Posts by Steven Reed

hollowtiger10 said:Man, I've run into a bit of a situation here 😢

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Paul Jackson61 said:🤣 🤣 🤣 😂 😂 😂

I just don't get why this PDF has at least a dozen threads, some over ten pages long, where people are complaining about the exact same banks. If it's not in their interest, 🙄 🙄 🙄
why is this happening?

The reality is that out of those ten-plus pages, you’ve got nine pages of customers playing the victim—people who are just miserable because the bank "pounced" on them the second they missed a mortgage payment, or they're just whining about the price of a specific service.
On that remaining one page, you find the unlucky souls who ran into a poorly trained teller at Chase or Wells Fargo who gave them the wrong info.
But I haven't seen a single post claiming a bank underpaid someone and then flat-out refused to return the money once the error was caught.
I mean, seriously, what are we even talking about here? 😕
Banks survive on our money—plain and simple. If you're running a business based on people, it’s in your best interest to keep them happy, otherwise, they’ll just jump ship to Citibank or another competitor.
Only someone living in a total fantasy land would suggest that a bank actually benefits from having an unhappy client.

Nicholas Turner, your logic is a bit flawed—comparing a person’s life and health to mere cash is laughable, if not outright trolling.

Look, I don't see the equivalence—whether a bank teller accidentally shortchanges me by $167 or a surgeon accidentally removes my right leg. What are we even talking about here, 😕 🤷 🤔

Even if the fine print says late claims won't be honored, I know—a friend told me—that if a client walks into a Chase branch to complain about an underpayment, they’ll actually balance the till (always with a supervisor present) and check the security footage if there isn't a surplus in the drawer. It isn't in a bank's interest to have clients who feel cheated—whether by mistake or malice. Honestly, I have no idea how some people think, 🤷
I certainly wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I had taken $667 from someone else's paycheck; anyone who can do that is answerable to God. That’s exactly why this country is the way it is.😉

shadowcrane12 said:The bank keeps the surplus as miscellaneous income, while any shortage is covered by the employee responsible for the till. Don't worry, the bank is never in the red. 😉

Before any surplus is even recorded, a branch is obligated to audit every single transaction to pinpoint exactly which client was affected by the error. Trust me—when it comes to big banks, they actually dread a surplus more than a deficit; if there’s extra money floating around, it means a customer was shortchanged, and that is a nightmare for their compliance departments.
I remember a friend of mine working at Chase telling me about a night they stayed until 10 PM just trying to figure out which client had been undercharged $67 (they eventually tracked them down).
Ultimately, a bank doesn't "enjoy" either scenario. A deficit just hits the teller's wallet, whereas a surplus creates massive reputational risk 😉

If you're transferring within the same bank, it's instant—but if you're dealing with a different institution, expect a delay through the afternoon; honestly, you might be better off just waiting until tomorrow. 😉

You simply head down to JPMorgan Chase, sign the paperwork to close the account, settle the principal plus interest up to the closing date—which is the day you actually pay—and that’s the end of it 🤷

They just roll those excess funds over into the next year—granting you eligibility for the tax credit—but only for as long as your savings plan is actually active 😉
If you signed a two-year contract and contributed $17, you’ll qualify for the tax credits during the calendar years your savings were active (typically three years, since nobody starts a savings plan on January 1st) 😍

I wasn't being precise enough—it was late and I was half-asleep 😍. Essentially, during the bridge financing phase—which lasts either two or five years depending on the specific model—you are technically both in debt and holding savings simultaneously. A bank like Wells Fargo provides you with this bridge loan, but in exchange, you deposit a set amount into a savings account. This deposit is what legally qualifies you for a standard home equity loan once that initial period expires. To the IRS, that money looks like pure savings, so you earn interest—even though, in reality, you're carrying a loan. Once those two or five years are up, the bank uses those accumulated funds (your principal plus the interest earned) to pay off the bridge loan and transition you onto the regular mortgage, which you then pay down until it's cleared.

I don't know how else to explain it without making it sound like a legal brief—I've overcomplicated things again 🤣.

You essentially "earn" this bonus for every calendar year you’ve been contributing to the savings plan. To be more precise—since I prefer clarity—for every year you put money in, the government tops it up by 15% the following year, though they cap that contribution at $250 per account. So, here was your situation: you wrapped up your savings in 2009, and in 2010, the government dropped that bonus for the 2009 period into your account—right at the moment you were already drowning in credit debt.
The catch, however, is that the government doesn't use these funds to subsidize your loans; they strictly incentivize saving. The only way you end up receiving these bonuses while carrying debt is through that final year of savings before you take out a loan—or during bridge financing where you are technically in the red, but the bonus is still calculated based on the actual deposits you made.

Kimberly Wright2 said:Could I get a little help here?? So, last month I put about $250 on my account and it was ready to use by that afternoon. But today, I made an extra payment of $200, and they somehow applied it toward my installments... so now it says I'm interest-free for 12 months. The thing is, I actually need to use my card right now because I have some stuff to buy on eBay, but my available credit is showing up as $15???!! I don't get it at all, especially since I haven't even carried a balance... shouldn't it be closer to $644? Thanks 😉

If you had a payment due, then the money you sent went toward clearing that installment first, then the principal—it's basic math. Plus, banks aren't instant; it usually takes a day for them to clear your limit. You paid today, so you can use the updated limit tomorrow 😉

You need to make the deposit on the day the notice is generated—which means the 6th of the month 😉

If my memory serves me right—and it usually does—the optimum model allows for up to three salaries, topping out at $5000.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Under my new setup, I've got an authorized overdraft of exactly one paycheck. 🙂
Maybe I'm paying for being stubborn and sticking with my old Premium account instead of opting into that "bundle of perks" they offered. 😬

The Premium model has a much higher ceiling for overdraft limits $5000 😍 (if you can call drawing conclusions 😍 an activity) 🤣

Paul Hernandez6 said:Bank deposits and savings accounts are state-guaranteed up to $133, whereas mutual funds don't offer any such protection

Do you honestly believe the government would even have the liquidity to bail out a major player like Bank of America or Chase if they went under? 🤷

Money market funds have seen dips—a handful of times since they were established—but we're talking about daily fluctuations measured in fractions of a percent. Given their investment strategies, I’d call them incredibly secure, regardless of whether the federal government is backing them or not. 🤷

Good morning.
Usually, at this hour—while I’m sipping my coffee and getting ready for work—I check my subscriptions, read the latest gossip on the neighborhood forums, and sit down in Zidić to light a cigarette. Now, I can’t even do that, thanks to someone’s decision that Zidić is somehow "toxic tissue" for Reddit.

I honestly don't know what kind of threat a group of ten women who have been here for over thirty years could possibly pose—sorry, Matthew Anderson4, no hugs today :not_sure:

I agree—in the early days of the site, there were issues because some users from the TV network felt annoyed by us chatting (mind the chat topic). That whole situation ended poorly with direct bans (myself included). The bans were lifted after two hours, and we learned our lesson. Honestly, I still don't think those bans were justified. The chat topic is for chatting; we overstepped out of pure revolt, because when you feel like someone is being unfair, you start fighting back. The moderator made that call because she received reports about us in her chat, but by the end of that season, everything had settled down. She moderated, we chatted, and everyone was happy.

Once the season wrapped up, Mirror reached out and explained that the off-topic section was closing and we needed to find somewhere else under the sun. 😍
And, at his suggestion, Zidić opened up in the Off section—right where the old OUT crew, a few games, and us used to hang out.
There was never any trouble with anyone in the Off section. 🤷
The OUT crew would drop by, and people from other topics would wander over to the Off area too. As far as I recall, nobody ever got a warning or heaven forbid a ban on Zidić just for posting there. 🤷

In the meantime, there was a spat between Missy and DD that nobody else involved themselves in. Missy shared her opinion on a thread DD started, and frankly, I think it was strictly between the two of them.
Then there was that ugly verbal attack by one of the recreation moderators, which prompted me to respond in a thread on the community board. I wrote three posts in recreation, and the first one was deleted immediately 🤷 (if I remember correctly, it was just: "good evening, everyone").

If that counts as trolling, then please, give me a permanent ban—because that is how I "troll" every single thread I visit. 🙂

I agree that on Zidić, we talked about our lives and things happening on the site. But we didn't do anything differently than any other user on any other part of this site (even in the "Dinner for Five" thread next door, the moderators post about other sections of the forum 🤷).
If we were doing something wrong, then the moderators should be the ones sanctioning it with warnings, cards, bans, or deleting posts—not deleting entire threads! If there were reactions to problems someone had elsewhere on the site, it happened through normal chatting, not by calling people out for breaking rules. If some mods have ego issues and get hurt when someone leaves a comment, that’s their problem (deal with it). If that behavior is punishable on Reddit, then those specific instances (which are incredibly rare among the 25,000 deleted posts) should have seen the individual posts deleted and the author sanctioned—not the whole topic nuked.

Am I revolted? Yes. Am I disappointed? Absolutely. Will I open clone accounts or act out? I never have, and I won't start now. But if I demand an actual, reasoned explanation as to why a group of ten women represents a "danger" to Reddit just by sitting in Zidić and venting about work, life, or obsessing over rose emojis and luxury brands, then I am going to demand it!

You have done a massive injustice by sanctioning users who actually follow the Reddit rules—I believe my punishment was completely unwarranted.

If being a user for three years without a single issue—while simultaneously hanging out on Zidić—is enough to label me a "troublemaker," then fine: go ahead and penalize me for "hanging out on Zidić." Give me a permanent ban for causing trouble on Reddit just by "hanging out on Zidić."😢

Regarding these distributed bans—unfortunately, my opinion clearly doesn't matter. You all know perfectly well they are unfair; I shouldn't have to be the one—or anyone else—to tell you that🤷. A permanent ban for a user whose ban was lifted just last month, despite her behaving perfectly. A permanent ban for a user accompanied by the baseless claim that she's a clone of the first one🤣. Then there's the two 500-point penalties for Parach and Vili. I don't see any clones, spam, or trolling being opened here🤷. oblica is trying to prove she isn't a clone of Miseducat, while Missy and Parach opened appeal threads—Vili didn't even get that chance. Where are those actual "troublemakers" who open clone accounts, cause chaos, and troll the entire site???????:none to be found:

The decision to delete topics—essentially creating a breeding ground for chaos and danger for Reddit—is appalling. Furthermore, labeling me as a "troublesome user" is even worse.

I am formally requesting an explanation and the restoration of the topic—which, in the end, I was the one who opened myself.
Thank you, Elizabeth Anderson63

Please don't delete this thread—this is an official grievance. I already tried resolving this via DM, and while I received a response, I find the reasoning completely unjust, so I’m taking this to the public eye instead.

I came home from work today to a rather unpleasant surprise. The one single thread I actually contribute to regularly (Zidić- part II) has been wiped from existence. In my scramble to figure out what happened, I reached out to the admins—who were incredibly quick to respond, I'll give them that—but the core issue remains:

The reason provided for the deletion—supposedly because the thread was being used to organize meetups, violating site rules, and so on—is frankly absurd. Given that I post there daily and the thread spans over 25,000 posts, I find it impossible to believe the entire discussion was nothing more than a coordinated rule-breaking stunt—not that I find it hard to believe, mind you, I simply know it isn't true. If such violations were actually occurring, why weren't the specific users penalized or those individual posts removed? Why go for the scorched-earth approach of deleting the whole thread?

The question that prompts me to open this thread (hopefully without getting banned 😍):
Why is a user like me—someone with almost zero strikes over three years on this site—being punished by having my primary thread deleted? Did I somehow earn this sanction? Because if I truly violated the rules, why wasn't I issued a warning or a strike instead?

At this rate, moderation loses all its purpose—if your solution to any "problematic" thread is to just hit delete, then all you need is one admin with a finger on the button to make everything disappear 🤷

I have always viewed Reddit as a fair community where following the rules protects you from punishment. I follow the rules here, yet I am being penalized regardless.

I am looking for an explanation.
Thanks, Elizabeth Anderson63

As far as I can tell, the Chase debit card works just fine online—pretty much the same way as Wells Fargo 🤔

Chase debit cards aren't processing any online transactions—and I mean all of them: checking, savings, even the foreign currency accounts.
As far as Chase goes, the only things working online are their Mastercard and Visa credit cards—not those basic debit ones.

wusternot linkić 😍—but I can’t quite figure out which specific rate they’re offering. That’s just the nominal one; I actually want to know what the APR is 😉
. I suspect the postal savings rate is hovering around 3% (or at least, that was their last big marketing push)
.
Here is the link for the postal option . Their whole setup seems to be this pattern where you sit at a roughly 6% interest rate during the interim financing phase, and then once that wraps up, they bump you down to a 3% or 4% rate (if I'm reading this correctly 🤷)

Still beats the current situation at major banks—where interest rates are north of 6% 😉