On 12-10-2009 22:10, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 12-10-2009 21:48, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> A factor might be that it is almost impossible to disappear here, so 
>>>> there is no point in not paying. 
>>>
>>> I rather suspect it's more the other way around, really.
>>
>> is it?
> 
> Yes. If you can't even buy a tank full of gas without being tracked by 
> your bank, chances are you're not going to do a good job of 
> disappearing. You yourself said you don't know many people who get paid 
> in cash, right?

right, possibly none.

We also have a rather well functioning person administration in the city 
counsel (or whatever you call that). You can not move into a house 
without notifying the city and telling where you came from (Yes in many 
cases you need a permit to live in a particular city. I can not just go 
into a house in a city that I don't work in or have some other 
connection with, but don't ask me details). I think you also need to 
tell the city you leave where you are going to, if you don't you still 
have to pay city taxes. Sounds like big brother but works well. (Too 
well if you are a jewish citizen in the German occupied Netherlands in 
1940-1945)

>>> Not particularly.  We just do checks differently than you do. :-)
>>>
>> and credit cards and some other things as well.
> 
> What's different about the credit cards?

Not entirely sure because I don't know the US system that well.

Needing a certain income to get one and sometimes not being allowed to 
go below zero on the account that is coupled to it might be one 
difference. Perhaps even the fact that it is coupled to a specific bank 
account and issued by that bank. We have a maximum amount we can charge 
the card for per month, irrespective of the balance on your account 
(though the amount is a function of income, I think roughly one month of 
salary on that account in most cases). Variation do exist.
I have been in trouble once in NZ when I nearly could not pay the rent 
of the apartment we rented for a couple of weeks when I was working 
there. The amount exceeded what I was allowed to draw on that card for 
that month. I had more than enough on my account but could not reach it. 
(for some reasons it worked when I split the amount in small steps 
trying to figure out where the limit was exactly). I should have 
informed my bank that I needed a temporary increase in my limit. I did 
not think about that.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Sounds like big brother but works well. (Too 
> well if you are a jewish citizen in the German occupied Netherlands in 
> 1940-1945)

Yeah. Works great, until it doesn't. :-) We still have enough problems here 
(discrimination problems, illegal immigrant problems, etc) that we still 
have it clear in national memory why you can't really trust the government 
to stick up for you or obey its own laws.  Also perhaps because we have a 
whole crapload of different jurisdictions, legally speaking.

We don't really have to tell anyone where we're going. If the landlord 
doesn't ask, nobody cares.

In China not too many decades ago, you had to get permission from your boss 
to change jobs, houses, or get married, so I think there's a full scale out 
there.

> Needing a certain income to get one 

That's up to the bank that's lending you the money. It's a *credit* card, 
after all. You don't need anything to get a debit card.

> and sometimes not being allowed to 
> go below zero on the account that is coupled to it might be one 
> difference. 

Credit cards aren't coupled to accounts with money in them. Those are debit 
cards here.  (I.e., you have a credit card account, but it's a credit 
account, so there's no money in the account.)

> Perhaps even the fact that it is coupled to a specific bank 
> account and issued by that bank. 

We have that here, yes. Some specific bank has to loan you the money.

> We have a maximum amount we can charge 
> the card for per month, irrespective of the balance on your account 

Well, these are all rules determined by the bank giving you the card. 
There's a maximum amount of money they'll loan you before they start 
declining the card, but there's no way they can just (for example) take 
money out of your bank account if you don't pay them back. They'd actually 
have to get the government to take your money and pay them.

> I had more than enough on my account but could not reach it. 

Yes, it sounds more like you're describing a debit card or an ATM card here. 
(What Visa likes to call a "check card" here, because it's effectively like 
writing a check.)

A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
getting a loan for a house.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 22:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That is what we found out. 
> 
> We *do* have banks that *do* all those money changes. It's just not 
> every bank carrying around wads of foreign currency that nobody is 
> likely to ask for soon. Of course pretty much anywhere can give you 
> canadian money or mexican money.

Sure, but for us the whole concept of a bank was handling money 
including changing into a different currency.

>>> Sure. We don't trust our government.
>> I know, weird concept if you ask me. ;)
> 
> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)

yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
can not be trusted.

> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.

No, *your* government, not mine.

>> Children do have bank accounts. 
> 
> Huh, OK.

Needing a countersign from one of the parents until they are 16 or so of 
course.

>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>> customer-focused.
>>
>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
> 
> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  

I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

> It's more mistrust from people who 
> have been robbed by their banks. Maybe the USA will get there pretty 
> soon, but it's mostly "hispanic" ethnicities that I have heard distrust 
> banks. (That being folks from central america who speak spanish as their 
> main language.)
> 
> You can imagine that if you grew up in a country where feudalism was 
> rampant, you too might not trust the local government to hold onto your 
> money for you.

Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
meaning to you)

Post a reply to this message

On 12-10-2009 23:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

> Yes, it sounds more like you're describing a debit card or an ATM card 
> here. (What Visa likes to call a "check card" here, because it's 
> effectively like writing a check.)

Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and mine 
is a mastercard issued by my bank.

> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
> getting a loan for a house.

For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be a 
relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)
> 
> yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
> can not be trusted.

What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-)  I'm asking would *you* trust *our* government.

>> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
>> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.
> 
> No, *your* government, not mine.

That's what I'm saying, yes.  I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you to 
trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it is for 
*me* to trust *my* government to that extent.

> Needing a countersign from one of the parents until they are 16 or so of 
> course.

Oh, alright. :-)

>>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>>> customer-focused.
>>>
>>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
>>
>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  
> 
> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.

I trust banks more than the government, perhaps. Firstly, there's 
competition between banks. Secondly, they're after money, not power.

> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
> meaning to you)

I'm not an unbridled capitalist. There are lots of stuff that make sense to 
enforce everyone paying for (for various definitions of "pay").

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a nut-case. I don't even particularly distrust 
"the government."  But I think giving petty bureaucrats decision powers over 
individuals can lead to bad results. If it's up to some bureaucrat to take 
action to let you do something reasonable, then it's not uncommonly going to 
lead to corruption and nastiness. (Now, informing the old tax authority that 
you're not paying taxes there and informing the new tax authority you are 
isn't what I'd call petty actions over individuals. I'm talking about stuff 
like getting *permission* to move in the first place.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and mine 
> is a mastercard issued by my bank.

It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing network, 
but which the bank treats as withdraws.

>> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
>> getting a loan for a house.
> 
> For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be a 
> relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.

Could be.  It's certainly possible to use it responsibly.  I'd have to look 
at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've also 
heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or so were 
caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, but I have nothing 
better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like that, I'd 
want to go to the sources.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 0:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> Damn. Would *you* trust our government?  :-)
>>
>> yes, because I trust mine. I would first need personal proof that they 
>> can not be trusted.
> 
> What, Iraq wasn't enough? :-)  I'm asking would *you* trust *our* 
> government.

I know, and I said: yes. I stick to that even knowing about Iraq. Of 
course I know that there are many people in your politics that are into 
it solely for their own purposes. That does not mean that the system is 
wrong. It means that you have to not vote for those people.

>>> Seriously, the whole govenment is set up on the prinicple that the 
>>> government can't be trusted, even by the people who set it up.
>>
>> No, *your* government, not mine.
> 
> That's what I'm saying, yes.  I'm not saying it's inappropriate for you 
> to trust your government. I'm saying I'm not sure how approppriate it is 
> for *me* to trust *my* government to that extent.
> 

If you don't do it they will never learn to think about the citizens 
first and themselves next. And campaign and vote for those that you 
trust. That is more important than if what they promise will cost you 
.05% less of your income.

>>>>> That's rather different, yes. Our banks aren't quite as 
>>>>> customer-focused.
>>>>
>>>> And as you wouldn't trust a bank anyway...
>>>
>>> I didn't say *I* don't trust them.  
>>
>> I know you didn't, I was extrapolating from the government remark.
> 
> I trust banks more than the government, perhaps. Firstly, there's 
> competition between banks. Secondly, they're after money, not power.

I trust my government more than the banks. Mainly because the banks are 
after money while the government is trying to prevent people from 
getting into trouble without them doing something wrong. The reason 
being that if you let that pass it will often cost the community more 
than what it costs now. Examples are health care and homelessness.

>> Sure. And if you are brought up here in a socialist country you'd 
>> understand that a good government is the best defence against ruthless 
>> capitalist egoism. (knowingly using words that may have a different 
>> meaning to you)
> 
> I'm not an unbridled capitalist. There are lots of stuff that make sense 
> to enforce everyone paying for (for various definitions of "pay").
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not a nut-case. 

Did I say you were?

> I don't even particularly 
> distrust "the government."  But I think giving petty bureaucrats 
> decision powers over individuals can lead to bad results. If it's up to 
> some bureaucrat to take action to let you do something reasonable, then 
> it's not uncommonly going to lead to corruption and nastiness. (Now, 
> informing the old tax authority that you're not paying taxes there and 
> informing the new tax authority you are isn't what I'd call petty 
> actions over individuals. I'm talking about stuff like getting 
> *permission* to move in the first place.)

In this crowded country there is logic to it. Take a large city like 
Amsterdam. People want to work there because that is where the jobs are. 
Now within an hour driving distance are a couple of smaller towns with 
more green, bigger houses for the same money, and better environment for 
the kids to grow up. So everybody wants to live in those smaller towns. 
Ok now from the perspective of the smaller town: people come live there 
but don't work, don't take part in the local society and don't use the 
local shops. So nearly no income from these people, but they still have 
to do the streets, the lighting and the other infrastructure for them. 
Seen from this perspective anyone wanting to live in their town that is 
working in the big city costs the local community money. Besides they 
will make every town expand to the same density as the big city, 
effectively destroying the whole idea of a smaller town. So they pass a 
law that you have to have a strong relation with the town to live there. 
  Very democratic.

I don't like it that I can not live everywhere that I want, but I 
understand the logic and accept it. The concept is that it may harm me 
now, but will benefit society (and therefore me and my grandchildren) as 
a whole in the long run. A concept that seems to be alien to many Americans.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-10-2009 0:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Indeed that was also my understanding. Still called credit card and 
>> mine is a mastercard issued by my bank.
> 
> It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing 
> network, but which the bank treats as withdraws.
The only differences are that the withdrawals can be settled later and 
not immediately as with our other cards, and that they are accepted abroad.

>>> A credit card here actually gives you money you don't have, just like 
>>> getting a loan for a house.
>>
>> For some reason that concept is not very popular here. There might be 
>> a relation with that and the low number of personal bankruptcies.
> 
> Could be.  It's certainly possible to use it responsibly.  I'd have to 
> look at the statistics to see why there are so many bankruptcies. (I've 
> also heard that most bankruptcies at least until the last few years or 
> so were caused by medical bills. That wouldn't surprise me, 

me neither.

> but I have 
> nothing better than newspaper comments there anyway. For something like 
> that, I'd want to go to the sources.)

seems fair to me.

So what is your government going to do about these medical bankruptcies? 
They do cost the society a lot of money. Both in unpaid bills and 
diminished health that may prevent them from working and paying tax later.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Children do have bank accounts.
> 
> Huh, OK.

I'm 18 and I don't have one. I only own cash.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de 
news:4ad3aa86@news.povray.org...
> It's probably a card that looks like a credit card to the routing network, 
> but which the bank treats as withdraws.

If it's in the Netherlands like in France, people call them credit cards but 
the official term is indeed debit card, and that's what most people have 
here: true credit cards are almost unheard of. During the financial crisis, 
I kept reading about Americans juggling with credit cards and getting into 
debt, which was very confusing to me: with my "credit card" I just can't 
withdraw more money than I have in my account. It took a short trip to 
Wikipedia to understand what was going on, but it was funny to discover that 
this "little" difference leads to different lifestyles, money-wise.

G.

Post a reply to this message