|
Banks cancel charges as a favor to you as a client. They really don't have to do it, they could just have everyone buy fraud insurance that would have those protections. If someone steals my information, and commits bank/wire fraud that is a crime that needs to be reported and prosecuted. Criminal charges would be pursued by the state while a civil suit would have to be pursued against the accused to recover the funds/damages. Banks are hesitant to cancel charges when the victim knows the accused because the chances of it being a scam are much higher than in the case of random cases. This is why I avoid the use of debit transactions and cheques in favor of credit cards. The bank has to go after the fraudster themselves while I have more protections.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
cowofwar posted:Banks cancel charges as a favor to you as a client. They really don't have to do it, they could just have everyone buy fraud insurance that would have those protections. Um no, they do it because when you notify them of theft or fraud, they are legally obligated to cancel those charges. You have legal protections even for debit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Um no, they do it because when you notify them of theft or fraud, they are legally obligated to cancel those charges. You have legal protections even for debit. Yep, your liability is limited to $50 if you notify the bank in a timely manner, and they usually just refund everything. I'm also trying to imagine filing a civil suit against some guy in Russia who stole your money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 22:52
|
|
cowofwar posted:Banks cancel charges as a favor to you as a client. They really don't have to do it, they could just have everyone buy fraud insurance that would have those protections. I don't what crazy Candyland you live in where people spell "check" with a "q" and banks do favors for their customers, but here in the USA, they absolutely do "have to do it," unless you've signed away your rights under the EFTA. Your exposure is potentially worse with debit cards, since you have a 60-day limit to notice the activity, but you are still entitled to the return of stolen funds (minus up to $500 depending on how long it takes you to notify the bank) if you don't miss the deadline. Also, in the story I related, I specifically noted the bank's reluctance to proceed with legal remedies. When someone opens up accounts in your name, the fraud has been committed against the financial institution, not against you. It's never your responsibility to play gumshoe and track down criminal fraudsters, but that is exactly what Bank of America tried to tell the victim in my anecdote. Edit: "Band of America" Centripetal Horse fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Um no, they do it because when you notify them of theft or fraud, they are legally obligated to cancel those charges. You have legal protections even for debit. quote:In the United States, consumer liability for unauthorized electronic money transfers on debit cards is covered by Regulation-E of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.[8] The extent of consumer liability, as detailed in section 205.6, is determined by the speed with which the consumer notifies the bank. If the bank is notified within 2 business days, the consumer is liable for $50. Over two business days the consumer is liable for $500, and over 60 business days, the consumer liability is unlimited. In contrast, all major credit card companies have a zero liability policy, effectively eliminating consumer liability in the case of fraud. Basically if I steal your credit card and make a transaction without your pin you would be protected within a certain window of time but if I guessed or got your pin code you would generally be held liable because your pin probably broke one of their many rules. Like if your pin was your birth year you would be held liable. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Lol, no. You give out sensitive financial information every day. It's printed on your frigging checks. Giving someone the login to your online banking account does not make it legal for them to order checks and rob you blind. Bank account info isn't the same as a banking login, though. The agreements I've read generally say if you give your password to someone you authorize them to act for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Bank account info isn't the same as a banking login, though. The agreements I've read generally say if you give your password to someone you authorize them to act for you. Holy, poo poo, further reading on the reddit thread: quote:I work in a bank fraud dept and just had a case exactly like this. Girl met someone on Instagram, they convinced her to mail them her debit card and give them her login information. Then they used mobile deposit to deposit a bunch of counterfeit checks, and used her debit card to withdraw a bunch of cash at various ATMs. They also convinced her to go into the bank and withdraw cash and Western Union it to them. By the end of it she owed us thousands of dollars after the checks bounced. It's so sad, but we can't protect people from their own naivete. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Also, in the story I related, I specifically noted the bank's reluctance to proceed with legal remedies. When someone opens up accounts in your name, the fraud has been committed against the financial institution, not against you. It's never your responsibility to play gumshoe and track down criminal fraudsters, but that is exactly what Bank of America tried to tell the victim in my anecdote. Yes, but that's not what happened, it was her account, not one they setup in her name, and she gave them information to access if on her behalf. This isn't a fraud, it's theft. They stole her money, they didn't take out loans with her identity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Taco Box posted:Man, it used to be that way. Lowered expectations are good with money TM Better than that! According to Buddhists, lowered expectations are the path to nirvana.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
fruition posted:It just irks you to the core that people exist who can afford to spend money without worrying about it, huh? Mitt?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/evolution-dark-web-successor-to-silk-road-mysteriously-vanishes/quote:Someone claiming to be the vendor "SterlingSilver" on Evo, who said he or she specialized in credit card details from the United Kingdom, told Ars that he or she had "approximately 15 bitcoins" (over $4,000) in escrow at the time of the shutdown. It's like the perfect storm of buttcoin, fraudulent transactions, and dummies getting fleeced. Who'd have thunk people would steal from criminals? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
AgrippaNothing posted:Mitt? Engineer who's pissed that he can't sit at the big boys' table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
AgrippaNothing posted:Mitt? Honestly, I was expecting more from you. I'm not Mitt but I wish I had his accountant. I'm bad with money because I couldn't figure out how to lower my tax bill from $130,000 in 2014, I'd rather pay it than risk an audit. Oxxidation posted:Engineer who's pissed that he can't sit at the big boys' table. Not an engineer, and I'll be at the big boys' table soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, we get it, you have a higher than average income. Can this derail end and we can go back to posting stories that are objectively bad with money instead of pissing at what discretionary spending should be for different income brackets?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
quote:Why it's harder for women to save for retirement http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-its-harder-for-women-to-save-for-retirement/ I've experienced the "safer" investing with the women in my family. Even my grandmother who saves a ton of money has stayed pretty much exclusively with CDs her entire life. It's too late now as she's pushing 70, but I don't think she ever put much thought into index or mutual funds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
AgrippaNothing posted:Mitt? fruition posted:I'm not Mitt but I wish I had his accountant. I'm bad with money because I couldn't figure out how to lower my tax bill from $130,000 in 2014, I'd rather pay it than risk an audit. You guys both look equally dumb. It's a race to the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-its-harder-for-women-to-save-for-retirement/ I've always been taught women are more risk adverse than men as a general rule but I just skimmed through a few papers and there's no statistical difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I've always been taught women are more risk adverse than men as a general rule but I just skimmed through a few papers and there's no statistical difference. My grandparents put virtually their entire life savings in the stock market, something like 350k, and lost it all. My aunt followed their example and did the same thing. No idea what they all actually invested it in. Regardless, it terrified my father and uncle enough to where they're incredibly risk adverse, but they've also saved a lot of money which they'll be passing down to their kids.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-its-harder-for-women-to-save-for-retirement/ It didn't really go into detail, but I wonder if they tried to pick people with similar ages in similar fields, that would probably be the most telling. A few things that could greatly skew the numbers: 1. One argument is that women earn less than men, so by default sure that makes sense they would have less saved. I don't know enough about this to say on way or another, but I know it's claimed to be a big problem. 2. Another argument is that a lot of well paying jobs (STEM and the like) have a higher percentage of men. 3. Women leaving/re-entering the workforce to raise children. I dunno, could be a fairly useless survey as they typically are. Anecdotally I'm glad I'm around because I don't think it would occur to my wife to put much thought into retirement. She's on-board with the meager saving that we DO do, I just don't think she would give it much thought if I didn't push the issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
There really isn't enough data there to guess as to why. Maybe it's the ultra wealthy men skewing the numbers. Or maybe women have a tendency to retire when they have enough money to, while men are more likely to just keep building wealth. Maybe more women are in govt jobs and are counting on pensions. Also, no idea how they're handling married couples in those numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Maybe life expectancy contributes to it? Odds are, a wife is going to outlive her husband so there might be an inclination to invest more cautiously because you've got more years (and potentially one fewer income) to plan for. I'm not saying ladies think, "Bob's blood pressure is up, better put money into bonds", but perhaps it has a statistically significant impact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:It didn't really go into detail, but I wonder if they tried to pick people with similar ages in similar fields, that would probably be the most telling. A few things that could greatly skew the numbers: It'd be easy to do the analysis as a percentage of lifetime earnings, or control for mean yearly income, I'd be surprised if no such study exists but I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
quote:Women also tend to be more conservative savers. More than 68 percent keep their money in cash, which means that savings doesn't grow or earn dividends. quote:According to the results, the average female investor keeps 68 percent of her portfolio in cash and cash equivalents, such as money market funds, Treasury bills and certificates of deposit, which have a low-risk, low-return profile. By comparison, men allocate 59 percent of their portfolios to cash. Words, how do they work? (that still seems like a lot in cash for both genders, but I'm guessing that may be skewed by the large number of people who have very little saved)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:(that still seems like a lot in cash for both genders, but I'm guessing that may be skewed by the large number of people who have very little saved) I keep 100% of my savings in cash* *is broke, only has $20 in pocket*
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
I was 12 hours away from my power being shut off. In Feb we put everything on auto-pay. Or so we thought. I just happened to read the mailer today which came in last week, usually a bill, and noticed it said past due. Lucked out that I caught it in time but drat that was silly of me to overlook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
BossRighteous posted:I was 12 hours away from my power being shut off. In Feb we put everything on auto-pay. Or so we thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
BossRighteous posted:I was 12 hours away from my power being shut off. In Feb we put everything on auto-pay. Or so we thought. That's ok. When I first move out to go to college, I didn't put the gas bill on autopay like I thought I did, and I just ignored the mail. A year later they came to shut off my gas unless I paid it on the spot. It came out to around $110.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/2zm5pd/22_year_old_in_us_in_decent_amount_of_debt/ quote:I am a 22 year old living in California and I have got myself into quite the hole over the last few years. I have been working at a MMJ dispensary since I was 18 as an independent contractor (I am a delivery driver and I am assuming the company is set up like this for the companies benefit). I was completely oblivious to what being a 1099 worker meant and pretty much blew off doing any taxes since I began working there. Well that finally has caught up to me and the IRS sent me a letter about a month ago regarding 3 years of back taxes I am going to need to pay. Here is what I earned over that time period: http://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/2zj9zh/i_just_found_out_im_the_victim_of_a_scam/ quote:So, here's the story (inb4 I'm an idiot): SiGmA_X fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Stolennosferatu posted:That's ok. When I first move out to go to college, I didn't put the gas bill on autopay like I thought I did, and I just ignored the mail. A year later they came to shut off my gas unless I paid it on the spot. My version of this: I could have sworn my rent included gas and heat, not just heat. Never signed up for gas. I figured out my error six months later, when the super came over to see why my gas had gone out. About the same total as you, and it took them a week to turn it back on (would have been nice of them to try contacting the resident at my address before it came to that). But the account was never in arrears under my name, so...good with money?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:http://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/2zm5pd/22_year_old_in_us_in_decent_amount_of_debt/ Yeah these weed shops in Denver try to get away with that kind bullshit too. Contractor wages were common in some of the dispensaries. Either that or they pay just over minimum wage with less benefits than McDonalds. Every single weed shop owner probably votes democrat but when it comes to their business they're just as lovely as every big business owner. On another note working at a pot shop is really loving bad with life/money. Want to get a job in another state or industry? lol try to explain your budtender job or the massive unemployment gap because you couldn't put "bud tender" on your resume
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
So Bellevue is awful, but is Woodinville? Because I'm kinda thinking of moving there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Comrade Flynn posted:So Bellevue is awful, but is Woodinville? Because I'm kinda thinking of moving there. There's a bunch of winerys so that's nice. It's too long of a commute to downtown imo. 522 is a nice bus though. If you can telecommute it's doable. The houses are nearly as expensive as Seattle though so I don't see a big benefit unless you want a mcmansion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Comrade Flynn posted:So Bellevue is awful, but is Woodinville? Because I'm kinda thinking of moving there. Well that makes you a mcmansion dwelling suburbanite who will eventually be driven to commit suicide by his lovely commute on 405.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:There's a bunch of winerys so that's nice. It's too long of a commute to downtown imo. 522 is a nice bus though. If you can telecommute it's doable. The houses are nearly as expensive as Seattle though so I don't see a big benefit unless you want a mcmansion. I technically have a Woodinville address but am in Snohomish County - cheaper taxes and the neighborhood is mostly ramblers on plats of 0.75 acres and up. Kind of the anti-Mcmansion neighborhood, rural-lite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
So many Washingtonians. I wish I could afford to live anywhere within a 30 minute radius of Seattle. I am moving to Olympia this summer though. Definitely a step up from central Washington...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Living in Washington, good with money, or bad with money? Low taxes but high cost of living.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Is there any state where "low taxes" isn't completely offset by sales tax and other various increases? NH has no sales & income tax, but WA has some of the highest sales tax in the nation. Which is regressive, so it's even worse to be poor/lower/middle class than income tax which is much more forgiving to low incomes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
xie posted:Is there any state where "low taxes" isn't completely offset by sales tax and other various increases? NH has no sales & income tax, but WA has some of the highest sales tax in the nation. Which is regressive, so it's even worse to be poor/lower/middle class than income tax which is much more forgiving to low incomes. It all depends on how much you spend and whether you own a house or not. If you save 60+% of your income and make a good salary, living in a low income tax state probably saves you money. Also, there's states like California that have pretty high sales AND income taxes, so you are getting screwed unless you own a house and take advantage of low property taxes. And then depending on how much you actually pay, you might be able to use the taxes as an itemized deduction on your federal taxes. But then AMT might eliminate those savings. Basically, it's all complicated and depends on individual circumstances. ChipNDip fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Not only does Washington not have an income tax, our property tax isn't bad either http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Shadowgate posted:Not only does Washington not have an income tax, our property tax isn't bad either http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state Yeah. Washington owns for higher incomes. So glad I started my business here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:23
|
|