• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do you pay - cash or card?

How do you pay - cash or card?

  • Always with my card

    Votes: 13 20.0%

  • Mostly with my card

    Votes: 32 49.2%

  • Mostly cash

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • Always cash

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • I can't decide

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    65
Dragonfly said:
Isn't this a simple matter of asking your bank or lending institution how they deal with stolen debit cards or numbers?

Talk to your bank. Don't listen to stories from people.

Actually talk to your bank and ask questions. Specifically about fears of debit card fraud and how you'd be protected.

Doesn't that make more sense?
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding
 
Some things require a card, such as purchasing online, buying an airline ticket or renting a car.

Also, large amounts of cash are not secure in terms of the police and government. If you are carrying cash any police officer and the TSA/DHS can seize it and basically just keep it. We have done fairly big ticket cash purchasing on cars we traveled to pay for and pick up - not willing to pay until we see it and wanting the car when we do - usually arriving on a weekend. However, in carrying such cash we only have 1 theft concern - and a real one. That government or armed robbers in police uniforms (because they are police) will rob us of the money.
 
I love how people keep saying that the government wants to track down every transaction. As if private companies don't have an interest in recording their every movement in a way that is fireproof, water damage proof, theft proof, accessible to workers and most of all transferable. Not to mention it's pragmatic to work with cards for accounting reasons, marketing reasons, etc. But nooooooo! It's the government. We know banks and major companies would rather work like it's the 1910s again.
 
brothern said:
LMAO! I don't care about "factually true" in all instances. It has been my past job in the financial services to encourage both financial safety and literacy. In this case, it's the point that debit cards should only be used for (1) ATMs or (2) cash back services. Most everything else should be put on credit. It's a proactive step to ensure both your financial health and mine.

Secondly - just because you feel a false sense of security that your bank can bail you out (or your assertion that they will), is exactly the attitude that causes issues like the 2008 financial crisis or our astronomically high levels of personal indebtedness. It's the unwillingness to understand or take ownership over the fact that you're being financial reckless with your money.
Click to expand...

... Maybe I'm wrong... but wasn't the financial crisis caused in large part because people put things (such as houses) on credit and then could not meet the terms and conditions of the credit given when an economic slump took place? So how do you reconcile these two sentences.
 
Hatuey said:
... Maybe I'm wrong... but wasn't the financial crisis caused in large part because people put things (such as houses) on credit and then could not meet the terms and conditions of the credit given when an economic slump took place? So how do you reconcile these two sentences.
Click to expand...
Yes-ish. I'm referring to the attitude, not the credit. :)

Many of those who took out home loans (esp. ARMs) were operating under the assumption that rising real estate prices would justify their risky financial behavior. There's no reason to fear expensive houses or borrowing against your mortgage if the property continues to appreciate in value and more or less hands you equity.

Those who issued the home loans did so with weak and fraudulent standards in an environment with an easy money policy (low Federal interest rates). What worsened the issue is that the issuing banks rid themselves of the risky loans by securitizing them and selling them off to other investors and bigger banks.

... people assumed they were not engaging in risky behavior, and if they did realize it, they passed on the buck.

Moreover credit by itself is not a bad thing. It's incredibly beneficial as it allows capital to be extended to those who need it most. It only becomes a problem when too much credit is issued and consumers become over-indebted or financial institutions are over-leveraged.
 
I always pay with my card which is always paid off at the end of the month and involves no interest. That way I make maximum use of the points or discounts the card offers. The only time this fails is with the purchase of gasoline and the new cash/credit scam. There I use a debit card.
 
Hatuey said:
In this case, it's the point that debit cards should only be used for (1) ATMs or (2) cash back services. Most everything else should be put on credit.
Click to expand...
In this case -- debit or credit card -- we have several federal financial regulations geared at protecting the consumer. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) which governs consumer credit and the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) which governs debit and credit.

With this legislation, consumers are well protected against fraudulent purchases made on credit, up to $50, but are not protected as well when it comes to debit, up to a $500 liability after two days notification. If you miss reporting a fraudulent purchase with a debit card after a billing cycle occurs, you're held liable for the entire amount.

There's a few other points the government holds to banks, but what's important is that you're not well protected when using debit cards and your bank has no obligation to bail you out.

AGENT J said:
like i said, cute story, keep being mad while i keep living in reality where the fact remains your post was wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, if that's your attitude, at least make certain to read the small print on your accounts. Banks give little warning before changing their terms & conditions.

11. Changes to the Terms or Program: Wells Fargo reserves the right to amend, cancel, or temporarily suspend the Program or Your participation in the Program, in whole or in part, or change any of the Terms, at any time for any reason, including without limitation, suspected fraud, abuse of Program privileges or violation of the Terms, as determined in Our sole discretion, which may result in the decrease of redemption value, the cancellation of the ability to earn and/or redeem Rewards Currency, and/or forfeiture of Rewards Currency. We will give You advance written notice of material changes.
Click to expand...

Or in sensible English:

Wells Fargo reserves the right to change any of the Terms, at any time for any reason as determined in our sole discretion.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
Yes-ish. I'm referring to the attitude, not the credit. :)

Many of those who took out home loans (esp. ARMs) were operating under the assumption that rising real estate prices would justify their risky financial behavior. There's no reason to fear expensive houses or borrowing against your mortgage if the property continues to appreciate in value and more or less hands you equity.

Those who issued the home loans did so with weak and fraudulent standards in an environment with an easy money policy (low Federal interest rates). What worsened the issue is that the issuing banks rid themselves of the risky loans by securitizing them and selling them off to other investors and bigger banks.

... people assumed they were not engaging in risky behavior, and if they did realize it, they passed on the buck.

Moreover credit by itself is not a bad thing. It's incredibly beneficial as it allows capital to be extended to those who need it most. It only becomes a problem when too much credit is issued and consumers become over-indebted or financial institutions are over-leveraged.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's not a bad thing. I'm just not sold on the idea, that most everything else should be on credit. If anything, I think people should only make important purchases such as cars and houses on credit, and most everything else with cash. Then again, I have a pretty conservative view on spending. I only buy luxuries if I can reasonably afford them without them becoming a drag on bills which need to be paid.
 
brothern said:
In this case -- debit or credit card -- we have several federal financial regulations geared at protecting the consumer. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) which governs consumer credit and the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) which governs debit and credit.

With this legislation, consumers are well protected against fraudulent purchases made on credit, up to $50, but are not protected as well when it comes to debit, up to a $500 liability after two days notification. If you miss reporting a fraudulent purchase with a debit card after a billing cycle occurs, you're held liable for the entire amount.
Click to expand...

I took a quick scan of the EFTA and as far as I can tell the maximum consumer liability is $50.
 
Canell said:
Hi all

Simple question here: do you pay cash or with your card? :)

I would say that paying with a card is quite dangerous in terms of privacy - the bank knows all your moves and habits, what you buy, where you go and when you go. I'm not comfortable with that to say the least.

So, what do you think? :wink2:
Click to expand...

There is no privacy anymore. I almost always use a card because I find making sure I have cash to be annoying. If I go to a place that doesn't take cards or has a high minimum amount, I tend not to go back there ever again.
 
I'm with a credit union because the fees are lower, and I don't own a credit card anymore. After I paid it off, I tore it up. Debt is usury, and slavery.

I'm not very concerned about the records of my purchases existing on my bank card because I have nothing to hide. What bugged me about bigger banks were the outrageous service fees that are always levied on the middle class, yet the rich people with the banks get all their fees waived. The banks are why the economy has gone to hell and their behaviors persist, so I don't wish to support them.

Paying for things in cash does not necessarily ensure privacy, not as long as the store prints a receipt with a time stamp. If they have a store camera then it would be a simple matter to track the video to the time stamp and see who you are. The government can do pretty much anything now. The only way to ensure your privacy is to fake your identity.

The irony of a government that can track anyone is that they don't necessarily have to do it. The simple psychology of it causes the average person to self-govern. In reality the government can't watch everyone all the time, and the government itself is only as powerful as the people allow it to be. If even 20% of America revolted tomorrow, the ensuing chaos would make the U.S. a second rate power overnight.
 
brothern said:
1.) Well, if that's your attitude, at least make certain to read the small print on your accounts.
2.) Banks give little warning before changing their terms & conditions.



Or in sensible English:

Wells Fargo reserves the right to change any of the Terms, at any time for any reason as determined in our sole discretion.
Click to expand...

1.) no attitude just pointed out the fact your statement was wrong and you got angry
2.) yes this is true and does happen sometimes and can happen with . . . . .credit cards too . . . .which makes your point even more meaningfulness

luckily for me theres no small/fine print for the security/fraud terms.

like i said, cute story, keep being mad while i keep living in reality where the fact remains your post was wrong.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
It's $50 for credit and for debit before 48 hours (aka "unauthorized [electronic] transfers") from http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/efta.pdf

Thieves may also put through test charges of <$5 or spoof merchant information which can really screw up that grace period for debit.
Click to expand...

Regulation E seems somewhat at odds with actual statute which reads in part -

§ 909. Consumer liability

(a) UNAUTHORIZED ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS; LIMIT.--A consumer shall be liable for any unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the account of such consumer only if the card or other means of access utilized for such transfer was an accepted card or other means of access and if the issuer of such card, code, or other means of access has provided a means whereby the user of such card, code, or other means of access can be identified as the person authorized to use it, such as by signature, photograph, or fingerprint or by electronic or mechanical confirmation. In no event, however, shall a consumer's liability for an unauthorized transfer exceed the lesser of--

(1) $50; or

(2) the amount of money or value of property or services obtained in such unauthorized electronic fund transfer prior to the time the financial institution is notified of, or otherwise becomes aware of, circumstances which lead to the reasonable belief that an unauthorized electronic fund transfer involving the consumer's account has been or may be effected. Notice under this paragraph is sufficient when such steps have been taken as may be reasonably required in the ordinary course of business to provide the financial institution with the pertinent information, whether or not any particular officer, employee, or agent of the financial institution does in fact receive such information.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report within sixty days of transmittal of the statement (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a reasonable time under the circumstances) any unauthorized electronic fund transfer or account error which appears on the periodic statement provided to the consumer under section 906. In addition, reimbursement need not be made to the consumer for losses which the financial institution establishes would not have occurred but for the failure of the consumer to report any loss or theft of a card or other means of access within two business days after the consumer learns of the loss or theft (or in extenuating circumstances such as extended travel or hospitalization, within a longer period which is reasonable under the circumstances), but the consumer's liability under this subsection in any such case may not exceed a total of $500, or the amount of unauthorized electronic fund transfers which occur following the close of two business days (or such longer period) after the consumer learns of the loss or theft but prior to notice to the financial institution under this subsection, whichever is less.
Click to expand...


In any case though the regulation speaks of the clock starting once the consumer knows that the card is missing. Reporting it within two days of that is not in any way an onerous requirement.
 
Gaius46 said:
Regulation E seems somewhat at odds with actual statute which reads in part -
Click to expand...
Yeah. The passed law is different than the regulations implemented.

Gaius46 said:
In any case though the regulation speaks of the clock starting once the consumer knows that the card is missing. Reporting it within two days of that is not in any way an onerous requirement.
Click to expand...
No, not onerous at all. Problem is that the far, far majority of people do not know this.
 
brothern said:
Well, if that's your attitude, at least make certain to read the small print on your accounts. Banks give little warning before changing their terms & conditions.

Or in sensible English:

Wells Fargo reserves the right to change any of the Terms, at any time for any reason as determined in our sole discretion.
Click to expand...

Actually, the banks are required to inform their customers, in writing, a certain amount of time before the changes go into effect. I get these warnings from my bank and credit cards all the time. They get to change their rules and you get to either agree to those rules or close your account and pay off whatever you owe them. It's that simple.
 
Cephus said:
Actually, the banks are required to inform their customers, in writing, a certain amount of time before the changes go into effect. I get these warnings from my bank and credit cards all the time. They get to change their rules and you get to either agree to those rules or close your account and pay off whatever you owe them. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
It's incredibly simple. That's why most people don't read them. :p

...

After this thread I've concluded that I would hate more than anything to advise any single one of the DP posters here. If I told any half of DPers it was financially risky to do something, they'd try just that in order to prove me wrong. Then I'd get fired or sued when they lost all their money or had it stolen.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
There is no privacy anymore.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that will all this electronic stuff around us... How much easier would it be to alter a digital 'document'? G. Orwell would have been terrified. :shock: :roll:
 
Mostly cash. I'm not always great at keeping track of how much money is in my account when I use my card more often. You usually know exactly how much cash is on you.
 
Canell said:
Hi all

Simple question here: do you pay cash or with your card? :)

I would say that paying with a card is quite dangerous in terms of privacy - the bank knows all your moves and habits, what you buy, where you go and when you go. I'm not comfortable with that to say the least.

So, what do you think? :wink2:
Click to expand...


I mostly pay with cash. If I need to make online purchases I have a debit card.If I was paranoid about someone tracking my expenses I would get a pre-paid credit card and register it under a bogus name and address.
 
brothern said:
After this thread I've concluded that I would hate more than anything to advise any single one of the DP posters here. If I told any half of DPers it was financially risky to do something, they'd try just that in order to prove me wrong. Then I'd get fired or sued when they lost all their money or had it stolen.
Click to expand...

To be fair - you're nothing but a nameless, faceless, internet screen-name. You expect us to instantly take your word as gospel? That's something that should be frightening isn't it? We don't know you from Adam. You could be a transvestite-communist-nazi-terrorist is Kazikstan hoping to screw over as many people as possible. We don't know. You might also be the dude who sells popcorn at the local movie complex that never made it past 7th grade in school.


What some of us do know is that we've had personal, direct experience with stolen cards and banks that honor and protect their customers and their money.

There are many ways to be safe, and unsafe when dealing with money whether it's cash, credit, or debit.

This particular thread has nothing to do with fraud or theft on that level.
This thread is a conspiracy thread about government/banking/corporate tracking of private purchases and how they might use that information for nefarious ends.

If you'd like to start a new thread about theft and fraud protection of personal assets that might be a valuable thing to have around here.
 
brothern said:
It's incredibly simple. That's why most people don't read them. :p
Click to expand...

That's their problem. I read them. I read the fine print of anything I sign. Stupid, gullible people get what they have coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom