, especially given banks have government financial backing built into their very existence. Also, I am not sure whether banks having all that knowledge might not even be.... worse.
If you’re not breaking the law, why do you care?
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act
The right to a private life.
Surely there is an equivalent Human Rights Act in China. Oh wait ...
I’m not sure a bank being able to access information on what you spend would infringe upon your right to a private life, would it?
The same with the government having access to GPS logs etc, if the end result is a net positive for law abiding citizens, I don’t have any problem with it.
If you honestly think any government in the west is going to start using that information in the same way it’s used here, you’re probably best off moving to a cave.
Is this really true though? We "know" that American elections have been decided by who can mount the most effective targeted online campaign.
Elections are won by the party that has the most detailed information about the voters.
If a government has access to people's spending patterns it can work out who exactly to target. Tough luck for any opposition party.
I can't speak for the US but I can tell you that, outside of genuine issues of life and death, the authorities cannot simply ring up the bank and get a complete break down of anyone's transaction history. A certain amount of info maybe, perhaps to confirm intel that a suspect uses a particular pub at a particular time, but in general an order from the Crown Court will be required to access an individuals full account. Access is also restricted to properly accredited Financial Investigators not your average bobby.
Two assumptions in your point are that...
1. Governments don't easily get access anyway, regardless if they have the right to or not.
2. That having banks being able to see everything we spend is somehow acceptable.
We know already via Edward Snowden that the government (including Britain) routinely break the law to listen to phone conversations, use our cell phones to track our location, etc. Given this, the idea they don't follow our money seems terribly naive, especially given banks have government financial backing built into their very existence. Also, I am not sure whether banks having all that knowledge might not even be.... worse.
If you’re not breaking the law, why do you care?
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act
The right to a private life.
Surely there is an equivalent Human Rights Act in China. Oh wait ...
I’m not sure a bank being able to access information on what you spend would infringe upon your right to a private life, would it?
The same with the government having access to GPS logs etc, if the end result is a net positive for law abiding citizens, I don’t have any problem with it.
If you honestly think any government in the west is going to start using that information in the same way it’s used here, you’re probably best off moving to a cave.
Is this really true though? We "know" that American elections have been decided by who can mount the most effective targeted online campaign.
Elections are won by the party that has the most detailed information about the voters.
If a government has access to people's spending patterns it can work out who exactly to target. Tough luck for any opposition party.
The Government doesn't and won't have access to people's spending patterns in any identifiable way. Such data that the Govt. have will be aggregated. So, for example, the information harvested by the ONS to enable it to create the basket of goods that goes to make up the inflation rate for the CPI.*
I wonder if the individuals who say they are worried about what the Government knows about them have bothered to restrict the personal information that the likes of Amazon, Facebook, etc has? The huge numbers of otherwise sensible people that let the world and his wife know when they are away on holiday and their DOB is frankly staggering. Do we all know that posting about your upcoming holiday on social media could invalidate your house insurance in the event of a burglary?
*Any Government Dept. or other body that legitimately acquires your data for a particular purpose cannot share them willy-nilly with other parties. The data remain confidential in their hands. (There are gateways for the sharing of data but they are limited and relate to things like the detection or prevention of crime.) Indeed, in many cases, the sharing of confidential data without a legitimate gateway would be a crime. It is also a crime committed by the individual Government official which makes it even less likely that it would happen. In the main, civil servants do not want to lose their job and pension and end up in gaol. (By way of example S352 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, sets out the punishment.)
I can't speak for the US but I can tell you that, outside of genuine issues of life and death, the authorities cannot simply ring up the bank and get a complete break down of anyone's transaction history. A certain amount of info maybe, perhaps to confirm intel that a suspect uses a particular pub at a particular time, but in general an order from the Crown Court will be required to access an individuals full account. Access is also restricted to properly accredited Financial Investigators not your average bobby.
Two assumptions in your point are that...
1. Governments don't easily get access anyway, regardless if they have the right to or not.
2. That having banks being able to see everything we spend is somehow acceptable.
We know already via Edward Snowden that the government (including Britain) routinely break the law to listen to phone conversations, use our cell phones to track our location, etc. Given this, the idea they don't follow our money seems terribly naive, especially given banks have government financial backing built into their very existence. Also, I am not sure whether banks having all that knowledge might not even be.... worse.
If you’re not breaking the law, why do you care?
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act
The right to a private life.
Surely there is an equivalent Human Rights Act in China. Oh wait ...
I’m not sure a bank being able to access information on what you spend would infringe upon your right to a private life, would it?
The same with the government having access to GPS logs etc, if the end result is a net positive for law abiding citizens, I don’t have any problem with it.
If you honestly think any government in the west is going to start using that information in the same way it’s used here, you’re probably best off moving to a cave.
Is this really true though? We "know" that American elections have been decided by who can mount the most effective targeted online campaign.
Elections are won by the party that has the most detailed information about the voters.
If a government has access to people's spending patterns it can work out who exactly to target. Tough luck for any opposition party.
The Government doesn't and won't have access to people's spending patterns in any identifiable way. Such data that the Govt. have will be aggregated. So, for example, the information harvested by the ONS to enable it to create the basket of goods that goes to make up the inflation rate for the CPI.*
I wonder if the individuals who say they are worried about what the Government knows about them have bothered to restrict the personal information that the likes of Amazon, Facebook, etc has? The huge numbers of otherwise sensible people that let the world and his wife know when they are away on holiday and their DOB is frankly staggering. Do we all know that posting about your upcoming holiday on social media could invalidate your house insurance in the event of a burglary?
*Any Government Dept. or other body that legitimately acquires your data for a particular purpose cannot share them willy-nilly with other parties. The data remain confidential in their hands. (There are gateways for the sharing of data but they are limited and relate to things like the detection or prevention of crime.) Indeed, in many cases, the sharing of confidential data without a legitimate gateway would be a crime. It is also a crime committed by the individual Government official which makes it even less likely that it would happen. In the main, civil servants do not want to lose their job and pension and end up in gaol. (By way of example S352 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, sets out the punishment.)
I'm glad the Government, HMRC, C&E, DWP, DVLA and other controlled institutions have access to our bank accounts and financial information.
Without it, so many more thieves, liars, cheats, con artists and fraudsters would not be caught. It takes a lot for one of these to persuade a Jury how their Christmas Club suddenly has £50k put into their account or they purchase a new BMW for cash.
As @Stu_of_Kunming says, I've nothing to hide and really, what do the above Governmental Departments really care about my meagre spending, which has followed a similar monthly pattern over the past 40 years.
I used to do my household accounts religiously every month, keeping invoices, double checking CC bills and even updating financial tracker spreadsheets so I could ensure I was not missing out on the 'best deals'.
For the last two years or so, I really can't be arsed anymore - and guess what? It hasn't made a blind bit of difference.
You should see some of the plans HMRC have around open banking then
They can check my accounts daily if they so wish - waste of their time and at least if someone is trying to fraudulently work their way through them, I'm sure they'd let me know.
I can't speak for the US but I can tell you that, outside of genuine issues of life and death, the authorities cannot simply ring up the bank and get a complete break down of anyone's transaction history. A certain amount of info maybe, perhaps to confirm intel that a suspect uses a particular pub at a particular time, but in general an order from the Crown Court will be required to access an individuals full account. Access is also restricted to properly accredited Financial Investigators not your average bobby.
Two assumptions in your point are that...
1. Governments don't easily get access anyway, regardless if they have the right to or not.
2. That having banks being able to see everything we spend is somehow acceptable.
We know already via Edward Snowden that the government (including Britain) routinely break the law to listen to phone conversations, use our cell phones to track our location, etc. Given this, the idea they don't follow our money seems terribly naive, especially given banks have government financial backing built into their very existence. Also, I am not sure whether banks having all that knowledge might not even be.... worse.
If you’re not breaking the law, why do you care?
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act
The right to a private life.
Surely there is an equivalent Human Rights Act in China. Oh wait ...
I’m not sure a bank being able to access information on what you spend would infringe upon your right to a private life, would it?
The same with the government having access to GPS logs etc, if the end result is a net positive for law abiding citizens, I don’t have any problem with it.
If you honestly think any government in the west is going to start using that information in the same way it’s used here, you’re probably best off moving to a cave.
Elections are won by the party that has the most detailed information about the voters.
If a government has access to people's spending patterns it can work out who exactly to target. Tough luck for any opposition party.
Fuck me. And there was me thinking they were won by the ones who produced the most acceptable policies to the electorate.
"I see the spending pattern algorithm on Mike Hunt has picked up he's only bought single ply toilet paper again. Can someone post him a half price voucher for the two ply one from Cashelle. That'll learn the marxist bastard".
You live and learn.
PS: Out of interest, what's your DoB and post code?
That's an interesting chart. Because these days you see signs up everywhere saying "card only" or "no cash payments", but despite that it seems cash is still used more than credit cards.
So does that mean we can expect signs to go up saying "no credit cards"? No, of course not. They like you to use credit cards.
Ultimately it's about choice and the option should be there to pay however you want to. The idea that a shop wont sell you something because you want to pay with a form of legal tender they don't particularly like because it's too much hassle for them is absolutely ridiculous and should be banned. Legal tender is legal tender and should be accepted anywhere.
That's an interesting chart. Because these days you see signs up everywhere saying "card only" or "no cash payments", but despite that it seems cash is still used more than credit cards.
So does that mean we can expect signs to go up saying "no credit cards"? No, of course not. They like you to use credit cards.
Ultimately it's about choice and the option should be there to pay however you want to. The idea that a shop wont sell you something because you want to pay with a form of legal tender they don't particularly like because it's too much hassle for them is absolutely ridiculous and should be banned. Legal tender is legal tender and should be accepted anywhere.
This is true - but most everyday purchases are paid for with debit cards - getting on for four times as much as cash.
Credit cards tend to be used for infrequent high ticket items where the cost can be spread (and Section 75 protection applies).
So combined - cards account for over 80% of all purchases. Cash is hardly 'king' anymore but of course, as you say, should be retained to give choice. There may well be a tipping point though - 90%, 95%?
That's an interesting chart. Because these days you see signs up everywhere saying "card only" or "no cash payments", but despite that it seems cash is still used more than credit cards.
So does that mean we can expect signs to go up saying "no credit cards"? No, of course not. They like you to use credit cards.
Ultimately it's about choice and the option should be there to pay however you want to. The idea that a shop wont sell you something because you want to pay with a form of legal tender they don't particularly like because it's too much hassle for them is absolutely ridiculous and should be banned. Legal tender is legal tender and should be accepted anywhere.
"Legal tender" is an almost meaningless phrase and has little to do with what is acceptable currency. It refers exclusively to money that would be accepted in a Court to pay a fine or settle a monetary debt. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender. (As an aside, neither Scottish or Northern Irish notes are legal tender even in Scotland and Northern Ireland.) The Bank of England explains it better than I do. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender
As they point out, it is entirely a matter for the vendors to decide what they will accept in payment.
The sad truth is that cash handling is a very expensive business. No one wants to pay to have staff tally up the money at the end of the day, nor pay G4S a fortune to securely collect it. Mix in the physical risks associated with such transactions as seen in old TV series like The Sweeney together with the losses from petty pilfering and the reduced opportunities to swerve the taxman and the attractions of a cash-free society start to make more sense.
Edited to add: Contrary to popular opinion, in the days of cash, things priced at £9.99 for example, were not to sucker the punter into thinking that they weren't paying £10 really but to effectively force the shop assistant to open the till to provide a receipt and some change rather than just pocket the money. Nowadays, there is really no point in using this silly pricing structure but it seems to continue.
The only time I use cash is to pay the window cleaner. My local pub is cashless and my father in law absolutely hates it when I take him there. Coincidentally, he’s also a window cleaner.
The only time I use cash is to pay the window cleaner. My local pub is cashless and my father in law absolutely hates it when I take him there. Coincidentally, he’s also a window cleaner.
Yup, window cleaner, hairdresser and tips in restaurants are about the only times I use it now.
The only time I use cash is to pay the window cleaner. My local pub is cashless and my father in law absolutely hates it when I take him there. Coincidentally, he’s also a window cleaner.
At the opposite end @stop_shouting , the pub me and you used to have a post work scoop off the train in remains Cash Only. Right pain.
The only time I use cash is to pay the window cleaner. My local pub is cashless and my father in law absolutely hates it when I take him there. Coincidentally, he’s also a window cleaner.
At the opposite end @stop_shouting , the pub me and you used to have a post work scoop off the train in remains Cash Only. Right pain.
Not the one in Hither Green that we got stuck in then mate
The only time I use cash is to pay the window cleaner. My local pub is cashless and my father in law absolutely hates it when I take him there. Coincidentally, he’s also a window cleaner.
At the opposite end @stop_shouting , the pub me and you used to have a post work scoop off the train in remains Cash Only. Right pain.
Not the one in Hither Green that we got stuck in then mate
Comments
If you honestly think any government in the west is going to start using that information in the same way it’s used here, you’re probably best off moving to a cave.
It is tedious to have to get a magistrate to issue a load of search warrants on different addresses to hunt down cash, but it has been done plenty of times. There are also other assets, like expensive cars, etc that can be hunted down.
Here's a recent FCA press release on a case. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/ian-hudson-imprisonment-fraudulent-trading-activities
You'll see that confiscation proceedings are underway.
Without it, so many more thieves, liars, cheats, con artists and fraudsters would not be caught. It takes a lot for one of these to persuade a Jury how their Christmas Club suddenly has £50k put into their account or they purchase a new BMW for cash.
As @Stu_of_Kunming says, I've nothing to hide and really, what do the above Governmental Departments really care about my meagre spending, which has followed a similar monthly pattern over the past 40 years.
I used to do my household accounts religiously every month, keeping invoices, double checking CC bills and even updating financial tracker spreadsheets so I could ensure I was not missing out on the 'best deals'.
For the last two years or so, I really can't be arsed anymore - and guess what? It hasn't made a blind bit of difference.
It never ceases to amaze me how willing people seem to be to just complicity go along with the whole thing.
"Well, I'm not doing anything wrong so why do I care?" No, indeed. And as far as the bankers and big businesses are concerned, you're doing absolutely everything right!
GDPR and similar afford you rights if you really don't want your personal data shared but otherwise business use data to understand their customers and target them. Struggling to see how you suffer in any meaningful way.
While there's paper cash that can be withdrawn from bank accounts and stuck under the mattress, it won't work.
Do away with cash and force everyone to bank digitally and all savers would also be forced to swallow the fact that they'll have to pay for the privilege of holding funds with banks.
No thanks.
Elections are won by the party that has the most detailed information about the voters.
If a government has access to people's spending patterns it can work out who exactly to target. Tough luck for any opposition party.
I wonder if the individuals who say they are worried about what the Government knows about them have bothered to restrict the personal information that the likes of Amazon, Facebook, etc has? The huge numbers of otherwise sensible people that let the world and his wife know when they are away on holiday and their DOB is frankly staggering. Do we all know that posting about your upcoming holiday on social media could invalidate your house insurance in the event of a burglary?
*Any Government Dept. or other body that legitimately acquires your data for a particular purpose cannot share them willy-nilly with other parties. The data remain confidential in their hands. (There are gateways for the sharing of data but they are limited and relate to things like the detection or prevention of crime.) Indeed, in many cases, the sharing of confidential data without a legitimate gateway would be a crime. It is also a crime committed by the individual Government official which makes it even less likely that it would happen. In the main, civil servants do not want to lose their job and pension and end up in gaol. (By way of example S352 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, sets out the punishment.)
Thanks for such a sane and sensible summary....
"I see the spending pattern algorithm on Mike Hunt has picked up he's only bought single ply toilet paper again. Can someone post him a half price voucher for the two ply one from Cashelle. That'll learn the marxist bastard".
You live and learn.
PS: Out of interest, what's your DoB and post code?
London's Oyster card: Are its days numbered?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58197631Shopping with cash rises for first time in a decade
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67636571So does that mean we can expect signs to go up saying "no credit cards"? No, of course not. They like you to use credit cards.
Ultimately it's about choice and the option should be there to pay however you want to. The idea that a shop wont sell you something because you want to pay with a form of legal tender they don't particularly like because it's too much hassle for them is absolutely ridiculous and should be banned. Legal tender is legal tender and should be accepted anywhere.
Credit cards tend to be used for infrequent high ticket items where the cost can be spread (and Section 75 protection applies).
So combined - cards account for over 80% of all purchases. Cash is hardly 'king' anymore but of course, as you say, should be retained to give choice. There may well be a tipping point though - 90%, 95%?
As they point out, it is entirely a matter for the vendors to decide what they will accept in payment.
The sad truth is that cash handling is a very expensive business. No one wants to pay to have staff tally up the money at the end of the day, nor pay G4S a fortune to securely collect it. Mix in the physical risks associated with such transactions as seen in old TV series like The Sweeney together with the losses from petty pilfering and the reduced opportunities to swerve the taxman and the attractions of a cash-free society start to make more sense.
Edited to add: Contrary to popular opinion, in the days of cash, things priced at £9.99 for example, were not to sucker the punter into thinking that they weren't paying £10 really but to effectively force the shop assistant to open the till to provide a receipt and some change rather than just pocket the money. Nowadays, there is really no point in using this silly pricing structure but it seems to continue.
A lot of older people just find cash transactions more straightforward . To lose a card a can be a nightmare for many older folk.