I tried getting her a card, but none of the local banks would do it, and even the prepaid cards that you buy at supermarkets will not allow you to activate in your name unless you are a certain age. I finally found a card with FamZoo that worked for her, but it was way more difficult than it should have been finding a way for her to legally buy ice cream from that store.
I am paying closer attention when I go to a brick and mortar store these days, and I am seeing more and more signs advising customers that their cash is no good there.
This is a scourge that is starting to get out of control. My HOA advised me that I would only be able to pay them using a money transfer app. When I tried using it, it rejected my bank account information for some reason. I sent them a check with a letter explaining that their required method of payment didn't work for me. They didn't deposit the check, and then they tried charging me late fees. I had to go out of my way to escalate to resolve that.
This is getting to the point that we will need some regulation to protect the right to pay for ordinary things like ice cream and HOA dues with cash and checks.
It should be illegal for any business to refuse cash payment, full stop.
I've heard some cities have already passed laws in this vein, it should be made universal. Homeless people or otherwise marginalized groups are often limited to cash only transactions, that shouldn't mean they can't participate in commerce. Hell even just victims of identity theft can find themselves unable to get a bank account or credit card, cash should always be an option.
No. We should just have legislation ensuring that anyone can go to any post office or bank and exchange cash for a prepaid card. The same way you've been able to exchange cash for a money order at the post office for... well, as long as I've been alive, that's for sure.
Managing physical cash and registers is a huge headache that costs businesses a lot of money (not to mention risk of violent crime), and just doesn't make any sense when less than 5% of your customers want to use it. Not to mention cash is unhygienic, takes energy and carbon to make, transport, and process, and constantly needs to be replenished.
Let's not impede the future. Instead, let's help it along but make sure it works for everyone.
It should be illegal to not accept into your possession a physical object that people will use violence to get from you? Do you know the fear a shift manager has when having to manage an onsite safe? You've seen the armored trucks rolling around transporting the stuff right?
Businesses don't want to accept cash because its a liability and the burden of a card's surcharge just isn't enough of a pain anymore.
In this way they can avoid people paying in cash by never taking orders that might use cash.
You can also just get a second credit card and give it to your kid and have your kid make purchases in your name since the ice cream shop isn’t likely to care.
You could also load a card onto her phone and have her pay with that.
Every 11 year old in my neighborhood in the US solved this problem, so I wish you the best of luck with your struggle.
I know this comment doesn't address your absolutely legit larger concerns, but for anyone else in this situation: I'm having a good experience using Greenlight (https://www.greenlightcard.com/) as a solution for my pre-teen kids.
https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/coinstar-helps-out-georgia-ma...
Europe is also pretty good about cash, at least the parts that aren't the uk and fennoscandia.
I was almost about to empathize but this is hilariously poor problem solving skills
Sorry your experience leads you to this path
The common denominator is your crappy bank
For the record, I know how to get her plastic. There's literally one store right now where this is an issue for her, and I'm not going to jump through any hoops at all (like continuing to pay the monthly fee for a FamZoo card or switch banks) just to accommodate that store.
And said "crappy bank" is a well-known investment bank. Supporting minor accounts isn't profitable for them.
Even in Europe there is progress over the USA. Chip and Pin is all some people have known, the idea that you should have a signature or a cheque is just unimaginable, only old people could remember that.
Cash is not without its costs. Bitcoin isn't the answer. The credit cards take a slice of everything, what we really need is a government that can make a payment system work for everyone, the customer and the retailer, with nobody taking their slice or selling your data. It just needs will.
In this person’s case, they should’ve reported Chase’s actions to their state’s attorney general, their state’s financial services regulatory body, the CFPB, the OCC, and the Federal Reserve, in order to generate a robust and and comprehensive paper trail. Sometimes, this resolves an issue when compliance becomes aware a paper trail has been started. Failing that, it’s easier to hand over reference and case tracking numbers to legislators to reference and obtain documentation directly versus your own complaint package.
Also, just don’t use Chase. They’re a garbage too big to fail institution. Lots of better banks out there, but also don’t report security vulnerabilities yourself for your banking relationships. Provide them to an arms length third party to report them who can’t be impacted by retaliatory behavior.
(advice provided from personal experiences)
Yes, there are 3 companies that aggregate your credit information. However, the scores used by lenders are generated by 1 company, FICO. All TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian do is receive your credit information from lenders (lenders can choose which bureaus they report to) and make FICO scores available for lenders to purchase. As some else mentioned the lenders chose this. Lenders decided that they wanted to know what people’s lending history was with other lenders before they would be willing to lend. Obviously if a lender looks at your full credit report they get more info but plenty of lenders have decided to set internal rules were if your score doesn’t meet a certain threshold they don’t bother looking at the rest of your report. There are states that have started proposing legislation limiting what credit checks can be used for (such as not being able to use them as a requirement for renting an apartment). But honestly unless lenders either stop caring about your credit history or they are told they can’t check it there isn’t really anything to be done.
There is one alternative that might help from a credit score standpoint in Canada the CreditVision scoring algorithm is used instead of the FICO score. From what I understand CreditVision is a more sophisticated algorithm that weights trending data more so it helps people who are improving their credit have a higher score sooner. From what I understand Canada moved to it because it is supposed to be more fair than what they were using previously.
I’m pretty sure all the big financial institutions also calculate their own scores. I can see it when I login to BoA, Chase, Citi, etc.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-is-a-credit-sc...
> Keep in mind there is no “one” credit score. It is important to know that you do not have just “one” credit score and there are many credit scores available to you as well as to lenders. Any credit score depends on the data used to calculate it, and may differ depending on the scoring model, the source of your credit history, the type of loan product, and even the day when it was calculated.
Edit: It looks like the government might mandate FICO scores for taxpayer funded home mortgages:
https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/which-credit-sco...
> When you apply for a mortgage, lenders will generally request all three of your credit reports (one from each credit bureau) and a FICO® Score based on each report. However, the type of FICO® Scores they request are often older versions, due to guidelines set by government-backed mortgage companies Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
> There are exceptions, though. Mortgage lenders could use different credit scoring models for loans that aren't secured or bought by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. You might even be able to get a mortgage if you don't have a credit history or score at all.
I was for the first half of my adult life a renter and never once had a problem getting a lease; I bought a condo in Chicago, then later a house in Ann Arbor, and then a house in Chicagoland where I am now; again, no credit-score-related problems. I've been able to rent cars. Buying things on credit has been the only sticking point --- and I don't understand why people do that.
Not even a secured card?
I used to lend on Prosper specifically to help people avoid this system - but it's important to remember that the whole thing is opt-in.
at my level of income, I am not really concerned, I have enough buffer that all my transactions can shake out no problem. At lower incomes, consumers are very sensitive to transactions settling too fast or too slow. A bill is due on the same day as payroll? Probably a 50% chance to collect either an overdraft fee or a late bill fee and you have no control over it. Get enough of those and your only resort will be fee-laden prepaid cards or cash-only.
Almost 2/3rds of Americans are 'paycheck to paycheck'. Do not scoff at this. Access to simple electronic payments needs to be equitable.
Per my understanding, these sort of rewards program dont really exist in other countries though.
I don't see how having more of them really helps; nor how having (say) the government operate the service would help.
I have less (consumer financial) accounts than that spread across multiple institutions, never mind credit cards.
Their various products (Freedom, Freedom Unlimited, Sapphire, Sapphire Preserved, Sapphire Reserve, Business Ink, and maybe a few others) all generate the same currency (Ultimate Rewards) but do so in different ways:
* The Freedom offers 5% (5 points per dollar) on a rotating set of categories that change each quarter. For instance, right now the categories are Gas Stations and Home Improvement stores, so put those purchases on that card (there's no annual fee), and 1% on everything else
* The Sapphire Reserve offers 3% on dining, travel and 1% on everything else. It ALSO allows you to redeem Ultimate Rewards points at 1.5x the value. It has plenty of other perks and a significant annual fee, so whether it's worth it depends on your lifestyle, but for many people it is.
* The Freedom Unlimited offers 1.5% on all other purchases, so it's a good fallback. No annual fee so no problem keeping it around.
The other cards have their own quirks as well. The point is that you can accumulate reward points on the various cards depending on the category of the purchase and them consolidate them all into one card (the Sapphire Reserve) for maximum value.
People who are truly dedicated will go even further and point out that technically, for optimum value, you shouldn't just redeem the UR points for cash/travel purchases and should instead transfer them as airline miles to various partners, but I've never found it worth it personally, as while I enjoy travelling my tier of travel is strictly coach to a variety of locations, not trying to save up 3 years of points for a first class flight to Dubai.
What are the spending requirements for the game to be worth it in money terms? And then there is the part where the game turns into work (I see keeping track of the several accounts mentioned above as a chore).
The only one with an annual fee generally provides benefits of value beyond the fee, the others at least provided some value when I got them, and there's not much negative to having them, so I only close accounts if the bank is annoying (like Chase; not doing business with them again if I have a choice). Although I did close one last year because I was tired of remembering to use it once a year to keep it active.
Also chase incentivizes you to open up more than one card with their signup bonuses.
Is this a real thing? I've always had 1 card and highest credit score.
Having multiple cards seems like a risk of taking on excess debt.
My main credit card has all sorts of incentives to open more lines that I don't pay any attention to.
I don't do anything that complicated myself, but I do have several cashback cards with different rewards categories to maximize my overall cashback rate. I don't particularly care which bank issues the card; I just decide based on signup bonus + rewards. I don't actually have any use for credit (lol) so I sign up for at least one new card every year. I just keep my credit score high enough that I don't get denied for new cards.
There's been some talk over the years that The Points Guy (who's often considered a shill in credit card churning communities) pushes Chase cards so hard because they offer him the best kickbacks.
The US credit score while it has its problems at least as well known rules of what impacts it. I know that if I have a good high credit score I can get a mortgage with a decent interest rate whereas, in other countries, there's no score I can check to know what my chances are and no public way to evaluate how banks see me and if they are likely to approve me or not.
Edit: the Dutch bkr, for instance, has recently been sued for charging users to access their database of payment histories. This is important because that record is provided to companies wishing to make credit decisions about an individual. It's also noteworthy that the Dutch in general don't really go in for credit cards the way Americans do, so they interact with that part of the financial system less. That in turn makes for much less interesting "credit reports".
Can't we architect an asset-based economy, rather than debt-based? It would be more resiliant, and the trifecta of credit reporting agencies wouldn't hold any particular power over our economy.
One might argue that one of the most important factors contributing to the US’ economic power is the existence of a reliable credit (and court) system for lending money, enabling it to grow far quicker than others.
In such an economy, debt would be as relevant if not more so, due to the fact that as asset prices rise the only way for many to buy in is to borrow.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset-based_economy#:~:text=Th....
So we can reduce risk of default and get lower interest rates. Mortgages sucked a lot before credit scores.
Credit scores have many problems, but are pretty useful for getting credit.
Bank accounts are guilty until proven innocent in the USA.
"It's a tax warrant, we process them entirely uncritically, steal the money" is not worth $150.
It was around 620 by the time I got around to opening new cards.
I think the crash was mainly due to the length of my average active credit history going from 10 years to 0 years, as I really did only use Chase credit cards.
If I remember correctly all hard inquiries that happen within a 30 day window get bundled together on your credit report. This allows people to shop around for credit cards when opening a new one without killing your credit score. So opening all of the new cards would have added a hard inquiry but it would have caused the number of lines of credit and average age of credit to start increasing thereby causing the credit score to start rising from the score when all of the accounts were terminated.
I'm doing this with Amex now, ever since one of their customer service reps gave me wrong information about a benefit, I relied on it (it was multiple transactions totalling $300), and Amex (after much investigation) closed the issue by citing their terms and conditions and not having my back, despite customer service saying that they'll always make good on the promise since chats are logged.
I used to be a huge fan of Amex and their customer service, but they treat customers like numbers all the same, like every other large financial organization.
2. Just open a new one. If you really can't get one, try here: https://myfirstcenturybank.com/ They open Bank Accounts for Russian criminals. Hence, should be hard to open one yourself.
ABSOLUTELY.
There is an old saying "Never stay with with the same Bank, Insurance Company, or lawyer for more than two years. Otherwise they think they own you."
While I think that 'two years' is a little paranoid, I like the overall gist of the saying.
Just some food for thought.
