Why I hate banks !!!!

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I agree that banks are too greedy but they are in business to make money (out of money). I don't have any bother with my bank. I keep a credit balance and have no fees.

The secret for borrowing money is never borrow unless you don't need it ie, is only borrow if you can make money out of what you borrow.

With credit cards never use a credit card to buy an item you cannot cover with your own cash and pay the total balance before the end of the interest free period.

Barry

If I said I'm on this earth to survive and bring up my family and feed, cloth, shelter and educate them and so from now on I will routinely rip off everyone I do buisiness with to achieve my goals, you'd say hey thats not right what if we all behaved that way. But when the Banks routinely rip us off you say well after all "they're in business to make money".

For **** sake, you see posts like this and you realise we dont have a chance because of that other half thats like a ball and chain around our necks.

Ohh and thanks for disclosing your secrets for borrowing money. Who would have thought it was so simple.

[taxman (Matt)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

As an aside, there is no legal reason for employers to pay you via direct deposit. It is NOT compulsory. You have every legal right to ask your employer to pay you in cash, as you do not have a bank account, etc. If an employer fails to oblige, they are discriminating against you. If enough people actually stood up to employers (another group I hate), then things would improve in this country.

Dave

Actually, that is not the case. Under both Federal and State industrial systems, there is a clause in each of the respective Acts that enable an employer to pay their employees either in cash or via EFT at the employer's discretion.

As far as "Discrimination", it is a vastly overused term. The only circumstances under which a person is legally deemed to have been discriminated against are set and listed (race, religion, age, sexual preference, political views etc) in the Anti-Discrimination Act.

It always gets thrown about when people don't like the way they are treated, but it is not necessarily (legally) discrimination unless it is based on one of the categories listed in the Act.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Ah yes. Let's just say that legislation isn't law until it's actually been tested in a court of law. Much legislation falls down in a court of law. Of course, with governments siding on the face of business, at the expense of the average worker, things are stacked against us. What about employee rights on the method of payment? So employers have rights, but employees don't? Certainly doesn't sound fair to me. But maybe you have a different viewpiont of fairness.

As to discrimination, might I refer you not to the legal sense of the word, but to the meaning of the word itself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Most laws do not use common sense, they rely on some idiotic logic that is completely abnormal imho. Discrimination is discrimination, whether or not it's specifically listed in a piece of legislation. Hence my usage of the word discrimination in my original post.

I think very little of our modern governments, and most of our modern laws are utter rubbish. A time will come with civil disobedience from the masses will bring down the current regimes. I look forward to that time with glee.

Dave

[taxman (Matt)]

It seems you took my reply as an attack. It wasn't.

Originally Posted by dpastern

Ah yes. Let's just say that legislation isn't law until it's actually been tested in a court of law.

Actually, legislation is by definition law. An Act of Parliament binds all constituents. And the method of payment (at least it was federally, but I'd be surprised if a state case woul proceed with a federal precedent) was tested back in the 80s.

Originally Posted by dpastern

Much legislation falls down in a court of law.

Actually this hardly ever happens. Of course, yesterday it did (military court et al), but it is pretty rare.

Originally Posted by dpastern

So employers have rights, but employees don't? Certainly doesn't sound fair to me. But maybe you have a different viewpiont of fairness.

I didn't express an opinion either way. I was just pointing out that any employee in Australia relying on your assertion would not win.

Originally Posted by dpastern

As to discrimination, might I refer you not to the legal sense of the word, but to the meaning of the word itself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Of course I know what discrimination is. But thanks.

Originally Posted by dpastern

Discrimination is discrimination, whether or not it's specifically listed in a piece of legislation. Hence my usage of the word discrimination in my original post.

And we all do it on a daily basis. Today I discriminated on a ham sandwich to choose the chicken instead. An employer that finds it easier to do a bank transfer instead of paying cash is not doing any *real* harm, but more likely is minimising the inherent risk of carrying around large sums of money. You might even say the employer is looking to the safety of their payroll employees...

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

I actually didn't take your previous post as an attack, I simply have a very strong viewpoint on this subject.

Why should an employers rights trump an employees?

And legislation does not become effective law until it's won in a court of law. Until then, it's untested. The citizens of the country have the right to contest a law. It's called democracy, although democracy in Australia, as well as most western countries is a joke.

As to discrimination, you implied that unless it's specific discrimination covered in the actual discrimination act, it isn't discrimination. I call that selective discrimination, and the discrimination act itself, an utter joke.

As to an Australian relying on my assertion not winning, what would happen if an employee took an employer to court over this and won the case? You'd never know unless the employee actually stood up for themselves.

I personally hate banks, and I hate politicians. Both are bad and need to be placed in a big heshian back, swung around and hit with a bloody well big stick for an awful long time.

Dave

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

I actually didn't take your previous post as an attack, I simply have a very strong viewpoint on this subject.

Why should an employers rights trump an employees?

And legislation does not become effective law until it's won in a court of law. Until then, it's untested. The citizens of the country have the right to contest a law. It's called democracy, although democracy in Australia, as well as most western countries is a joke.

As to discrimination, you implied that unless it's specific discrimination covered in the actual discrimination act, it isn't discrimination. I call that selective discrimination, and the discrimination act itself, an utter joke.

As to an Australian relying on my assertion not winning, what would happen if an employee took an employer to court over this and won the case? You'd never know unless the employee actually stood up for themselves.

I personally hate banks, and I hate politicians. Both are bad and need to be placed in a big heshian back, swung around and hit with a bloody well big stick for an awful long time.

Dave

hey Dave

Like where you're comming from man. Keep the faith

Regards

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Actually, legislation is by definition law. An Act of Parliament binds all constituents. And the method of payment (at least it was federally, but I'd be surprised if a state case woul proceed with a federal precedent) was tested back in the 80s.

Hey Taxman. First, Can I ask how you reproduced just segments of the post you replied to. I tried to but i think it hasnt worked so i put your stuff in blue

Second I agree that legislation is by definition law but this still does not tell us what the law is. Often, its not until a Court of law examines the legislation and applies (or tries to apply) it in a real case that the legislation starts getting some meaning.

Actually this hardly ever happens. Of course, yesterday it did (military court et al), but it is pretty rare.

Actually, its very often the case that Courts will not apply legislation on the ground that it does'nt work or otherwise apply it more narrowly and more widely then was intended. Parlt is forever complaining that the courts are deliberately subverting it because the courts refuse to apply or creatively apply their legislation.

Personally I agree with Dave. The less attention we pay to what politicians have to say the better.

One thing has become clear to me over the last 10 years. Politicians do not represent us, They represent an elite. Their democracy is a scam.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Actually, legislation is by definition law. An Act of Parliament binds all constituents. And the method of payment (at least it was federally, but I'd be surprised if a state case woul proceed with a federal precedent) was tested back in the 80s

Hey Taxman. First, Can I ask how you reproduced just segments of the post you replied to. I tried to but i think it hasnt worked so i put your stuff in blue

Second I agree that legislation is by definition law but this still does not tell us what the law is. Often, its not until a Court of law examines the legislation and applies (or tries to apply) it in a real case that the legislation starts getting some meaning.

Actually this hardly ever happens. Of course, yesterday it did (military court et al), but it is pretty rare.

Actually, its very often the case that Courts will not apply legislation on the ground that it does'nt work or otherwise apply it more narrowly and more widely then was intended. Parlt is forever complaining that the courts are deliberately subverting it because the courts refuse to apply or creatively apply their legislation. ..

The courts are only expected to apply the laws the pollies make without looking at the consequences

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Personally I agree with Dave. The less attention we pay to what politicians have to say the better. .

You need to pay attention or you could be in trouble

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

One thing has become clear to me over the last 10 years. Politicians do not represent us, They represent an elite. Their democracy is a scam.

How true
However don't pay too much attention to what I said. It is an experiment to try split quotes.
Each section of a quote must start with a "QUOTE= xxxxxxxx " and finish with a "/QUOTE" encased in "[" and "]"
Barry

[MrB (Simon)]

As Barry said, like this;

[Quote=Barrykgerdes]
How true
However don't pay too much attention to what I said. It is an experiment to try split quotes.
Each section of a quote must start with a "QUOTE= xxxxxxxx " and finish with a "/QUOTE" encased in "[" and "]"
Barry
[/Quote]

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Politicians the world over only serve the elite. Look at the special treatment that the RIAA and MPAA get!

Dave

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Politicians the world over only serve the elite. Look at the special treatment that the RIAA and MPAA get!

Dave

There's a good reason for that David... the minute they stop looking after the elite, they're out of a job. Can you imagine any polly EVER slagging off the likes of Rupert Murdoch for example. That pollies name would be be mud in the worlds' (is that apostrophe in the right place? ) press the following morning.

Hey, "if you can't beat 'em, - join 'em".

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

The courts are only expected to apply the laws the pollies make without looking at the consequences

Barry

Thanks Barry/Simon, I think I get a hang of it now

[JimmyH155]

I heard a ripper of a story some years ago about an enterprising firm in UK, who, in order to save themselves and their employees money, decided to pay them in cash. Well, actually SOVERIEGNS. A soveriegn of course has a face value of one pound, so assume the gold value of the gold in a soveriegn was worth 500 quid, then the worker earning 500 quid actually got paid 1 quid in the form of a soveriegn. Too low to pay tax. He then trots down to the jeweller or coin shop and sells his soveriegn for 500 quid.
The scheme did not last long though - the rip off tax man soon plugged that loophole
If only...............................