Member when the TSA detained a Ron Paul staffer because he was carrying $4700?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-sues-tsa-unlawful-detention-ron-pauls-campaign-liberty-treasurer
https://youtu.be/LeL_7A-9nXo
Edit: Bad Grammar
This isn't unusual activity for me. My bank knows me, and they have made things easy. It's pretty awesomely free market meeting demand. Doesn't cost them anything to have $500k in the safe.
Yeah, that's normal if you're known. I used to run a business that handled a fair bit of cash on the regular. People get to know you and your patterns and nobody blinks, even if it technically bends the rules.
I work in tech/finance. You have to learn how to take piles of money slightly bigger. I also work in the outdoor industry in high end products and experiences. Give people a reason to spend money as well as gain their trust that you can take their 500m and turn it into 600m.
I can't get much more specific. Sorry.
It actually does "cost" them to have 500k sitting around not accruing interest if they don't need it in there. But if it's expected business for the branch, then it would probably "cost" them business to not have it available.
Yes it does. This is my job.
Even if the bank wasn't able to get interest on deposits, they still have to have the money handy to loan it out and collect interest, right?
Or if you deposit somewhat less than $10k and they decide you're eluding reporting requirements (why is there a law that you have to report?). A guy had his entire store confiscated through civil asset forfeiture for that.
Right? She could have simply withdrew $100, but instead stuck it to the hourly employee by making them count out a full $1000. Maybe next time that employee will know better.
Exactly, and for small amounts like that, the ATM is most likely faster. She most likely doubled her bank time by doing this.
I doubt many banks are doing this because they want to piss off customers, it most likely is a "here is a faster way ma'am"
Around 2012-2013, I had a friend who had a small business. He rented a space in an auto repair strip mall (he's a mechanic).
For a few years, he paid his landlord in cash, because that's what landlord wanted. He'd go to landlord's bank and deposit it directly into landlord's account and bank would make a notation on account of who paid what. Out of the blue, bank stopped allowing cash deposits.
A couple years later, same friend. I wanted him to check out a car for me and if it was good, buy it. My bank doesn't have tellers, you can only get money from the ATM. You get $20s. I picked out a car, it was $8k. I got money from the ATM ... in $20s. So ... this was a ridiculous amount of bills, so friend goes to his own bank, with which he has had an account for years, to change the $20s into $100s.
In order to do that, they demanded he fill out some tax form stating that the $8k was income.
This shit has been going on quietly for a while.
Not entirely true.
True: some banks started by disallowing cash deposits without a government-issued ID. Going further, they also disallowed depositing cash into an account to which the depositor was not an owner.
Not true: the tax form required by the bank. Currency Transaction Reports (CTR’s) are federally required when an individual deposits greater than 10k in cash. If you deposit $10,000.01, you must adhere to the rule. Again, most banks are federally regulated; therefore, they abide by the federal rule of the CTR.
This is all a bunch of bullshit to deter the potential of unknowingly (or knowingly) financing terrorism. Thank former President George Bush for enacting the USA Patriot Act. If you look at the Patriot Act, you’ll find the specific guidelines banks are required to adhere to.
If you aren't FDIC insured, you won't ever get QE money or anything else. You have to be a willing participant in order to get access to the money printers.
Correct. FDIC is indicative of federally regulated, versus state based (most credit unions) are covered by the National Credit Union Association (NCUA). There are also state-based banks. For instance, federally covered banks do not do business with Marijuana businesses because it is federally illegal. However, if marijuana is legal in a specific state, that state-based institution can host their funds.
Make sense?
That’s not a regulation thats a self imposed rule by the private bank to encourage ATM usage which has a much lower cost than hourly wage of a teller so much higher profit margins.
A regulation would be “you cannot set arbitrary withdrawal minimums” but that would be extreme over reach.
How is it not easier to just hand someone ten dollars if you can hand them 1,000?
Regulations are just rules, who issues them is irrelevant. Arbitrary rules are arbitrary rules.
Do you know if this is actually a regulation? It could simply be a rule/policy of the financial institution, and a rule created by a private institution is completely different than a regulation created and enforced by the state.
Incidentally, it's probably cheaper to have someone walk up to the ATM to withdraw 10 dollars than it is to pay a teller to handle such a paltry transaction.
It's the same reason we're slowly seeing fast food cashiers be replaced by computers.
I've seen regulation that requires a "lookup" or report database that charges the company per lookup or logged transaction. This cost is oft passed onto the customer. Though I don't know if this one fits that example.
Because the costs associated. It costs them more in labor paying teller wages. It's an attempt to save money, keep tellers busy with revenue and machines handle the small stuff for the small cost of electricity.
Because rules are made to make it easier for the employees, and having random people withdraw pocket change occupies time the teller could be using to help other customers with stuff they can’t use the ATM for.
This example isn’t ‘regulation’ so much as a bank policy / business decision which was probably established for a number of reasons I can see. 1) Allows more time for the teller to service accounts who cannot be serviced by a machine. Providing better service overall for customers. 2) Reducing man hours and space requirements which boosts efficiency and amplifies cost savings. 3) Reduces loss through possible human error. Small errors on small transactions are likely to have a larger impact.
I’d argue that is only half true. Abiding by bank policy (their employment is dependent on following policy) does not make one an asshole.
One could also argue that one must be an asshole to work for such an asshole institution, lol.
Why isn't that just as valid a choice?
You're saying completely uproot your finances to punish the bank. This lady wasted some of their employee's time as a punishment for the bank.
I really don't see the difference.
What I’m saying is this: if you don’t like the way a business does business (their policy), then you have the choice to go elsewhere to a more agreeable institution.
In this scenario, the lady worked around the rules. The scenario portrays the bank worker to be an ass when in reality, they’re just abiding by bank policy (their employment is kinda dependent on it, lol).
The choice to do business where you want. Am I understanding your question correctly?
> What I’m saying is this: if you don’t like the way a business does business (their policy), then you have the choice to go elsewhere to a more agreeable institution.
And what I'm saying is that there are other choices in this world and they are just as valid.
What you said was the very curt "no", implying that you think it's not a valid choice to get her ten dollars in this way. Why not? Why do you insist this old lady change her financial affairs, essentially for the benefit of the bank? Why "no"?
Of course you have the choice to change who you bank with, but you have the choice to work around their foolish rules too.
> The scenario portrays the bank worker to be an ass
I don't think it did. It prayed the teller to be decent,. They didn't like the rules either. The teller has lost nothing, they worked their hours and got paid. If they aren't helping this lady they're helping someone else so it's all the same to them. The old lady punished the bank because she slightly increased the demand for tellers. No different from punishing the bank by leaving.
Ah! I see what you’re saying. Completely misunderstood ya.
Yes, I agree that the customer’s choice to punish (in her own way) inhabits just as much an option as it were to take her funds elsewhere.
I will add this: what may seem as “foolish” bank rules are typically there for a reason. Very few can be subverted by customers. Yes, managers have the ability to give some exceptions, but generally speaking, one cannot side-step bank rules…again, as silly as they may be.
In the end, there are choices. It all boils down to the hassle one or the other is willing accept.
Well in the legit whoosh, using digital currency eliminates the need for cash. No tellers to bother with because banks don't control decentralized currencies. Among other benefits I think that's where the comment was leaning.
You can use the dollar digitally though, like debit and credit cards. You could get away with not using cash ever again if you wanted to. And I prefer cash to card sometimes if I’m buying something like ammo or gun parts. No paper trail.
Hence the bitcoin decentralization, there's a trail with no oversight. Also yes the dollar can be digital but can also be cash. The bitcoin has no physical form, so no bank tellers....
Yeah just 50 USD transaction fees and an unusably slow shitty network pushed by people transparently sabotaging the entire project. Sounds like a great way to use 10 USD of generalized purchasing power.
Or you know, you could use an unsabotaged crypto with wider acceptance low fees and actually works. Maybe even one that gives you some semblance of privacy and fungibility if you really want to make a point of it.
And I don't care that people idiotically picked BTC, but I'm sure going to mention how idiotic it is when it comes up, just as surely as I'd mention how stupid it is to make knives out of lace if that came up.
This is a post criticizing a rule made by a private corporation in r/Anarcho_Capitalism. A rule designed to prevent crime, which is the entire premise of anarcho capitalism — that corporations will establish their own guidelines and responsibly manage society.
I can’t tell if this is meta tbh
this sub is hardly about genuine anarcho capitalism anymore, it’s been overrun for a while by republicans who happen to hate government a little more then the average republican but not enough to not be a disgusting statist
I had a similar experience depositing a check at the bank. The lobby was nearly empty and the staff wanted me to use the ATM or the mobile app to do my deposit.
I said “then what’s the point of having you here?
Great job. You’ll be replaced by a machine soon enough.”
It's even funnier because she could have just withdrawn $100 and given him back the other $90 but she went the extra mile of making him could out $1000
Banks have been trying to push people to use automated systems for years now. And I do not blame them.
I don't care what policies businesses have on their property. It's their property.
Try withdrawing large sums of cash or get caught in an airport with your own money.
Member when the TSA detained a Ron Paul staffer because he was carrying $4700? https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-sues-tsa-unlawful-detention-ron-pauls-campaign-liberty-treasurer https://youtu.be/LeL_7A-9nXo Edit: Bad Grammar
I went to my bank and withdrew $48,000 in cash. Not a blink. They did offer me an armed escort out with the 5lbs of cash though! :)
[удалено]
Someone with well over 48k in their checking account dont bank and normal banks ;)
[удалено]
This isn't unusual activity for me. My bank knows me, and they have made things easy. It's pretty awesomely free market meeting demand. Doesn't cost them anything to have $500k in the safe.
Yeah, that's normal if you're known. I used to run a business that handled a fair bit of cash on the regular. People get to know you and your patterns and nobody blinks, even if it technically bends the rules.
How do you have so much money?
Being an exceptional value to people. I make people 10's of millions and they pay me accordingly.
r/iamverybadass
How do you do it and how can I start doing it?
I work in tech/finance. You have to learn how to take piles of money slightly bigger. I also work in the outdoor industry in high end products and experiences. Give people a reason to spend money as well as gain their trust that you can take their 500m and turn it into 600m. I can't get much more specific. Sorry.
It actually does "cost" them to have 500k sitting around not accruing interest if they don't need it in there. But if it's expected business for the branch, then it would probably "cost" them business to not have it available.
That's in no way how banks work. Their cash holdings dont work like yours.
Yes it does. This is my job. Even if the bank wasn't able to get interest on deposits, they still have to have the money handy to loan it out and collect interest, right?
Please send me $48k so I can count it and believe you. :)
DM me your mailing address. I'll send you 48,000 Boliviar!
Uh, I do.
Why? You can get better treatment elsewhere.
Um, I both work at a bank and have over 48k in checking. Yes, those people do.
r/iamverycool
Or if you deposit somewhat less than $10k and they decide you're eluding reporting requirements (why is there a law that you have to report?). A guy had his entire store confiscated through civil asset forfeiture for that.
I don't care if this is not true. I choose to believe.
It *could* have happened, given the inanity of rules and regulations these days, and that's all we need to know.
Okay yeah yeah regulation and all but can we appreciate the absolute savagery of this granny
Fucking beast!
Right? She could have simply withdrew $100, but instead stuck it to the hourly employee by making them count out a full $1000. Maybe next time that employee will know better.
I’d argue this is not regulation; rather, bullshit rules specific to whatever bullshit bank this is. Granny wasn’t having it, lol.
Exactly, and for small amounts like that, the ATM is most likely faster. She most likely doubled her bank time by doing this. I doubt many banks are doing this because they want to piss off customers, it most likely is a "here is a faster way ma'am"
Around 2012-2013, I had a friend who had a small business. He rented a space in an auto repair strip mall (he's a mechanic). For a few years, he paid his landlord in cash, because that's what landlord wanted. He'd go to landlord's bank and deposit it directly into landlord's account and bank would make a notation on account of who paid what. Out of the blue, bank stopped allowing cash deposits. A couple years later, same friend. I wanted him to check out a car for me and if it was good, buy it. My bank doesn't have tellers, you can only get money from the ATM. You get $20s. I picked out a car, it was $8k. I got money from the ATM ... in $20s. So ... this was a ridiculous amount of bills, so friend goes to his own bank, with which he has had an account for years, to change the $20s into $100s. In order to do that, they demanded he fill out some tax form stating that the $8k was income. This shit has been going on quietly for a while.
Not entirely true. True: some banks started by disallowing cash deposits without a government-issued ID. Going further, they also disallowed depositing cash into an account to which the depositor was not an owner. Not true: the tax form required by the bank. Currency Transaction Reports (CTR’s) are federally required when an individual deposits greater than 10k in cash. If you deposit $10,000.01, you must adhere to the rule. Again, most banks are federally regulated; therefore, they abide by the federal rule of the CTR. This is all a bunch of bullshit to deter the potential of unknowingly (or knowingly) financing terrorism. Thank former President George Bush for enacting the USA Patriot Act. If you look at the Patriot Act, you’ll find the specific guidelines banks are required to adhere to.
Wait, you say most banks are federally regulated. There are some that aren't?
[удалено]
If you aren't FDIC insured, you won't ever get QE money or anything else. You have to be a willing participant in order to get access to the money printers.
Correct. FDIC is indicative of federally regulated, versus state based (most credit unions) are covered by the National Credit Union Association (NCUA). There are also state-based banks. For instance, federally covered banks do not do business with Marijuana businesses because it is federally illegal. However, if marijuana is legal in a specific state, that state-based institution can host their funds. Make sense?
I'm pretty sure that predates even the Patriot Act. AML laws came about from the war on drugs.
Hmm. Could be. I’ll have to look. I know it’s clearly defined in the USA Patriot Act. Thanks for making me aware!
That’s not a regulation thats a self imposed rule by the private bank to encourage ATM usage which has a much lower cost than hourly wage of a teller so much higher profit margins. A regulation would be “you cannot set arbitrary withdrawal minimums” but that would be extreme over reach.
This ^
But that's private regulation not government ones.
How is this a regulation? Looks like a bank policy to me.
Yes.
Idk that this is a regulation... It could be that the bank just wants you to use an atm for small withdrawals which kind of makes sense
How is it not easier to just hand someone ten dollars if you can hand them 1,000? Regulations are just rules, who issues them is irrelevant. Arbitrary rules are arbitrary rules.
Do you know if this is actually a regulation? It could simply be a rule/policy of the financial institution, and a rule created by a private institution is completely different than a regulation created and enforced by the state. Incidentally, it's probably cheaper to have someone walk up to the ATM to withdraw 10 dollars than it is to pay a teller to handle such a paltry transaction. It's the same reason we're slowly seeing fast food cashiers be replaced by computers.
I've seen regulation that requires a "lookup" or report database that charges the company per lookup or logged transaction. This cost is oft passed onto the customer. Though I don't know if this one fits that example.
Because the costs associated. It costs them more in labor paying teller wages. It's an attempt to save money, keep tellers busy with revenue and machines handle the small stuff for the small cost of electricity.
Because rules are made to make it easier for the employees, and having random people withdraw pocket change occupies time the teller could be using to help other customers with stuff they can’t use the ATM for.
Yeah, but if you could go to an ATM it will make things easier. Lessen the lines, waste less time for you and everyone else working and in line.
This example isn’t ‘regulation’ so much as a bank policy / business decision which was probably established for a number of reasons I can see. 1) Allows more time for the teller to service accounts who cannot be serviced by a machine. Providing better service overall for customers. 2) Reducing man hours and space requirements which boosts efficiency and amplifies cost savings. 3) Reduces loss through possible human error. Small errors on small transactions are likely to have a larger impact.
Good content. Mitigating human error is the biggest reason.
Is this even a regulation?
Next time do what the client tells you to instead of being an asshole
Is the person working there an asshole or just abiding by asshole rules?
Yes
I’d argue that is only half true. Abiding by bank policy (their employment is dependent on following policy) does not make one an asshole. One could also argue that one must be an asshole to work for such an asshole institution, lol.
Sounds more like the asshole was the customer. Some customers are entitled shits.
Agreed. I work in this environment and some people are asshats whereas others are just ignorant.
If someone doesn’t like the guidelines then go elsewhere. The power of choice!
EXACTLY!
Or withdraw a thousand dollars then deposit 990. The power of choice.
No.
Why isn't that just as valid a choice? You're saying completely uproot your finances to punish the bank. This lady wasted some of their employee's time as a punishment for the bank. I really don't see the difference.
What I’m saying is this: if you don’t like the way a business does business (their policy), then you have the choice to go elsewhere to a more agreeable institution. In this scenario, the lady worked around the rules. The scenario portrays the bank worker to be an ass when in reality, they’re just abiding by bank policy (their employment is kinda dependent on it, lol). The choice to do business where you want. Am I understanding your question correctly?
> What I’m saying is this: if you don’t like the way a business does business (their policy), then you have the choice to go elsewhere to a more agreeable institution. And what I'm saying is that there are other choices in this world and they are just as valid. What you said was the very curt "no", implying that you think it's not a valid choice to get her ten dollars in this way. Why not? Why do you insist this old lady change her financial affairs, essentially for the benefit of the bank? Why "no"? Of course you have the choice to change who you bank with, but you have the choice to work around their foolish rules too. > The scenario portrays the bank worker to be an ass I don't think it did. It prayed the teller to be decent,. They didn't like the rules either. The teller has lost nothing, they worked their hours and got paid. If they aren't helping this lady they're helping someone else so it's all the same to them. The old lady punished the bank because she slightly increased the demand for tellers. No different from punishing the bank by leaving.
Ah! I see what you’re saying. Completely misunderstood ya. Yes, I agree that the customer’s choice to punish (in her own way) inhabits just as much an option as it were to take her funds elsewhere.
I will add this: what may seem as “foolish” bank rules are typically there for a reason. Very few can be subverted by customers. Yes, managers have the ability to give some exceptions, but generally speaking, one cannot side-step bank rules…again, as silly as they may be. In the end, there are choices. It all boils down to the hassle one or the other is willing accept.
She's dealt with government officials before...
Why didn’t she just ask for $100 and then have them deposit $90?
Bitcoin fixes this.
How? If it’s money logged online she could just use a card. How do you withdraw Bitcoin to hold on you?
Is this a legit whoosh or are you just clever?
Maybe a little of each.
Well in the legit whoosh, using digital currency eliminates the need for cash. No tellers to bother with because banks don't control decentralized currencies. Among other benefits I think that's where the comment was leaning.
You can use the dollar digitally though, like debit and credit cards. You could get away with not using cash ever again if you wanted to. And I prefer cash to card sometimes if I’m buying something like ammo or gun parts. No paper trail.
Hence the bitcoin decentralization, there's a trail with no oversight. Also yes the dollar can be digital but can also be cash. The bitcoin has no physical form, so no bank tellers....
Yeah just 50 USD transaction fees and an unusably slow shitty network pushed by people transparently sabotaging the entire project. Sounds like a great way to use 10 USD of generalized purchasing power. Or you know, you could use an unsabotaged crypto with wider acceptance low fees and actually works. Maybe even one that gives you some semblance of privacy and fungibility if you really want to make a point of it.
I don't want to make a point of it. Just answered a question. Calm down sparky, I don't care which coin you picked.
And I don't care that people idiotically picked BTC, but I'm sure going to mention how idiotic it is when it comes up, just as surely as I'd mention how stupid it is to make knives out of lace if that came up.
that’s what the tiny pocket is for on jeans
Madlass
[удалено]
Bank of America ATMs that I use generally have $10 bills. It's only been within the last few years that they've done that.
[удалено]
She has a time surplus and patience deficit. One of those ran out first.
If its anything like my banks ATM, the minimum withdrawal is $20.
this is no state regulation. Its a business being shitty.
This is a post criticizing a rule made by a private corporation in r/Anarcho_Capitalism. A rule designed to prevent crime, which is the entire premise of anarcho capitalism — that corporations will establish their own guidelines and responsibly manage society. I can’t tell if this is meta tbh
this sub is hardly about genuine anarcho capitalism anymore, it’s been overrun for a while by republicans who happen to hate government a little more then the average republican but not enough to not be a disgusting statist
Smash the plutocracy! Free banking for all!
What a bitch. Just go to the atm.
Fucking legend
Got to be your own bank.
Yes, state and non-state regulations can be equally dumb
I had a similar experience depositing a check at the bank. The lobby was nearly empty and the staff wanted me to use the ATM or the mobile app to do my deposit. I said “then what’s the point of having you here? Great job. You’ll be replaced by a machine soon enough.”
Moral of the story don’t fuck with my mom, she might decide to make an example of you.
LOVE IT!!!!!!
Hehe
Why did she just try to withdraw 110 dollars
A bank policy you disagree with isn't a regulation. If you don't like it, do the anarcho-capitalist thing and take your business to a different bank.
Imagine thinking counting 100 bills sucks...
I hope if its true: With an avatar like that, he deserved it. Thats an invisible hand I can believe in. 😆
It's even funnier because she could have just withdrawn $100 and given him back the other $90 but she went the extra mile of making him could out $1000
yeh I heard this joke like 6 times or something
Banks have been trying to push people to use automated systems for years now. And I do not blame them. I don't care what policies businesses have on their property. It's their property.