fruitisbad Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 they need to change the rules making it easier to get paid or recive benefits without a bank account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Indeed, but that's not the same thing as being arrested for trying to withdraw their money from the bank. Nope, but being arrested for refusing to leave the bank wouldn't sound as dramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Whether you believe the request to leave, and consequent arrest, were justified or not would depend largely on whether you believe the bank's reasons for declining service were justified. If my bank refused to let me have money for no good reason, you can be darned sure I'm not going to turn round and leave just because they ask me to. A bank would only refuse to let you have money with a valid reason. Of course, we don't have that much cash in the branch is a perfectly valid, all be it annoying reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 they need to change the rules making it easier to get paid or recive benefits without a bank account. Why do they? Banks would love to get rid of all those silly 'basic' accounts which cost the bank a fortune to run and make no profit in return. But the (Labour) government wanted to pay peoples benefits into their bank accounts so they could close down the Post Offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 A bank would only refuse to let you have money with a valid reason. Of course, we don't have that much cash in the branch is a perfectly valid, all be it annoying reason. I'll give you that. The anti-corporate, send-all-bankers-to-jail brigade probably won't, but I was considering it only in hypothetical terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Why do they? Banks would love to get rid of all those silly 'basic' accounts which cost the bank a fortune to run and make no profit in return. But the (Labour) government wanted to pay peoples benefits into their bank accounts so they could close down the Post Offices. why? because you shouldn't NEED to have a bank account in order to be employed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 True but you need a bank account to get paid. How do you think it happens? No legitimate employers pay cash and without a bank account to pay a cheque into you would have to use a cheque cashing service and lose a percentage of your wage. Large employers will no doubt insist on bank transfer as they will have to deal with huge payrolls and expect everyone to have an account. I certainly would be suspicious if an employee of mine was funny about having a bank account open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 True but you need a bank account to get paid. How do you think it happens? No legitimate employers pay cash and without a bank account to pay a cheque into you would have to use a cheque cashing service and lose a percentage of your wage. Large employers will no doubt insist on bank transfer as they will have to deal with huge payrolls and expect everyone to have an account. I certainly would be suspicious if an employee of mine was funny about having a bank account open. But this is largely a circular argument. The reason you must have a bank account is because people would be suspicious if you didn't want one; and the only reason people would be suspicious if you didn't want one, is because everyone must have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 A bank would only refuse to let you have money with a valid reason. Of course, we don't have that much cash in the branch is a perfectly valid, all be it annoying reason. What about declining an electronic transfer? What do you think would be a valid reason for the bank doing that? Remember, the capital reserve of a bank is not just held in physical cash although a portion of it is. The failure of a bank would not just be caused by people not being able to get cash out of ATMs. The time to worry would be when they close the phone service & online banking down, and pull the shutters down on the branches. That said, banks running out of cash in branches would precipitate a panic. Although you talk about it as if it's an entirely reasonable thing to expect. No bank ever wants to be in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Presumably legislation exists that allows a bank to temporarily suspend transactions if a run appears to be occurring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.