Serial Switching for Rewards. Not good.

System

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Not really a trick question but I was suggesting the drop in interest payable might be analogous to receiving interest in a savings account and might therefore create disquiet for you.

Not really. Paying a company for a service and then having the charge reduced or discounted is fine by me. I'm OK paying interest myself I'm not so keen on the money breeds money culture of the filthy rich who need to do nothing apart from invest their wealth, sit back and live on the proceeds. I can't even begin to argue a case for how I feel, all I can say is that it leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

I don't think a person needs to be perfect or completely consistent to be able to see things happening they feel are wrong. In this forum people have tried to tear apart my moral compass to destroy what I said in my initial post - which was a general feeling directed at nobody in particular. It has been very unpleasant for me but has helped me to appreciate how harshly others attack a different point of view. I have more compassion and empathy for others in a similar position - particularly those of a spiritual persuasion. No doubt everyone can justify their position because they felt I was attacking them - but when I made my comments there was not a single user I could identify in any way who fell into my category of 'serial switcher'. All the subsequent criticism and obvious dislike has been directed at me personally.

masonic

scgf wrote: »

I'm on a learning curve here. Does this mean one should not call out the actions of others? We should always remain tight-lipped when we feel there are bad actions taking place? Have no opinions on what others do?

Nothing wrong with calling out the actions of others if you can jusify your position and be willing to discuss and change your beliefs in response to new understanding or information. If you can't or won't justify why you are condemning the actions of others, how do you know your beliefs are not merely prejudices?

Makes me think of this story in the news today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49147605
No doubt this woman believed she was calling out truly immoral behaviour, and had a deeply convicted belief what she was doing was right.

dreaming

scgf wrote: »

I'm on a learning curve here. Does this mean one should not call out the actions of others? We should always remain tight-lipped when we feel there are bad actions taking place? Have no opinions on what others do?

For me it would depend on the action. For example, seeing someone standing outside of a bank mugging people for their cash - I would certainly call the police. If I thought others would back me up I might even tackle the person directly but obviously self-preservation has to be allowed for. I have "called out" extremely inconsiderate parking in my area as there are a lot of elderly people with walkers or in wheelchairs who cannot navigate vans parked on our narrow paths. I even (verbally) tackled two men flytipping in my area, took photos of them and reported them to the council. However, those are quite easy to have an opinion on as all examples are actually prohibited by law or by-law. Certain actions which are quite legal I can consider to be immoral but quite often that tends to be when someone is abusing their power over someone in a weaker position and possibly would speak up. I was often in trouble at work for standing up for against what I saw as injustices, and I have campaigned against government/council decisions which have hit certain sections of society making their lives not just difficult but often impossible.

I'm not sure I can actually say I weigh up every decision I make, nor do I necessarily go out of my way to do a good deed each day but I try to help others if I am able (and sometimes even when I'm not). I do try not to do "bad" things though, although I have to admit I have hurt people (emotionally, not physically) - usually through unintentional thoughtlessness and occasional anger. Mostly though I am very much a live and let live person just trying to get through life as best I can without affecting others. So actions which don't hurt anyone and which are not illegal, such as taking incentives for serial bank switching, I would leave to the individual's conscience. There is, of course, an argument to be made that if we all refused these incentives and stopped switching, then the banks would do something more worthwhile with that cash - give everyone cheaper mortgages/better savings interest/free turkey at Christmas to all customers/donate it to charity - but having worked in the financial industry for many years I know that is extremely unlikely.
Perhaps you could look for a discssion group in your area or online so you can debate these ideas. Be warned though that most of these sort of groups rarely end with everyone agreeing. Usually the best you can hope for is that everyone agrees to disagree.

Sea_Shell

scgf wrote: »

I'm OK paying interest myself I'm not so keen on the money breeds money culture of the filthy rich who need to do nothing apart from invest their wealth, sit back and live on the proceeds. I can't even begin to argue a case for how I feel, all I can say is that it leaves me feeling uncomfortable.
.

But what's your definition of filthy rich?? £250k, £500k, £1m, £1b???

We've worked hard and saved hard and are now able to quit work and "need to do nothing apart from invest their wealth, sit back and live on the proceeds.".:beer:

Willing2Learn

masonic wrote: »

Makes me think of this story in the news today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49147605

That news report instantly reminded of the Monty Python 'stoning' scene from The Life Of Brian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5YU_spBw0

System

masonic wrote: »

Nothing wrong with calling out the actions of others if you can jusify your position and be willing to discuss and change your beliefs in response to new understanding or information. If you can't or won't justify why you are condemning the actions of others, how do you know your beliefs are not merely prejudices?

For all your hyperbole on here you are putting yourself forward as Mr Perfect - he who can destroy the arguments of others, therefore must be right. I admit I have weaknesses but I try to be good. I admit I can't argue a case for my feelings but I would never castigate another person who is trying to do the right thing. I'm not sure how a person can change their beliefs in the light of new information. What we each believe is right and wrong is not something up for negotiation. A belief is often irrational.

Every person is a package of good and bad traits. My view is that if the good traits please you and the bad traits aren't too numerous and don't offend you then all is well. I actually find how people voted in the EU referendum has been most helpful in this respect. It has sorted the sheep from the goats. IMO anyone who supports Brexit could not be someone with whom I would wish to associate because the package of traits needed to support our withdrawal from the EU would be most offensive to me.

dreaming

Having just re-read one of your previous posts I note that you say you did not aim your inital criticism/condemnation at anyone in particular. However posting such a statement about people (later amended to their actions) on a thread on a forum which is particularly known to be largely about maximising one's income could be seen to be inflammatory at the worst, or just a bit thoughtless in the least. You also seem to be lumping everyone who does take serial incentives together in the same boat. I am reasonably comfortable on my income but always look for legal ways to increase it where I can, and I don't care what you or anyone elses think about me for taking advantage of these offers when I can. How do you feel about a family member who has spent several years (often working 7 days a week) paying back debt which they got into partly through their own (self-admitted) stupidity/lack of knowledge but partly through the actions of banks extending their maxed out credit cards and offering consolidation loans at high rates without helping the individual learn about finances? Those soryt of actions by banks are totally immoral in my eyes. The individual concerned has paid every penny off now. Even though the debt charity they consulted did recommend bankruptcy initially the individual took the view that they had run up the debt so they should pay it off. So yes I will take the cash incentives and switch, and have encouraged the family member to do the same to try to build up their emergency fund. Morality sometimes depends on where you are standing.

tempus_fugit

The way I see it is the banks are offering money for satisfying a set of conditions, and as long as we do that then we have kept our end of the bargain. There is no stipulation that we continue to "use" the account except in so far as there may be a requirement to put in a certain amount of money each month or keep some direct debits active. Beyond that it does not matter if we use it as our "main" account, which these days means very little anyway as I have a number of accounts, several of which could be deemed as performing the functions of a "main" account, or whatever, as long as we satisfy the terms and conditions that is all that matters.

I have switched many accounts, and sometimes I have continued to use them and on others I have switched away again if I have no further use for it. Surely this is how consumerism works, and the banks are certainly advocates of that. Of course, the banks are not perfect, but I see nothing wrong with "playing their game" if it benefits me as much as we have to conform to what they expect of us in order to hold the accounts. And I'm sure they're not that bothered anyway, the incentives must benefit them in some way or they would not offer them.

System

tempus_fugit wrote: »

The way I see it is the banks are offering money for satisfying a set of conditions, and as long as we do that then we have kept our end of the bargain.

You are absolutely right - which is why I am finding it so difficult to justify why I feel as I do. I can't offer a rational argument - therefore it is time for me to leave the discussion unless someone pokes me with a sharp stick.

pphillips

scgf wrote: »

Every person is a package of good and bad traits. My view is that if the good traits please you and the bad traits aren't too numerous and don't offend you then all is well. I actually find how people voted in the EU referendum has been most helpful in this respect. It has sorted the sheep from the goats. IMO anyone who supports Brexit could not be someone with whom I would wish to associate because the package of traits needed to support our withdrawal from the EU would be most offensive to me.

So, you're in favour of those on the Brussels gravy train but not those who switch current accounts for rewards!