The US government has a capacity to print and mail about one million checks per day. Five days per week. If 100 million people are getting a check then it will take 100 work days or 20 weeks. The checks will be sent in reverse order of income. Those with little income get paid first, those with higher income will be paid last. Building new payment centers, hiring new payment processors, for a once in a lifetime event would be wasteful. But this event has motivated thought on how to create a system which will in the future permit rapid payment to everybody.
Everyone is free to choose not to have a bank account. And we're free to choose to have one. That's pretty fair.
Are people without bank accounts disqualified from getting the money? If so...that's fucked up, and I'll fight against that with you. If not, and it means it just takes longer for people without bank accounts to get money, then no, that's not my battle.
Many of the poor, including me, cannot afford the cost of a bank account. Not when it is a choice of paying $10.75 a month (cheapest monthly cost of any bank near me for a checking account) - and the cost of printed checks adds even more to this. Not when that $10.75 a month has to come from something else that is critical. It is NOT a choice, it is something forced on us because we are poor. So many of the very, very poor will have to wait the longest to receive any stimulus at all.
Others responding to this thread mentioned getting a free Credit Union account. Well, that doesn't work for many either. Yes, there is a credit union that I would be eligible to join 'nearby', but it is 8 miles from where I live, so that means a 16-mile round trip walk every time I have to go there. Again, really not feasible.
So, yes, this is NOT fair. And, like almost everything the Republicans do, it (whether intentional or not) always seems to eff the poor more than others.
Should those of us that have bank accounts have our checks put on hold until someone personally delivers your money? Just to be fair?
The fact that people with bank accounts will get the money sooner, doesn't mean it will take any longer for people without bank accounts to get their money
You don't need a checking account at a bank. Can you get a cost-free savings account? I used to have checking accounts at some banks. Then they started the monthly fee nonsense. No more bank checking accounts.
The credit union: it's eight miles away. Once you have established an account there, can you access it for free on a nearby ATM?
Obviously there is some computer near you. Is at the library? Is the library near such an ATM? If you get a debit card at the credit union, you should be able to handle transactions without cash using that.
I'm just trying to help.
The disadvantages of that is they are not as secure as a bank checking account, so the person should not go around sloppily using the card in a way that it can get compromised, gas pumps that are not secure are bad places to use it, as are ATMs in convenience stores and drive up bank ATMs. The second disadvantage is that a fee normally is charged for cash withdrawals. If the person only used the card to buy groceries and at pharmacies, the transactions are usually free, as are online purchases. The cards are debit cards, so they can't be overdrafted.
Regular banks, like SunTrust here is Florida issue cards that come with tracking on each transaction, so transactions that have strange patterns to them immediately get flagged, say that you normally only spend maybe a couple hundred at the most for the biggest transactions, suddenly a $15,000 transaction shows up. The bank puts each transaction in a "pending" state, which means it does not get paid instantly until the bank confirms that it's legit. In the case of the big transaction, the bank contacts you and ask whether you made the transaction, if not, it rejects payment. Of course that protection comes with a bigger fee, but if a person has a lot of money in an account, like company funds, the fee is worth it, given the protection against fraudulent transactions that can drain accounts.
It is far easier for the government to pay money into accounts electronically when it has a person banking information either because of tax payments by the person, or Social Security (which I think is only electronic now). That process takes a few hours, versus printing checks, which likely will take months.
If you don't have a bank account of some type, how do you plan to cash the treasury check? My guess is the fee that you pay to cash that one check is more than you would have paid monthlyfor a bank account.
It would be nice if banks offered debit only checking accounts. In such a case, you could never overdraft the account, so the bank has zero risk. In turn for the service, the bank would charge a monthly fee, similar to a regular checking account.
the card just like a cr. card and the money comes out of your checking account. There is no charge for anything and the checking acct. pays interest (though it's very little). We switched from having an acct. with a commercial bank back when it became obvious that the only accts they wanted were the nice business accts where they make money on lots of services. Our SS money is direct deposited into this CU acct. SS money is DIRECT DEPOSIT ONLY so you have to get an acct somewhere.
We moved two States away (375 miles) from our Credit Union three years ago, but we still use it.
Everything is online now, and we get fee free ATM usage right down the road. In todays world you dont need a neighborhood bank. Its all in your neighborhood.
to not have an account than it is to have one anyway.
The IRS doesn't have my account number because I owe money every year.
I doubt they took our information off our checks we send.
Wish you were kidding. Sad we can think that of a president but he certainly proved it himself time after time.
Which may take them as long as sending the freakin' checks...(we pay estimated taxes and roll over any refunds, so they don't have our info, either)
Haven't checked yet on my 'check' because I know we will have to claim it as income on next years IRS forms. and probably pay taxes on it.
I asked for the information link because I do have a bank account, emails, internet but always require all correspondence/checks by regular 'paper' mail.
If you require a paper check... its expected to take some time.
Recent reporting indicates that paper checks are expected to start printing the last week of the month starting with those with the lowest... but may take as long as September for some people.
'really a shame the government is so slow to respond where the need is greatest now'
In other news... vegans in the northeast who choose to only eat fresh and local produce are discriminated against during the winter.
Nevertheless. I reject the implication. Not having a bank account (or credit union, etc) is almost always MORE expensive than having one of the cheap ones.
The associated fees and costs that come from not being able to handle bills with a checking account far outstrip the costs, of any, associated with a credit union account.
could not afford a regular bank account, with it's monthly fees and overdraft charges. So I got an online debit account. It had banking id information for me, so if I wanted to arrange automatic deposits or automatic payments out of the account, I could. I was really poor, like $20 was a lot of money poor, I got to the point where I could make $20 feed me for almost a week. The point is you have choices if you want to seek them out, so it is not the way that you make it out. The online fee was something like $4 per month. I had to be careful about where I used the card, the online bank refunded a person if they could prove fraudulent use of the card, but it was a drawn out process that could take a few weeks (it happened to me when my card was scammed at a gas pump, I got the stolen money back into my account, but it took almost a month). So I learned to be careful when I used the card.
that the government is sending out debit cards. Maybe this relative has fallen prey to a scam, "Assign your stimulus payment to us, and we'll send you this (high cost) debit card for your convenience!"
I'm sure that the scamsters are positively salivating over ways of getting a piece of this, if not the whole damn amount of a person's payment.
I know there is a population of the unbanked. Being cash based, having to by money orders to pay certain bills, doesn't make sense to me.
Most credit unions offer savings and checking accounts that are free.
Last I knew, the Post Office sold money orders for pretty cheap. Of course if a person is buying plenty of money orders per month, that person should get a checking account that is debit card only.
I buy my money orders at Walmart near where I live,each one costs a buck.
But on the plus side, the money order is as good as cash or a cashier's check, so people accept them more readily.
Seems your system works ok. At a buck each, you can buy plenty of money orders and not feel a pinch. Myself now, all my transactions are electronic.
And this method protects me from late fee or overdrafts. Since one of my bills comes later in the month.
I get it at the start of the month when money is there.keep it in a safe until it's due.
I have no fee or minimum in my account. I got a few free checks to use when I got my account,still have them,unused.
Not having a checking account is your choice, it makes it harder to do a lot of things, but that difficulty is part of the choice.
This is not discriminatory any more than choosing to live on a remote island makes things more difficult to obtain is discriminatory.
The idea is to get money into the hands of people who need it quickly. The only way to do that equally would be to delay everyone else to be equal in time to those who choose not to have accounts.
enormously greater. I imagine a fair amount of the delay is about minimizing theft by people for whom these checks are a lot of money and setting up systems to respond quickly to reports of theft or nondelivery.
Count on the Drumpf regime screwing this up they are perfectionists at screwing up.
Democratic house majority, he's done what he needed to to keep the Republicans from sending his "check" to the Kochs without screwing up at all.
All it takes is one of your cancelled checks falling into the wrong hands.
I would be more concerned about how secure the site with the bank info is. If the career IRS people set it up without political interference, I would trust it.
How would we know if there was political interference? Whistleblowers expose themselves to a shitstorm that ruins their lives and careers. I will wait for a paper check. However long that takes.
via the Treasury Dept's website and have for years, so my banking information is in the system somewhere. I don't include that info in my returns because I never get money back. I hope it being in the system somewhere, even if not tied to my returns, enables them to get the $$ to me in one of the first waves.
while simultaneously complaining that you arent able to benefit from said system. Not having a bank account is financially irresponsible and, frankly, a bit childish.
Find a credit union if you have a philosophical issue with banks.
People who choose not to have bank accounts all understand they were choosing to give up a lot of convenience, including longer times for a lot of things that are a normal way of life. Their choice. And this won't be the first or 20th time the consequences of this choice were unforeseen.
Unfairness lies with those who can't choose for various reasons, and my sympathy for those who function well and make sensible decisions but don't have stable income or savings for bank accounts. (Transportation problems are no longer a reason for most.)
Those also include, though, a good percentage of people who've never functioned well enough to participate adequately in society due to mental/emotional issues and often lack of family support. No matter how this was done, millions of those would be served late, and some not at all considering that many are not at whatever last address they left and/or that many who don't receive a check for any reason will never follow up, even knowing it.
Perhaps those checks could be gotten out faster, but at least be happy that we put Democrats in charge of the house. To strong conservatives bank accounts are like clean, late-model cars -- indicators of worthiness, lack of them indicators of unworthiness. Today's Republicans believe government should punish unworthiness, but Democrats are able to put strong limits on how much they can get away with.
As you are in a position to pay cash for everything.
not to have bank accounts should have taken that fact under consideration when they made that choice.
would someone choose not to have a bank account?
I know that there are people out there who cannot handle one, and the banks choose not to have them as customers, but why would someone choose not to have something so useful, that can often be had at little or no cost, especially from a credit union?
I assume there's a fee for that service. I have never used such a place, so I don't know.
I mentioned credit unions. And there are fee-free options at many institutions. Perhaps the best thing someone could do with their stimulus money is to use the paper check to set up an account that requires a minimum balance for setting the account up, and if one is required to maintain a fee-free account, then keep that in there for emergency savings.
Or, there's the alternative of getting ripped off constantly by check-cashing places and other vultures.
Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2020, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)
I used to be a tax accountant back in the 1980's, and I saw all kinds of things that nickel and dimed people to death. I spent a fair amount of time educating my clients on how to avoid getting ripped off. Too bad there's nothing like that out there for poorer folks.
Everyone here has at least one or the other, but lots of people don't.
Back in the mid-nineties, when internet access was just rolling out, Alexandria's (Virginia) homeless used the library's computers to check their email. They had email accounts before I did.
are deposited directly in our checking account. That one payment is a PITA, since I have to drive it over to the bank and go through the drive-through to deposit it.
Social Security much prefers direct deposit and so do most other payers. My wife has several clients who pay her directly into the account, as do I.
I can't imagine living without a bank account where deposits can get deposited without a check. I could deposit that one check I get through a cell phone app at my bank, but I won't put a bank app on my cell phone, for security reasons. I just won't. I use the bank's online services on my desktop PC, but am not comfortable having it on my cell phone, which could get lost or stolen at any time.
I also don't store my login info on my desktop machine, for the same reason.
checks either. Thats a tough one, but you get the money out as fast to as many as you can. Hopefully, checks will get out faster than they are saying.
in 1975. Starting in 2013 the only way to get SS was electronically, either through direct deposit or by a debit card.
The essential reasons the SSA moved away from sending out all those checks was that it cost them a fuck of a lot of money to print up and mail the physical checks, and people would regularly have them stolen from their mailboxes.
So choosing not to have a bank account is a choice. You might want to reconsider that choice.
govt needs access, and uses the easiest access it has 'quickly.'
'Invidious Discrimination is treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging.'
And for mocking those who do not fall neatly into direct deposits. Yes, we all know that life isnt fair. Whether its because people dont have bank accounts and never get refunds, some people will have their payments delayed. That genuinely sucks at a time when that money is needed. Mocking them is nothing short of insulting and bullying. So Ill say it again. Fuck off.
OP was quite clear in saying that he or she chose not to have a bank account and we all know that tax refunds and payments from the government arrive much quicker when there is a bank account that can be used for direct deposit.
I've noticed WAY too many snarky people insulting others lately. We all just need to chill. Everyone's nerves are shot because Agent Orange cant even understand sympathy. But props on your reply. Glad someone said it
I'm not a crazy revolutionary or a CT guy about banks. It's just that I make under five figures, work really hard for the money and don't trust banks much.
Many of my low income friends have had their meager assets seized improperly.
Banks are there to make money.
However Credit Unions are nonprofit and mine does not charge for an account. Im a member not a customer. This is something all Americans should be made aware of.
My mother, an executive assistant( she refused the term and still in her 80s says she was a secretary) was actually on the board at her credit union for years.
When I used to file my taxes by mailing them in it could take 6 weeks to get my check. This year I got my refund deposited into my account in a week. Printing and mailing millions of checks just takes time especially when with less than a month to prepare. It a logistical nightmare. This is one thing we cant blame Trump for. I doubt any human even looked at my tax return. It is simple as hell with a married couple taking the standard deduction. No extra income or special deductions. Looked good, approved, start routing the funds to my account.
Choices have consequences.
So they will know exactly who to blame.
The incompetence of the Trump administration is well known here and I don't doubt they will drag their feet because they don't give a shit about regular people. But my question is how fast could a competent administration send out those checks if they wanted to do it as fast as they can? I'm assuming the IRS has automated machines to print the checks and put them in addressed envelopes, but those machines can only print so many checks per day. Are they running at capacity? idk