These are the people who bail out the banks who lose money to fraud (or bad investments, or insider trading, or rogue agents).
Well done anonymous. the 99% will be paying for this.
Anonymous and other hacktivists have joined together to launch an attack on banks in response to recent crackdowns against the Occupy protest movement. TeaMp0isoN and Anonymous are joining forces to run OpRobinHood, which will involve using stolen credit details to donate to charities and others, supposedly at the expense of …
If a credit card transaction is identified as fraudulent, the bank will just take the money back from the charity and give it back to owner of the stolen cc . Net monetary difference to either the charity, the owner of the stolen card, and the bank, approximately zero beyond some admin costs, which the bank will hardly notice.
The net non-monetary difference will be a whole lot of hassle for both people who get their cards stolen, and for the charities themselves who will not be able to budget properly if large amounts of donations are being reversed.
I might agree with the idea that too-big-to-fail banks and the web of crony-ism between them, their auditors, regulators and government is a BAD THING, but if you want to do something about it, at least put the effort to something that will have a real effect towards your stated objectives. Withdrawing money from big banks and putting it in smaller credit unions could be one such way. This hare-brained scheme on the other hand..... FAIL
Not that I'm against them, in fact I belong to one. But Credit Unions report to the same regulators the banks do in the end, and can require a commercial bank who acts as the intermediary for processing their transactions. I know this because my electronic transactions were always getting screwed up when I first opened my account because the routing number on my check didn't match the routing number that was actually used to process the transaction behind the scenes. This has since ceased to be a problem.
Banks trade money with the Credit unions the same as they do with other banks. Moving money to credit unions does not hurt them as you might think. The only way to hit them hard is to remove the money from the system so they have NO control. Pull the money out and keep it all or at least a large portion in Cash.
Many of the top financial advisors are advising this as well, for your own security.
If it is in cash, it can't be seized.
It's specifically about tax and tax cuts but it all counts for the same when referring to the economy.
“Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay £1;
the sixth would pay £3;
the seventh would pay £7;
the eighth pays £12;
the ninth would pay £18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay £59
“That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut).
“‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by £20. So now dinner for the ten only cost £80.00.
“The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six–the paying customers? How could they divvy up the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
“The six men realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:
as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid £2;
the seventh paid £5;
the eighth man paid £9;
the ninth man paid £12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of £52 instead of his earlier £59
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
“But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. ‘I only got a pound out of the £20 reduction,’ declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. ‘But he got £7!’. ‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man, ‘I only saved a pound too; it’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!’
‘”That’s true,’ shouted the seventh man, ‘why should he get £7 back when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. ‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison, ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
“The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now £52 short of paying the bill.
And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.”
What the story doesn't mention is out of $100 meal...
The tenth man, the richest, eats $70 worth;
the ninth eats $22 worth;
the eighth eats $10 worth;
the seventh eats $5 worth;
the sixth eats $2 worth;
the fifth eats 50c worth;
the first four men eat 50c worth between them;
Really? Well you obviously missed the whole point of the argument, looking at what stupid figures you came up with.
".....The tenth man, the richest, eats $70 worth...." How? Does every rich man use 70% of the income support budget? Does each one claim 140 times as much unemployment money as the scroungers at the bottom? Do the rich go to the hospital 140 times more often than the poor (actually, the rich that pay the most taxes which pay for the free healthcare for the poor usually go private and pay again!)? Do the rich drive 140 cars for each car driven on public roads by the poor? Do the rich have 140 kids going to free schools for every poor kid (again, the rich pay the most towards the eductaion of the poor, but then pay again to send their kids to private school)?
In short, you were too busy hating to stop and actually think about the matter. Massive fail.
I was using a simple counter-anology to another simple but flawed analogy. You may have liked its simplicity and were deeply offended by my addendum but the OP was no a detailed world economics report, so neither was mine.
As far as the rest of your frothing rant, not all poor people (at the bottom) are scroungers, and I hardly think you can argue that the richest 1% are only taking their fair share of 1% of the worlds income and resources - which is what the original anology seems to infer, and you back. If that was true a pint of beer would be the same price anywhere you went in the world, as would a car, a house, healthcare - and our corporations wouldn't outsource jobs to India because there would be no cost benefit on wages.
Of course I couldn't resist pointing out that I know poor people who do not own a car, I know middle-class people who own 0, 1 and 2 cars, I have yet to meet a upper-middle class or rich person who does not own at least 2 cars.
Just in case anyone is thinking it, this is nothing to do with my opinion on TFA - I was responding to an over-simplified analogy. As far as OpRobinHood goes, it would affect me in very adverse ways and I do hope they are not successful this time.
"I was using a simple counter-anology to another simple but flawed analogy....." No, you posted a load of unfounded rubbish which didn't counter anything. How is the original dinnerdate analogy flawed? You can't say, you just like to make silly claims about "the rich".
"....I hardly think you can argue that the richest 1% are only taking their fair share of 1% of the worlds income and resources...." The post has nothing to do with World resources, it's about taxation. I assume you were too busy polishing your soapbox to notice that. But, if you want to try that tangent, please do explain how one rich person uses 140 times the amount of World resources as one poor person - does the rich person have 140 dinners for every one eaten by a poor person? Is the rich person running 140 washing machines for every one in a poor person's house? Whilst you might be able to calim that "the rich" do use more resources than the poor on a per capita basis, it is highly likely that "the poor" of the World as a whole consume far more resources than "the rich", and definately consume far more of the spending derived from taxes.
".....Of course I couldn't resist pointing out that I know poor people who do not own a car, I know middle-class people who own 0, 1 and 2 cars, I have yet to meet a upper-middle class or rich person who does not own at least 2 cars....." For your rediculous analogy to work, the rich would have to own 140 cars for every one owned by a poor person, which is patently absurd. For your information, the most popular car in Europe is the Ford Focus, and I don't see any "rich people" driving them. Please do try and claim that Bentleys are outselling Fords, just for the laughter value! In the developing World it is the Toyota pickup, again not often seen gracing the drives in all those photoshoots in "Tatler" or "Country Life". Indeed, if you want to go by units sold, the most common car in the World is the VW Beetle, and I can't recall ever having met anyone of anything other than low- to middle-class owning one of them. Consider your kneejerk reaction to a simple analogy debunked.
Sounds like a good old fashined bit of cover for fraud to me.
I bet some of the anonymous memebers decide they are part of the 99% and "dontate" to themselves.
Also, it's always fun to ask these people how much of a % of the annual tax revenues to the government the top 1% should contribute. Almost exclusively the figure they suggest is less then the % currently paid (about 25% in the UK)
If you are in the bottom tax bracket you pay 20% of all _taxable_ income.
This is what is left after you take off the personal allowance (about £7,500 this year).
So if you only earn 10k you get taxed at 20% on 2.5k - an effective rate of well below 20%.
Obviously as you earn more, this allowance offsets less and less proportionally of your income, meaning you pay more and more as an overall percentage - even before you rise up in the bands.
This is the fundamental principle of progressive taxation, and one that seems to bypass most peoples minds.
There's a nice graph somewhere but can't find it at the moment.. here are a few articles...
When my credit card was compromised I did indeed suffer no immediate financial penalty, Lloyds took the hit, but what I will never get back is the hours and hours on the phone trying to explain over and over why these transactions were not mine. Letters, phone calls & time off work to sort it out.
"Taxpayers. .... These are the people who bail out the banks who lose money to fraud (or bad investments, or insider trading, or rogue agents)." ..... SuperTim Posted Wednesday 30th November 2011 09:23 GMT
What does that tell you about those ignorant stupid suckers, SuperTim, apart from the fact that they need radically different and much better leadership, considering the idiocy of what their ignorance allows silently and stealthily to be done in their name, by those who would be presently screwing them with austerity packages to preserve the very system which steals their wealth away from them, and which is in active terminal decline and catastrophic global collapse.
Why do you choose to be such a frightened apologist whenever you can so plainly see what the media presents to you as a failed state and new world order program and crooked banking meme, which the intellectually challenged, for whatever mad reasons of their own which it might be well worth asking them about, are so desperately trying to conserve and preserve rather than cast into the trash for dumping and parts recycling where it belongs.
There is/may be a very good reason why the likes of an Eton charges such expensive fees, .... one doesn't need brains and intelligence to attend and excel on smart merit, and thus is the product pumped out and pimped as first class, invariably well below global real value experience par and in some cases could it also be inherited and inherently sub-prime toxic?
And shared there as a question lest some would get their y-fronts in a twist and take pathetic exception to the notion that such privilege is no guarantee that any would know what they should be doing for the greater common good, whenever the greater common good is so obviously being squeezed because of everything but the actions of the common man.
I hope that is clearly enough expressed as to make perfect sense.
Methinks the Tories are in desperate need of a competent head strategist who is not at all reliant upon the likes of a Google Moleworks which tries to be a virtualised Skunkworks, for analytical algorithms are easily rigged and pwnd. Or how about they try using some British Intelligence Services, or are they just a myth that has been reduced and morphed into an ineffective sinecure of impotent quangos into the proactive supply of nothing of great future value, except Hollywood Bonded style razzle dazzle ....... Merely Exciting Moronic Entertainment?
But if they want to take away the property of the politicians and lobbyists and bureaucrats who are growing fat by taking out money from us, have at it.
BTW, did you know that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US are in the DC area, according to Forbes? Think about that: it's not LA, Vegas, Chicago, New York, .... it's near the national capital where all the wealthy ba*ds live.
Mine's the one with the reservations for Valley Forge ...
Most of the donations will end up as charge backs which will likely result in the charities having to pay fees. Not only that but if the charity receives too many chargebacks then it's quite possible that they'll be booted by their payment provider and be unable to continue receiving donations by credit card.
And as SuperTim says, the cost incurred by the banks will simply be passed onto us consumers.
Jesus christ these kids are annoying. I wish they could at least admit they're just in it to cause trouble and stop pretending that they're helping the world.
No, because transferring money into a bank account wouldn't be done via a merchant, rather it would be a bank transfer, the bank transfer would simply be reversed, when the fraud was discovered. Depending upon the circumstances the money would be simply removed, or the customer could be contacted to arrange for its "voluntary" removal. Voluntary in inverted commas because if they didn't give it back and closed the account, I would suspect it would become a police matter, and/or the customer would end up on a "not allowed a bank account" list.
While there were a few in the top tier of the banks who screwed us over most bank employees are hard working and most businesses and personal funding depends on them. Its about time these glory hunting twats stroking their immature oversized egos in up in their bedrooms grew up and learned how the world really works and that fucking over the banks will just hurt us all. Banks don't swallow a loss - they just pass it on to the customer.
Agree 100%. there seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. Most banks are retail banks, taking people's savings and giving out mortgages etc. These are an important part of a functioning economy. Most credit cards are issued by or through retail banks. These are the GOOD banks, you anonymous twits, and no-one in retail banking is getting 6 or 7-figure bonuses.
What the anonymous twits are really after, I would guess, are the big investment / trading banks. The speculation for speculation's sake, the automatic electronic trading, the futures markets, shorting markets, the derivatives of derivatives of derivatives that become so complex that only the guys on the inside understand how toxic they are, but still get sold as AAA rated because the ratings agencies are in their pockets.... all of these activities are purely speculative and offer zero added value to the economy at large... on the other hand they mostly tempt people's money in (through the mutual funds etc that people invest in) and play them off against each other or against themselves. It's a big casino and the investment banks are the 'house' - some people win at the expense of some other people who lose, but the game is rigged so that the house ALWAYS wins.
You want to take THOSE banks down? Well, the only sensible way is regulation that splits investment and retail branches of the mega-banks, forces too-large-to-fail banks to split up, get the ratings agencies to be paid by the funds buying assets, not those selling assets (would you buy a house only on the say-so of a housing inspector hired by the seller or would you hire your own inspector?), stop the corrupt practice of banks being audited by consultancy firms who get a lot of business thrown their way, etc etc None of this is new, the regulations are there already, but are usually watered-down or voted down by politicians who are in the pockets of the banks' lobbyists. So good luck with that
+1 for understanding the difference between types of banks, -1 for not understanding that investment banks DO contribute to the economy - without them buying and selling shares would be a lot more difficult, which in turn means that businesses would have more difficulty in raising capital, and without it you'd have much more unemployment. Then look at things like Forex... have you never been on holiday and needed local currency? Yep, the investment banks facilitated that too. Nobody is defending the so called rogue traders (who are a very small minority when you think that you hear about one or two ever and these places have thousands of employees) but I'm personally tired of blaming banks and immigrants all of the worlds problems.
Not a bank worker, jus' saying'.
I wouldn't be so quick to castigate the investment banks and praise the retail banks as necessary and important in the functioning economy. Investment banks provide the means to have fixed or floating rate mortgages etc. They are the middle men. Their cut may be too big, they may well be utter shitbags, but they are also necessary for the modern banking system to work. It was the retail banks that lent money that could not be repaid on properties that were not worth it. Sure, the investment banks aggregated it, the ratings agencies blessed it like holy wine, and everyone went on a gambling spree. But don't forget who it was that decided (encouraged by "well meaning" Governments) to lend shitloads of money to people with no real means of repaying it in order to embrace the concept of home ownership for all - those gatekeepers at the retail end. RBS, Lloyds, HBOS, Northern Rock etc. If they wanted home ownership for all then perhaps they should start by making housing less attractive as an asset class with associated tax breaks. Or perhaps prevent foreign investment in housing. I suspect that these were encouraged in the past to prop up the market at that point and are now difficult to remove.
I've had accounts with several banks and two credit unions. Most of the banks were equal to or better than one of the credit unions (federal branch of government credit union that ran just like Citibank as far as balances and fees were concerned). I kept one of the credit unions (small one in a rural county) because I like them, but currently do most of my daily banking elsewhere for better interest rates.
Attacking an institution is pointless, the costs of clearing up are bourn by the shareholders which to a large degree is a large proportion of the 99% who have savings and retirement funds that rely on bank performance.
And credit unions, hmm, how ethical are they, quite a few have been run by real crimnals.
Oh, the smart thing to do, well, I would tell you, but then I'd be breaking the law, under the heading of incitement.
Personally I'd eMail the chairman of my bank and ask him to justify his actions and salary package in the light of recent events. Except that I do bank ethically, with a medium sized and successful bank that does not pay it's senior executives stupid amount of money, and is owned by its customers.
I wouldn't bother with email - I'd buy a share and ask the question in person at the AGM. It's the best way to put them on the spot, make sure the question is very well worded.
Having said that don't do what I've seen some people do and buy a single share in, say BAE systems, then ask a question which is a statement along the lines of "I fundamentally disagree with the arms trade", the answer will tend to be along the lines of "Well we are an arms company. Next question?"
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021