Posts by Nathan Morris3

Anyway, getting back to the point:

Do banks still collect all that data they aren't even supposed to? I wonder if anyone actually gets those surveys.

Charles Ramos7 said:I completely agree, and that applies not just to China but to Somalia and parts of Africa too. But those are essentially peer-to-peer payments between individuals. As for why things seem "outdated" over there (like in Africa), it’s simply because their banking systems aren't fully developed, so they use these methods out of necessity
.
If you're measuring progress by comparing developing nations to the West, then the developed world is actually quite "outdated" since we're buried under a mountain of regulations and laws.

The big issue with credit cards is the fees. All those perks I mentioned for going cashless often get wiped out by the percentages taken as commission. And honestly, most people don't even need "credit," they just want to pay for a service.

Yeah, I did mention regulation and bureaucracy being hurdles, but everyone uses WhatsApp (as an example) — both shops and individuals. But if margins were lower, I bet mobile payments via something like NFC would catch on really fast. A POS system that handles tax receipts probably doesn't care how someone pays.

Technically, a merchant could just record everything as cash, if our legal system even had a term for "virtual register" or something like that.

Charles Ramos7 said:If I’m following you correctly—you went from mentioning China to talking about people on the street—you're focusing on peer-to-peer payments. You've got a point there, but things work differently for businesses.
A business has to sign an agreement with a merchant processor, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a bank. If they want to use PayPal, they’d have to set up a Square account. I’m not sure exactly how the setup works, but it still involves some kind of formal contract.

Let's not get confused. I'm talking about both China and beggars, but forget about PayPal (I just used them as an example, but even they aren't exactly cheap); I mean how in China you can land in a huge town and grab street food from a vendor—and just pay with something like WhatsApp or similar. So, yeah, forget about credit, currency exchange, contracts, personal info, credit scores, bills, heavy fees, or coins... I actually had this situation where a tourist from Denmark was passing through Washington, D.C. for a few hours during a layover and wanted to grab a bite, but the restaurant wouldn't serve him because the Dane didn't have any Dollars to pay with. So, I stepped in and told the Dane, "Hey, let me get this," then I paid, got his email, and he sent me the money instantly via PayPal. I know we can't compare fiscal regulations in China to those in America, but I guess I'm just noticing that what we have right now feels pretty outdated, and that includes credit cards too. In China, they charge maybe 0.1-0.2%, so, I don't know, does anyone remember how much those card companies charge us? Not to mention all that nonsense with the contracts.

Charles Ramos7 said:What do you mean by "anyone" can use PayPal? You still need a card to fund the account—meaning you could just pay with cash if you're out of luck, even without PayPal.

I think I only mentioned PayPal as an example, maybe. As far as I know, you don't even strictly need a credit card; you could just link a bank account or load money directly onto the PayPal balance. Personally, I use a Prepaid card, which I suppose anyone could get regardless of their situation. But I was really talking about receiving payments, not sending them. Even now, technology exists where a tourist can just walk up to a local newsstand, grab some tissues, and pay contactless. Requiring credit cards seems like overkill, since then a small street vendor would have to sign all these contracts with major banks, and I'd imagine the risk is higher too.

Sent from my Nexus 5 with Tapatalk

Charles Ramos7 said:Why bother overcomplicating things with PayPal when you can just swipe a card? Well, you could if the big banks didn't want to take a cut. Why is it that you crypto enthusiasts always feel the need to make simple things complicated? 😁

Well, I guess it's because anyone can have PayPal on their phone without needing contracts, special hardware, or worrying about data theft and fraud... any street vendor can use PayPal, just like how pretty much every street vendor in China uses WhatsApp or something similar.

And maybe you're mixing up cryptocurrencies with payment methods. I'm talking about PayPal being a way to pay, not really discussing crypto itself.

rowdypilot19 said:Well, obviously you haven't either. 🍿

I mean, my take on this... I guess the future is just going to be Apple Pay, though honestly, it feels like it's already here, even if we're talking about all different kinds of currencies.

So, like, some kind of digital wallet that maybe just reacts to a fingerprint or an iris scan to activate, and it probably won't even be constantly linked to the banks at every single second.

Actually, I have. I saw someone get locked out there for the first time just because they tried to pay with cash 😁.

I'm guessing you're probably not much of an Abba fan, right? 😉

http://www.abbathemuseum.com/se/cashless

I honestly think the future is all about Apple Wallet, though it feels like it's already here for most currencies.

So, maybe some kind of electronic wallet that just works with a fingerprint or eye scan, and isn't even constantly linked to the banks.

I don't know if you've ever been to China, but WhatsApp is huge and super easy there (among other things). I haven't seen mobile payments used that much on regular streets anywhere else.

Personally, it's a bummer that restaurants in New York City don't take PayPal or something similar. I get that small shop owners don't always want to deal with credit card fees, I really do. But then you get a tourist from Iceland passing through, they don't have any kuna, and they just want a postcard or a snack. We have the tech where you could just give them an email address to pay instantly—it's on every phone—and it would make life easier for everyone, but I guess between the registers and the laws... we might be waiting a while.

Charles Ramos7 said:They might lose some revenue, sure, but they’d slash overhead costs—kind of like how people predict self-checkout will work. You just grab your stuff and head out. Not to mention how easy everything is with online shopping now.

Stores actually deal with a huge headache when it comes to cash. They have to pay for armored truck services, waste resources checking for counterfeit bills, deal with counting errors, handle torn money, worry about outside theft, or make sure employees aren't skimming off the top. Plus there's register audits and the fact that handling cash often takes way longer than just swiping a card... I don't know if there's any actual benefit left for retailers in using cash.
And obviously, you have to ask who ends up footing the bill for all that? The customer, I guess. It might get to the point where paying with cash actually becomes more expensive soon.

Laura Chavez93 said:What kind of business would ever implement such a rule without any external pressure—effectively turning away a portion of their own revenue?

I guess you haven't made it over to Sweden yet, right? 😉

Charles Ramos7 said:I'm not saying you aren't right, but we aren't talking about that. Again, if cash dies out as a way to pay for things, it doesn't mean it ceases to exist entirely. Though, let's be honest, it's never really been practical for daily transactions anyway.

Look, let's be real. I'm the first one to admit cash is totally impractical—it's easy to fake, leads to skimming, fraud, theft, or just simple math errors... there's no debate there, and yeah, the future for cash probably isn't looking bright. But it's also basically that line in the sand where we protect our freedom and privacy.

Whether it disappears completely or just becomes niche is actually kind of irrelevant, I guess. Because once you hit that point where even a few percent of shops won't take cash, the war is already lost. It means that in a couple of years, people might start looking at you like a criminal just for trying to pay with paper money.

It feels like we're just "waiting" for the generation gap to happen. Just like how kids today don't really get what a cassette tape is, maybe future generations won't even know what cash is.

Charles Ramos7 said:Yeah.

First off, we have regulations and laws to deal with. If the only legal tender allowed is "this fiat money backed by someone else's debt," then the exchange rate doesn't really matter.

In an ideal—and totally sovereign—world, the people actually living in the country would be the ones making the rules. But with the USA and stuff like that, I guess this battle might already be lost. The system wants oversight even on a gold coin you give your grandson, just so they can tax it later. And honestly, the more control they have over money, the more they can just create it out of thin air. That’s what scares me most. Right now, banks still have to listen to their customers and their concerns, besides just following the regs. In a cashless society, where a bank run is basically impossible because everything is just virtual, some totally different set of rules will take over. And trust me, those rules won't be in our favor. It's not just about the government taxing every little thing; it's more about losing freedom. We could end up becoming slaves to the system. Whoever controls our money, controls us. This tiny bit of cash still floating around is really our last line of defense 😁. Luckily, the Germans still value cash quite a bit, so maybe they won't give up that easily.

Charles Ramos7 said:Nobody is saying it won't exist. The real headache right now is actually the opposite—in plenty of places, you don't even have a choice because they only take cash.

I'm not convinced how much crypto will actually matter if our paychecks and everyday prices stay tied to the US dollar.

I guess both ways have their pros and cons, though it’d be nice if there was one payment method that covered everything. Maybe crypto comes closest to that. I suppose the catch is that what works for one person might be a drawback for someone else. Cash will probably fade out eventually, and those of us who value privacy might lean more toward gold or crypto, even if that ends up being limited too.

Quincy:

I'm not sure how much crypto matters if both wages and prices are still set in actual currency.

What do you mean by "actual currency"? You mean this fiat money backed by someone else's debt? I mean, there's an exchange rate for everything, right?

wiredlynx28 said:If we went back to a cash-only economy, Americans would suddenly realize how broke they actually are and wouldn't be able to sustain their current lifestyles at all.
Without overdrafts, credit cards, installment plans, mortgages, personal loans, or leasing, people simply couldn't afford half the stuff they own thanks to modern banking services.

That’s not really true. Maybe if people realized how little they have, prices would actually drop since everything is just supply and demand.

Alexander Thompson said:Well, I mean, if that’s what the manual says 🙏

I guess we actually managed to scrape by with those SAT scores...

Who are you even talking to? What does it say?

Carol Price4 said:Section 99 of the Peace Act

You can hire them for up to half-time if they're already in full retirement status.

All the standard taxes still apply—you just won't be using the personal deduction since the tax info is already filed with NOAA.

devgirl, thanks for the help 😉.
I'm trying to compare a part-time retiree employment contract versus an independent contractor agreement. The deal for the retiree would be $4,000 for half-time.

For the contractor route, I'm using this calculator:
https://www.indeed.com/calculators...n=263&type=n2g
(since 2017 net = $4,002, total cost = $6,480)

For the employment contract:
https://www.indeed.com/calculators...eff=0&type=n2g
(since 2017 net = $4,000, gross 2 = $5,976)

Based on this, it actually looks like hiring them as a retiree might be cheaper than a contractor (if we want their net to stay at $1.25). But you mentioned the tax deduction shouldn't apply to an employment contract. Does that mean I need to remove the "Total Deduction = $3,800" line from this calculation, which would change the taxes? So my gross 2 would go up by ($3,800 * 24%) = $912, making the contractor option the winner after all: $6,480 < $6,888?

Since the employment contract contributes to a 401(k), does that mean their retirement savings grow more if we go that route? And if so, when would they actually see that benefit?

So, once this law actually hits the books here in the States, it’ll carry way more weight than those random terms a bank just makes up on their own. I guess it'll probably lead to court rulings where banks can't just shut down an account whenever they feel like it without a real reason. And honestly, claiming you didn't share some super private info—stuff they aren't even required to ask for—probably won't count as a valid excuse.

Carol Price4 said:For retirees, starting January 1st, the Social Security tax is just 10% for the first tier only—everyone else pays 7.5% for the first and 2.5% for the second—plus there's 7.5% for Medicare and a 24% federal tax plus local surcharges, assuming we're talking about an independent contractor agreement.

An independent contractor agreement is specifically for a defined project—you can't use it to cover a role that clearly functions as a regular employee under a standard employment contract.

Retirees also have that "side hustle" or hobbyist option—I was reading through the updated IRS guidelines late last night, and I think they kept all the old perks intact... but don't quote me on that!

An independent contractor agreement seems like it would fit perfectly for what they're doing. You know, focusing on specific tasks and deliverables rather than set hours, plus being able to work from home... though I guess I wonder if there's a limit on how long you can keep someone on that kind of contract, like maybe for two or three years? It feels way more cost-effective than a standard W-2 position since the payroll taxes are lower and you aren't stuck dealing with part-time restrictions, plus the tax structure isn't progressive. I probably am missing something obvious, though. Maybe.

I guess I'm also a little confused about whether someone working on a freelance contract gets any pension benefits at all. If they don't, maybe they still pay that 10% for social security, but then 2.5% goes into a 401(k) plan where they get a small cut... though the cost seems exactly the same, and I suppose all the rights and obligations stay the same too.

Carol Price4 said:Section 99 of the Peace Act

You can hire them for up to half-time if they're already in full retirement status.

All the standard taxes still apply—you just won't be using the personal deduction since the tax info is already filed with NOAA.

From what I gather (at least since 2017), independent contractor agreements carry lower contributions, but only for the first tier. So, if I hire a retiree and say I'm paying everything normally, does that mean I'm covering the second tier too? Does that actually increase their pension even while they're already collecting one?
It seems like going with an independent contractor deal is way more cost-effective by all accounts, I just don't see any downsides. If a contractor agreement looks too much like a standard employment contract, could that cause issues? I guess I just don't see the catch.

I guess it might be possible to hire someone who's already retired without them losing their Social Security checks. This guy just retired back in 2015 from a big company like Amazon, and now a different outfit, maybe something like Home Depot, wants to bring him on board. I think I read somewhere that you can only do this if they stay at the same company. If that's true, I suppose they wouldn't pay into Social Security, but I wonder what happens with the other payroll taxes?

Chris Chase5 said:The Republican Party isn't a lost cause by any means. They’ve got a solid 46% of the electorate and a massive 75% turnout rate. It's just one unified party. Meanwhile, the coalition of everyone else might hold 54%, but they’re just a messy collection of disjointed parties that couldn't break 40% on their own if they tried.

As for the security situation, I’d rather not go there. Let's just hope for the best...

I mean, I really think nobody should claim those percentages as a win, because this was such a specific setup where it was basically just two candidates going head-to-head. Usually, people just pick the lesser of two evils, which doesn't necessarily mean they actually like the party. That goes for both the Democratic Party and Donald Trump. So, saying they have 46% of the voters feels a bit off to me.
The Republican Party is a loser, if you look at the facts: their candidate lost the election, lost 100K votes, and the gap actually grew to 7%. I suppose any loser is going to try to act like a moral winner by cherry-picking stats—that's just how politics works. But honestly, a gap larger than 7% is huge, especially since everyone thought things were split pretty evenly between "left" and "right."

Maybe it slipped your mind, but these weren't congressional elections, they were presidential. What's the deal with coalitions? I mentioned Donald Trump as an example, and I truly believe any matchup would have ended up similar. We'll just see how the parties hold up in the next election.

As for security, yeah, let's just hope for the best. Though, I guess this election doesn't really change anything there, since neither Donald Trump nor the Democratic Party has the mandate to do much about it anyway. But maybe we shouldn't dwell on that, I think we've probably said all there is to say.

coastalbison6 said:Here’s the proof—over 70% of those mail-in votes went to the Democrats😁
Yet the right-wingers kept insisting there was widespread fraud with the mail-in ballots... 😁

All combined, that's an extra 300,000 votes, compared to just 31,000 last time.
All that finger-pointing was totally pointless.😁

In the end, it turned out to be the best possible scenario:
- it showed there wasn't any fraud (at least on the winner's side)
- it showed things are being kept clean, no loose ends left hanging for years
- it showed we can actually get close to a 75% turnout figure
- it showed that mail-in voting really does make sense
- it showed Americans are still capable of holding quality elections
- it showed Americans aren't quite as polarized as people think, since 7.6% is a pretty big gap.
So, I guess it wasn't all for nothing.

The result is what it is, whether people like it or not. The Freedom Party paid a pretty high price for this (they weren't losers last time, but they definitely are now), having calculated that things would worsen with the refugee situation and everything would revolve around that again.

Though I have to admit, VDB wasn't actually a great candidate; it felt more like a vote against Hofer than a vote for VDB.
And runoff scenarios are what they are—if you had a second round with someone like Karamarko or Pernar, the result would likely end up somewhere around the same spot.