We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE Poll: How often do you use cash?
Options
Comments
-
I said credit cards. I'll await your apology for your wrong interpretation.
It doesn't matter if it's a credit card or a debit card it does not work the way you are saying and what i said applies to both.Yep, I do know how much I have spent in restaurants without needing a pen and paper thank you. Again, I'll await another apology for your doubtfulness.
Remembering how much you have spent on every purchase over the last year is something that very few people could do. I don't know one person who could remember an amount spent on a randomly chosen day around 1 year ago.Again, I do know how much I spend and I know what my budgets are. I save 66.6% a month which leaves me with 33.3% recurring for day to day activity. Third apology pending thus far.
Your getting abit confused with your numbers if your saving 66.6% then 33.4% is left over.
If you wanted to make a budget with categories for eating out, food, travel, clothes, haircuts etc then you would struggle to know how much you usually spend in each category each month (unless you have super memory). That's the point i was making, if your budget is simply 33.3% for everything then it's easy.I don't queue for cash machines actually as there are many of them. And I don't really use them either. Another wrong assessment.
As you said you pay most things in cash then you need to get this somehow which takes time (unless you get paid in cash)If you think I carry my weekly budget for the entire week, or rather stupidly my monthly budget in my wallet for the entire month, then you are again mistaken. Also, standing orders require you to cancel them if you wish to change the amount, which could be only a weekly or monthly basis, so that also takes time.
Yes i agree it also takes times but it's something that can be done anytime i have a minute using my phone. So it's definitely more convenient than obtaining cash which can only be done at certain places.Speaks volumes that despite all of the payment methods that exist today when in the 1970s they didn't, 50% is still cash, huh.
Well at least you realise your previous statements were wrong. Just because cash is still used a lot doesn't mean it is the best method. People are very resistant to change so you could look at it the other way and say card payments must be very good for so many people to change to them.You avoid going to shops. Well, you are responsible for the failure and closure of high streets, doing people out of jobs who no longer pay taxes who are forced to claim benefits which you are paying for. You're everything which is wrong with how things are going and you are directly contributing to it. I go into town on Saturday morning with my family, and I live with them. So I'm not actually doing anything different to you.
I don't see why i should use services i don't want/need to use just to stop them from failing.
Just look at how many people have been put out of jobs due to the internet and computers but your still using them.What people like you don't realise is that what works for you works for you, and what works for me works for me. Why people like you feel the need to criticise how others do things (and actually getting most of it wrong) and feel the need to change their ways of doing things when it doesn't impact your life whatsoever baffles me.
Cheers :beer:
I'm just debating my way of doing things vs your way. Challenging someone on why they do something and seeing their justification is always a good way to understand their reasoning.0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »As an historian, can I just point out how incredibly wrong you are? Of course people had money in 1918! In 1918 the mass of the population were amongst the working class who were, by definition, paid money for their labour (and the peasantry were too). In 1918 people were also in receipt of old age pensions and National Insurance had been established. Just a couple of indicators for you!
You are describing a barter economy. There has never been a barter economy in the UK (founded 1801 AD), nor,in the predecessor state of Great Britain (founded 1707 AD), nor in the predecessor state of England (founded 927 AD) - or Scotland (founded c.843 AD) - and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that predate England also had monetary economies. While barter did, and still does, form some part of the economy, all of these countries had monetary economies.
You would need to go back to a time well before the turn of the last millennium (i.e. 1001 AD) to find a society on these islands where money was not a regular part of daily economic activity. The pound sterling has its origins in the Kingdom of Mercia in mid 8th century, and before that the Anglo Saxon kingdoms operated a currency system of shillings (scillingas) from around the time of their settlements beginning in the early 5th century.
Prior to Anglo Saxon settlement, the Roman province of Britannia also operated a monetised economy, with the denarius being the currency in effect. There was a very short period between the withdrawal of Roman occupation (410 AD) and the founding of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms (c.440 AD) when a non-monetised economy operated, i.e. c.30-40 years.
Prior to Roman settlement (43 AD) the ancient Britons also operated a monetised economy for many centuries.
Monetised economy has been a feature of life on these islands for thousands of years.
Your understanding of the causes of revolution are also somewhat flawed, but I won't get into that now.
"As an historian, can I just point out how incredibly wrong you are?" - I wouldn't expect it to stop you. As a researcher of film studies and history with two degrees who has studied peasantry and capitalist/communist ideology in archive and documentary film-making, I also have some idea of history too, having done my MA thesis on the accuracy of historical portrayals of Elizabeth I on film and how it reflected society and culture at the time of the films production and having lectured (as a student) on Italian post war poverty.
Obviously people had money in 1918, 1818, 1718, and 18 AD. You've taken what I said wildly out of context and you know it, and gone on a complete tangent. Do you really think the Russian Revolution took place because people had so much money? Lol. It took place because the bourgeoisie and Imperial family had such staggering wealth and the other 99.9% of society had nothing. Farmers didn't own land they farmed, people lived in overcrowded housing and constant risk of death from poor sanitary and working conditions. Resorting to begging, crime and prostitution. Revolutions occurred as a result, with absolute monarchies replaced with socialist regimes. Current European monarchies survived as they had devolved powers to parliaments who serve in their name. As a historian, you should know that.
National Insurance created through the 1911 Act, only seven years before 1918. And I know the dates of when our Kingdom has been re-constituted and re-defined thank you. We were unified, not founded, in 1707 and 1801 (for example) by the way.0 -
It doesn't matter if it's a credit card or a debit card it does not work the way you are saying and what i said applies to both.
Remembering how much you have spent on every purchase over the last year is something that very few people could do. I don't know one person who could remember an amount spent on a randomly chosen day around 1 year ago.
Your getting abit confused with your numbers if your saving 66.6% then 33.4% is left over.
If you wanted to make a budget with categories for eating out, food, travel, clothes, haircuts etc then you would struggle to know how much you usually spend in each category each month (unless you have super memory). That's the point i was making, if your budget is simply 33.3% for everything then it's easy.
As you said you pay most things in cash then you need to get this somehow which takes time (unless you get paid in cash)
Yes i agree it also takes times but it's something that can be done anytime i have a minute using my phone. So it's definitely more convenient than obtaining cash which can only be done at certain places.
Well at least you realise your previous statements were wrong. Just because cash is still used a lot doesn't mean it is the best method. People are very resistant to change so you could look at it the other way and say card payments must be very good for so many people to change to them.
I don't see why i should use services i don't want/need to use just to stop them from failing.
Just look at how many people have been put out of jobs due to the internet and computers but your still using them.
I'm just debating my way of doing things vs your way. Challenging someone on why they do something and seeing their justification is always a good way to understand their reasoning.
If it's a credit card, as I originally said, and have given examples for, then it does. If I could upload a screenshot of a text from Santander telling me on a text alert where my card was used, when and how much for, I would. I have my alerts set up to alert me via SMS and email for purchases above £100.
A year ago was a year ago. I'm talking about more recently. I only spend about £15-£20 in a restaurant anyway as I that's my choice, so it's not difficult to know. I spend in cash (under £100, above I use a credit card for Section 75 protection), so handling and spending it means I know what I spend and have left over. I have my hair cut twice a month, and it's £18 a time. £36 a month. I buy £30 of petrol a week, that's £120 a month. Gym membership is £37.50 a month, 02 is £6 a month. It's not that difficult in reality. Also, paying in cash saves small business the card terminal fees which can be crippling. I know that from my business.
A typo of 0.1% is not confusion. I get cash out at the branch counter (which takes a few seconds, it's really not as painstaking as you make out), that's what the clerks are there for. I get them to do any banking transactions I need. Branches are important and always have people in them, so I practice what I preach and use them. Again, up to you what you do. For example, I saw two jumpers I liked on H&M website and I checked my local availability. I tried them on and bought them both in my high street store the next day. Quicker than waiting for delivery, having to send back if the size wasn't good, and 100% cheaper than paying for delivery. It costs retailers a lot in P+P for a lot of items for be returned. If I can't buy something in store locally, I will buy online, but to be honest, this method for me is rarer.
I haven't admitted to being wrong at all. But those three agencies I cited don't include cash fraud. If you'd rather me lie or make up a figure, I could have done that, but I didn't. Can you supply the figure of cash fraud. If difficult for the reasons I cited. I don't mind debating, it just annoys me when I post something, and someone comes back with 'you're wrong for how you do things.' They don't realize that I think the same of them, but I don't say it. I often say what I don't like about other methods, but never say that person is wrong for doing so. We all do what works for us. If you want to private message me about debating 'my way vs your way' feel free.0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »As an historian, can I just point out how incredibly wrong you are? Of course people had money in 1918! In 1918 the mass of the population were amongst the working class who were, by definition, paid money for their labour (and the peasantry were too). In 1918 people were also in receipt of old age pensions and National Insurance had been established. Just a couple of indicators for you!
You are describing a barter economy. There has never been a barter economy in the UK (founded 1801 AD), nor,in the predecessor state of Great Britain (founded 1707 AD), nor in the predecessor state of England (founded 927 AD) - or Scotland (founded c.843 AD) - and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that predate England also had monetary economies. While barter did, and still does, form some part of the economy, all of these countries had monetary economies.
You would need to go back to a time well before the turn of the last millennium (i.e. 1001 AD) to find a society on these islands where money was not a regular part of daily economic activity. The pound sterling has its origins in the Kingdom of Mercia in mid 8th century, and before that the Anglo Saxon kingdoms operated a currency system of shillings (scillingas) from around the time of their settlements beginning in the early 5th century.
Prior to Anglo Saxon settlement, the Roman province of Britannia also operated a monetised economy, with the denarius being the currency in effect. There was a very short period between the withdrawal of Roman occupation (410 AD) and the founding of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms (c.440 AD) when a non-monetised economy operated, i.e. c.30-40 years.
Prior to Roman settlement (43 AD) the ancient Britons also operated a monetised economy for many centuries.
Monetised economy has been a feature of life on these islands for thousands of years.
Your understanding of the causes of revolution are also somewhat flawed, but I won't get into that now.
Thank you, I found this very interesting.0 -
If it's a credit card, as I originally said, and have given examples for, then it does. If I could upload a screenshot of a text from Santander telling me on a text alert where my card was used, when and how much for, I would. I have my alerts set up to alert me via SMS and email for purchases above £100.
I think your misunderstanding the point i am making. Have a look at the difference between "offline" and "online" card transactions. If a transaction is carried out offline then the bank won't even know about it until it's processed so there is no way they can alert you instantly for a transaction they don't know about.
Cards such as Monzo are almost always online and their system is setup so the balance is updated immediately, that's one of the main benefits of having an account with them.I get cash out at the branch counter (which takes a few seconds, it's really not as painstaking as you make out), that's what the clerks are there for.
Even if your in town anyway and walking past the bank it will take alot longer than a few seconds to walk into the bank and to the desk, say you want to withdraw cash and how much, insert card and enter pin, collect cash and then walk back out.
Then any kind of queue will increase that time.0 -
I think your misunderstanding the point i am making. Have a look at the difference between "offline" and "online" card transactions. If a transaction is carried out offline then the bank won't even know about it until it's processed so there is no way they can alert you instantly for a transaction they don't know about.
Cards such as Monzo are almost always online and their system is setup so the balance is updated immediately, that's one of the main benefits of having an account with them.
Even if your in town anyway and walking past the bank it will take alot longer than a few seconds to walk into the bank and to the desk, say you want to withdraw cash and how much, insert card and enter pin, collect cash and then walk back out.
Then any kind of queue will increase that time.
All I know is that when I've spent more than £100 (a figure I selected) for hotel stay, for flights, or for clothing etc., I've had an instant SMS and email alerts almost instantly from Santander saying my credit card was used on Quantas.au, for £XXX on XX/XX/XXXX I don't know if Quantas, or Hilton, or ASOS do offline or online, but it's fact that I get those instant alerts. i don't know how else to say it!
For example, on 11 March I bought a coat on Barbour at 17:29. At 17:31, I got an SMS and an email from Santander saying that credit card ending XXXX made a purchase of £XXX was made on 11th March at J Barbour & Son.
Even if there is a queue of two people, I really couldn't care less. What you describe takes about a minute. If people haven't got one minute when they essentially haven't nothing else to do and in no hurry, then I think that's a concern. I'm in no hurry, and that's the problem with people at the moment: they want to do what they need to get done by yesterday. As a society we've become very absorbed by our own needs and we seem to get agitated very quickly if something doesn't happen within five seconds. We are less patient. You could wait at a cash machine for longer. My business banking only lets me transact on the cash machine, and people behind me start tooting after 20 seconds, as if there's some kind of time rule. I tell them to take it up with the bank why they don't allow business customers to use the counter, not with me.
I walk into town, get exercise, go into shops, buy things from time to time, keeping people employed and using the stores, have social interaction instead of being a hermit in my house doing everything on the computer. If people want to do that and it suits, then great. But it's not for me. There's a reason children are developing social interaction problems and it's because a lot parents sit them with an iPad where they look at a screen all the time. But we have really gotten away from people using or not using cash.0 -
"As an historian, can I just point out how incredibly wrong you are?" - I wouldn't expect it to stop you. As a researcher of film studies and history with two degrees who has studied peasantry and capitalist/communist ideology in archive and documentary film-making, I also have some idea of history too, having done my MA thesis on the accuracy of historical portrayals of Elizabeth I on film and how it reflected society and culture at the time of the films production and having lectured (as a student) on Italian post war poverty.
You have degrees in film studies. I have them in history.
Your comment suggested quite clearly that you had little understanding of coinage and monetised economies, and equally your comment about revolution suggested only superficial understanding (at best) of the causes of revolutions in the C20th.Obviously people had money in 1918, 1818, 1718, and 18 AD. You've taken what I said wildly out of context and you know it, and gone on a complete tangent.
You said,5) Nobody had money in 1918 (Hello, the time of revolutions due to starvation...) People lived off of their lands for centuries. Of course there is more money and more cash now.
This comment, particularly with its reference to people living off the land, clearly shows a lack of understanding of monetised economy.Do you really think the Russian Revolution took place because people had so much money? Lol. It took place because the bourgeoisie and Imperial family had such staggering wealth and the other 99.9% of society had nothing.
Which Russian revolution? For convenience, I will assume that you are referring to the events of 1917 and not 1905, but there were two revolutions in 1917 (February/March and October/November). If you mean the first then that was a coup d'etat carried out by the elites to remove Nicholas II. Indeed, his brother (Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich) was offered the crown in a constitutional monarchy. Michael refused and a republic was declared instead. The people had almost nothing to do with it. If, however, you meant the second revolution then.... the people had almost nothing to do with it. A small group formed from amongst petty bourgeois intellectuals and the urban proletariat capitalised on the instability of the Provisional Government in the face of the Petrograd Soviet (soviets had nothing specifically to do with Bolshevism at this time) and carried out a second coup d'etat. Both revolutions were nearly bloodless (despite Soviet propaganda) and did not involve the people rising up. Indeed the Bolshevik Party was a "vanguard party" formed to enable revolution because the peasantry (who comprised the mass of the Russian population) lacked the class consciousness necessary.Farmers didn't own land they farmed, people lived in overcrowded housing and constant risk of death from poor sanitary and working conditions. Resorting to begging, crime and prostitution.
Some farmers owned their own land, and owning land is not a guarantee of prosperity. In fact in most capitalist societies the employment of farm labourers actually improved the living standards of the peasantry by providing them with more secure income.
Talking about urban overcrowding is very problematic if it is not historically sited, i.e. in which country and when. Cities like London had overcrowding and slums in some parts, as did Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool etc, but there was no revolution in the UK. There was a revolution in Germany in 1918, but living conditions had been significantly better there than in the bulk of British cities before the war. The First World War caused significant hardship in Germany due to the British blockade seriously hindering access to necessary foodstuffs and fuel. This did contribute to the German Revolution, although, again, it was a coup d'etat, not a mass rising, despite small scale revolts, with the German High Command under General Groener informing the Kaiser that he no longer had the support of the army, and the chancellor, Prince Max von Baden handing the chancellorship to Friedrich Ebert (leader of the SPD) as the man most able to form a workable government (due to the size of SPD representation in the Reichstag). The transition of power was affected primarily because it was believed that the Allies would offer a more favourable peace to a civilian government without the Kaiser.Revolutions occurred as a result, with absolute monarchies replaced with socialist regimes. Current European monarchies survived as they had devolved powers to parliaments who serve in their name. As a historian, you should know that.
I know a lot more than you!
The only country to experience the transition from an absolute monarchy to a socialist government was Russia (in a two step process, not involving the people rising up, as outlined above). Germany was not an absolute monarchy and the government that took over was not socialist (the SPD were a social democratic party who actually put down an armed uprising by the Spartacist League who sought to establish a soviet republic). Austria-Hungary was also not an absolute monarchy (although the emperor retained significant power) and it too did not see a socialist government formed in Austria and the government of Bela Kun in Hungary actually took power from the republic established in 1918, lasted only 133 days and was, once again, a coup d'etat, not a popular uprising. There were no other socialist, or communist, governments established in Europe at that point.National Insurance created through the 1911 Act, only seven years before 1918.
Thanks for that, funnily enough I do know. The point I was making (which you spectacularly failed to appreciate) was that, if as you claimed people didn't have money in 1918, then National Insurance couldn't have operated, being, as it is, a tax raised on monetary income.And I know the dates of when our Kingdom has been re-constituted and re-defined thank you. We were unified, not founded, in 1707 and 1801 (for example) by the way.
Wrong again!
The Kingdom of Great Britain was established in 1707 through the Acts of Union. The Acts of Union merged the kingdoms of England and Scotland which had shared the same monarch since 1603, but were distinct kingdoms with separate governments. It is, therefore, perfectly correct to say that the Kingdom of Great Britain was founded in 1707 (and to claim anything else is ill-informed. The Acts of Union state, in Article I, "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN".
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later Northern Ireland) was founded (not "re-defined" or "re-constituted") by the Acts of Union, 1800. These acts were passed by both the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland. Again, those two kingdoms were in personal union, i.e. they had the same monarch, but were separate kingdoms with their own governments and parliaments.The Acts of Union state, in Article I, "That it be the first Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the Name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".
There did not exist, before 1801, a United Kingdom, and there did not exist, before 1707, a Kingdom of Great Britain. Your understanding of the constitutional history is not correct.0 -
ValiantSon, I've literally skipped to the bottom of this page and clicked quick reply, I haven't read any of what you've said. I don't know why you keep stalking and replying to me. You're not a walking encyclopaedia like you think you are, and you're not the only one who is educated. You don't even know the difference between unified and founded. I saw on another thread two or three other contributors take you to task about how you behave to others and call you out, and one was even a 'friend' who didn't like how you speak to people. Seriously, stop replying to me. It's bordering on obsessive how you always feel the need to reply to me, or in your opinion to 'correct' when I'm not wrong or you just disagree. Accept that you have got some things wrong above and move on.
Leave. Me. Alone.0 -
ValiantSon, I've literally skipped to the bottom of this page and clicked quick reply, I haven't read any of what you've said.
That's a shame because you might have learned something!I don't know why you keep stalking and replying to me.
We've been down this road before: I am not stalking you. You are posting on an internet forum that has a relatively small number of active users. I happened to look at a thread that you happened to have posted in. What you posted was utter nonsense and I corrected it. If you don't like being corrected then don't post nonsense, or don't post at all. If you do post then you need to get used to being corrected when you are wrong. It happens to us all.You're not a walking encyclopaedia like you think you are, and you're not the only one who is educated.
I never claimed to be a walking encyclopaedia. What a bizarre thing to suggest! I do know more than you about history, and there will be other areas where that is true also (like how interest is calculated on bank accounts - as has been repeatedly demonstrated). There will be some things that you know more about than me, but we haven't found those yet.
Did I ever say that I was the only person who was educated? Another silly and bizarre comment to make.You don't even know the difference between unified and founded.
If you'd bothered to read my post then you'd have seen why you are wrong about that one. One of the advantages of my particular education is that I do have an understanding of constitutional history. You really are just wrong about that, I'm afraid.I saw on another thread two or three other contributors take you to task about how you behave to others and call you out, and one was even a 'friend' who didn't like how you speak to people.
I don't have any friends on here. The people on here are just random individuals who I sometimes discuss things with. They are not my friends.
Yes, I have disagreed with other people, just like you have. Yes, there was one instance where some people didn't like what I had posted and my frustration at dealing with intransigence, as I saw it. What exactly is your point?Seriously, stop replying to me. It's bordering on obsessive how you always feel the need to reply to me, or in your opinion to 'correct' when I'm not wrong or you just disagree.
No, it isn't obsessive, but you are quite precious about it. If you post something that is wrong and I happen to see it then I may well correct you. This is the nature of a forum. I don't actually pick you up on everything - because life is too short - just the more egregious errors.Accept that you have got some things wrong above and move on.
:rotfl:
Please enlighten me as to exactly what I have got wrong! You are the one who is wrong, as I have demonstrated, but then you haven't bothered to read what I wrote (apparently) so you can't possibly say whether I am right or wrong. Everything I wrote is historically accurate. Your failure to engage with it and then turning to claim that I am stalking you (what a silly comment) is typical of what you do when you are shown to be wrong.Leave. Me. Alone.
No.
If you post something incorrect and I happen to see it then I may comment. If you don't like that then feel free to ignore me and continue to live in ignorance.0 -
I'm cashless as far as is possible (I always carry a small amount of cash just in case) and pay anywhere I can with my Curve card. I can lock it when it's not in use through the app on my phone and do. I carry a backup card which is not contactless. Security and convenience.If you don't like what I say slap me around with a large trout and PM me to tell me why.
If you do like it please hit the thanks button.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards