That is ok Elmer probably I heard of the problem because I used to know several policemen that worked in areas where there were a large number of elderly. Less easy now for someone to target the elderly. The time I posted was when people actually cashed an SS check. You do remember when SS payments came out only on the 3rd of the month rather than coming out throughout the month as they do now?

I've just started getting social security myself. I wasn't aware that when paid in check form they came at one time versus another. Why was it common (as you describe) that people would cash a check rather than deposit it in their bank account?

I can’t speak for the policies of the banks, I’m a loyal Credit Union member and haven’t had a “bank” account since the late 80’s. However a couple of years ago our account at the Credit Union was wiped out by someone locally. Some how he/she had been able to make a copy of my atm card and one Saturday morning, I went into the account to pay bills and the balance a big fat .00. Our over draw acct had been wiped out too and it had a negative balance of -200.00. The money was withdrawn from the account in a series of 500.00 charges from a small store down in Detroit. They used the credit feature and it all happened within a matter of 3-4 minutes. Of course I immediately got on the phone with the Credit Union. They put an immediate stop on the card and had me call their theft division. Apparently, the system had already red flagged the account and they were starting to investigate the transactions. They asked if my husband and I could come to the branch to fill out some forms. They also suggested we go to file a police report afterwards which we did. We were told that our funds would be returned to us but that it could take 5-10 buisness days to get things resolved, but to our surprise, the funds were back in the account by Tuesday. They were amazingly responsive and kind through the whole process, and I’m not 100% sure that they were obligated to do what they did.

I didn't read all of the responses, because I was totally shocked to hear gardengal, an ex-banker, say that she puts all of her purchases on a debit card. I pay for everything I can on a credit card, and pay that off at the end of the month. I closely check my statements every month. I found several charges for 9.99 to WWE on my statements, which is a common scam. All charges were reversed. From what I know (and I may be wrong) a bank isn't by law required to refund fraudulent charges on a debit card. Plus, I get money back by using my credit cards.

"The amount of protection offered by debit cards versus the level of protection offered by credit cards is identical, as mandated by the law and in common practice. But this is not to say that the level of protection matches the level of convenience. Both debit and credit cards offer zero percent liability, meaning that all consumers who find themselves victims of card fraud will end up in the same place–their money will be refunded."

But because the debit card immediately accesses the owner's checking (or possibly savings) account, any debit card fraud will reduce the bank account accordingly before the fraudulent transaction can be refunded. Depending on the amount of the fraud, that could be a big - but temporary - hit on one's available bank balance and the possibility of returned checks.

The bottom line is that debit cards are just as protected as a credit card when it comes to fraudulent use. Personally, after 25 years of almost daily usage of my debit card, including using it overseas, and with only one instance of fraud in all that time (and that was handled very efficiently and promptly by my bank), I have absolutely no qualms about using my debit card for any day to day purchases.

I think yours is an important question Nicole, because not only are methods to steal becoming more sophisticated at a very rapid pace, but the way our financial system and institutions respond the issue is rapidly changing as well, ie liability and copability. In many cases, the security they have in place is lacking and every year their perspective of how responsible they should be financially becomes less. I can only imagine the law changes they are lobbying congress for.

I guess this is just a rant, but I’ve always hated how new technologies are pushed on the public seemingly without any concern for the effects they could have on the public once they become the norm. The financial community used all kinds of ploys and tricks to get people to become dependent on their cards, swearing that they were more secure, but the idea that someone could copy my card while I’m paying for a service or product or that the fees to use them have caused a financial burden for a lot of smaller businesses is irking at the very least.

I believe it's beneficial to have an ongoing open discussion.

The banker I spoke to, Allison, said she had her identity stolen. It was just a matter of time before it happened to me. I'd like to try to avoid a full out battle, with huge losses. Being informed, taking precautions, is the only defense we have.

It is simply not true that debit cards offer the same protection as credit cards. That may be true for prepaid debit cards which are loaded with funds but it is not true for bank debit cards linked to your checking account.

Debit cards can quickly deplete your bank account resulting in checks that you may have written bouncing. You will be liable for bounced check fees and also any late charges incurred to those you wrote the checks to.

If you read the small print on your terms of service with debit cards you will find that you must report fraudulent activity within 2 days to be liable for a maximum $50.00. If you report after 2 day to 60 days you will be liable for the first 500.00. After 60 days best of luck collecting back a dime.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0213-lost-or-stolen-credit-atm-and-debit-cards

>>The banker I spoke to, Allison, said she had her identity stolen. It was just a matter of time before it happened to me.<<

This implies that, over time, every single person has their identity stolen. Clearly this is not the case.

According to the FTC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, here’s what happens if your debit card (or the information associated with it) is stolen or compromised:

• If you report the card as lost or stolen within two business days, you won’t be responsible for more than $50 of unauthorized transactions.

• According to the CFPB, “if an unauthorized transaction appears on your statement (but your card or PIN has not been lost or stolen), under federal law you will not be liable for the debit if you report it within 60 days after your account statement is sent to you.

• If someone uses your physical ATM or debit card without your permission (meaning it was stolen) and you report the fraudulent charges within 60 days after your statement is mailed to you, you could lose as much as, but no more than, $500.

• If someone uses your ATM or debit card without your permission and you don’t report it within 60 days after your statement is mailed to you, the potential damage is unlimited. You could lose all the money in that account, the unused portion of your maximum line of credit established for overdrafts, and even more.

I guess it depends on your bank and the relationship you have with them but most debit cards are issued under a relationship with VISA or Mastercard and the same rules and fraud protection that apply to credit cards issued by these organizations also apply to debit cards issued by them. Since my bank will alert me by phone with any potential fraudulent activity and I check my account balance and monitor transactions pretty routinely, I have minimal concern that any transactions will exceed the 60 day limitation.

My previous fraud attempt against my debit card was notified to me by my bank (the users had no card, only the number) within minutes of the occurrence and the funds were replaced that same day. There is also the possibility of limiting the funds in the account to which a debit card is tied and using it only for day to day transactions with the meat of one's bank balance remaining in an uncarded account.

Elmer, I think some elderly in the past simply cashed their checks because the amounts were not anywhere near what they are today. Many low income elders used their Social Security to pay their rent. buy food, and hope anything left over lasted until the next month. So the poorest were targeted since they lived from check to check and probably had the cash on them early in the month.

My parents, which was probably the case with your parents, did not rely on Social Security to live on. It was gravy. But for many seniors it is all they have, even today.

My FIL, who is 74 still doesn't have a bank account or CC. He doesn't travel and pays cash for everything, including his vehicles.

In response to people carrying cash:

When shopping...in the many stores it takes to keep my house remodels going, keep us clothed and fed...I have seen MANY MANY people pull out wads of cash to pay for their large purchases. In the last 12 months, we have found three $50 bills. One was laying on the lawn, being blown around.

I don't carry cash....Weeeell.....I carry $8-$20 in a pouch on my water bottle, so when running I can shop garage sales or leave a deposit. :0)

watchme, I get what you're saying but still wonder about not using bank accounts for safety and convenience. My in-law still writes checks for almost everything big and small in stores (or occasionally will use a credit card). I wonder how/where the cash-only people cashed monthly checks if not at the bank where they did business. Yes, Social Security was not a significant element for my parents' living expenses.

nicole, I too have seen the wads of cash some flash at stores. I figure people so inclined are either working in the black economy, being paid in cash they intend to be undeclared for tax purposes (and that could be traced if deposited in the bank), or members of that small segment of society who feel power carrying cash and think that waving a wad impresses others. It's a face palm, roll the eyes moment for me whenever I see it. Some people get off slapping down $100 bills as if they were at a craps table in Las Vegas.

The thing about cash, burglars know the best spots to hide stuff, they may find it. And a house fire could burn it all up.

No method is 100% safe, every time they try to make money safer, eventually some scammer cracks the code, but I think all in all, banks/credit unions are the safest places to keep money out of the alternatives.

And really, that is the choice. Not whether banks are 100% safe, nothing is, but whether they are safer than the proposed alternative.

SS stopped issuing all payments on the third of the month in 1997. Even today many people do not have bank accounts who receive payments. Some check cashing services have setup accounts for people to have their SS payments sent to. People then pay a fee to the check cashing services to withdraw the money. For a while, may have happened, SS was going to issue a card similar to a debit card for those people without bank accounts.

Check cashing services and some pawn shops have been the bank for many people who for various reasons do not have bank accounts. My SIL did not trust banks and used them for cashing her SS checks.

In this area there are fewer and fewer places that will accept checks. If someone wants to eat out they had better have a card of some type or cash.

watchme there are no safe guards on prepay debit cards only on ones connected to a bank account.

I know the reason that many use their credit cards instead of a debit card is so they can receive points or cash. Having that large of balance each month is not worth for me the small amount of the rewards.

>>Having that large of balance each month is not worth for me the small amount of the rewards.>>

It pretty much depends on what you use the rewards for. I have friends who travel regularly using the points they earned.

We split our points. Some go to collect Barnes & Noble gift cards. Over the years we've received $4K to buy books. Some now go to our Amazon account, to be applied directly to purchases. I figure if I'm going to spend the money anyway, why not charge it instead of using cash? Especially when you're not paying interest or card fees.

I found when I carry cash, it "slipped away" too easily, LOL.

I agree with the not carrying cash because of the same reason along with some of the places I have traveled showing more than a couple of dollars is dangerous. The latter is why I am so glad that there are debit cards. Until recently most thieves were less likely to keep and use debit cards than credit cards. No longer know some of the people I used to so I can not ask but I think the sale value of a credit card is higher than a debit card. One of the problems with growing older is that people you know die.

New rules as of 2016 for prepaid debit cards.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-prepaid-debit-cards-20161004-story.html

Some people just do not view *charging* something the same way they do paying cash -- or watching a debit card balance shrink. I equate this brain circuity with people who used to open Christmas Accounts at banks. They required this discipline to hole away money. Like debit cards, money in a Christmas Account earned *nothing*.

When I pay for something using a CC, my brain circuits view that amount as 'gone', spent, same as currency, no different then paying by check. The CCs we use generate a little bit of income back to us -- one, two, sometimes three percent, depending on the purchase. Costs me nothing; cuts my CC bill by a few dollars. The banks intend this to be a spur to spending so they can earn interest; doesn't work that way with me. (Who would choose to live 'on credit', paying interest on a slice of bread?)

I've stopped using my airline card because the airline never has miles-eligible seats open when and where I want to go. Eventually, I may have enough miles to exchange for an overpriced ticket -- and be done with it.

My friend Google told me that starting in early 2013, new recipients of Social Security payments are only paid by direct deposit or to a debit card. Checks are not available. Exceptions are made in "rare cases", only if 1) Mental impairment prevents use of a debit card, or 2) Recipient lives in a remote location where debit card use isn't practical or 3) Recipient born before 5/1/1921 (ie, now nearly 97 years old!).

maifleur, you have in mind people using check cashing services and pawn shops? I understand that might be relevant for a small minority of recipients who are the poorest and least well educated among us but I don't think that describes the broad swath of social security recipients. Most people who have had regular employment anytime in the last 20-25 years have been paid by direct deposit to bank accounts. Oldsters of otherwise sound mind who can't manage having a checking account and paying their own bills shouldn't be allowed to manage their own funds.

I don't think I'm an unusual case - like many, I use credit cards for purchases and other activities because doing so is convenient, a faster to make payment when it's time to pay (like at a restaurant or store), and much easier than cash to carry around. With a credit card, I always "have enough money" to pay for what I want to buy or need to pay for. A debit card is too much effort, especially when as a couple two people can often be spending money (unbeknownst to the other) in different places at the same time.

Keep believing that Elmer. Have you ever wondered why there were so many of those check cashing places around if everyone has bank accounts?

What should I keep believing? That most old people have long used and when still of sound mind can manage checking accounts? Yes, I will. Or is it something else?

Check cashing stores? There aren't "so many" around that I've seen, other than in obviously low income and often inner city areas. Is your experience different?

Construction crews, generally all my husbands coworkers for the past 60 years, do not have bank accounts. Or 401k's or medical insurance. My husband does NOT have direct deposit, never has. :0) That's a HUGE sector of the population. Also people working in grocery stores, janitorial, landscaping jobs, restaurants, bars...etc.... can get a paper check instead of direct deposit if requested or if they don't have enough employees....they can't do direct deposit. I'm not sure about retail jobs like clothing stores or Best Buy....those people could opt for paper checks in years past.

My comment nicole was that I believe "most" people, and let's exclude low income people, have bank accounts. Direct deposit pay? Construction workers - of whom there's a disproportion of immigrants in my area if not in yours and not a large segment of the population anyway, maybe paid by check for those working for smaller companies but not those working for larger ones. Manual labor jobs often with the same demographic - sure and often in cash. "Can get a paper check if requested"? Probably yes for some employers and no for others. Many small businesses use payroll providers to process payroll and ALL of those can pay by bank transfer. Restaurant and bar workers - again, not a large percentage of the adult population.

I'm going to stick to what I said. And don't be distracted away from my main suggestion, which I can say another way - I think people who don't have bank accounts are a minority, the percentage of which I think gets small when those whose circumstances readily explain why are taken out of the calculation. The Act passed four years ago requiring non-check means, by deposit or debit card payment, of Social Security benefits but for rare circumstances is consistent with that view.

I'd like to think people that don't have bank accounts are a minority. I'm thinking, knowing what I know...maybe 25% of the population does not have a bank account....? I once had someone tell me they didn't have anything to put into a bank account. Once they got paid, they paid bills and it was gone.

Maybe in the U.S., I don't know. I would think that the majority of the world population doesn't have a bank account.

Nicole I think the percentage is higher than that in the US. People who have always had them think that they are normal for everyone. Impossible to convince some who have never known people who did not. One thing that keeps some from having them are the fees that are charged if the balance is not high enough. Many people do not have my banks minimum $2,500 for a no interest account or $5,000 if you want interest. Below those figures every transaction is charged a fee. There are some banks that have special accounts for those under and over a certain age or in the military that do not charge fees but there are only a few of them.

It would be logical to me to have a bank account, for the middle class and up. Yet have you ever stood in line @ Walmart trying to return an item? I'd say 50% of those people in line with me were getting money orders......4 or 5 of them...to pay their bills with.

Elmer I used to travel and every town had at least one check cashing or pawn shop with signs stating that they cashed checks. In most towns except for the high end residential areas the stores are there.

Well this popped up on a quick search. It seems that few people are without bank accounts today but there are more who are underbanked at just below 20% a couple years ago.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/08/unbanked-americans-fdic/

I imagine there are also quite a few unaccounted people that live under the radar without bank accounts. The homeless, transients, people who get paid under the table and those living here illegally would most likely be amongst those not counted.

Some of the people who are purchasing mo's apparently do have checking accounts. One of the regional gas stations, QT, until a couple of years ago issued them. In one of the weirder moments someone came in for a mo when told they were no longer sold the clerk was asked what the person should do. She did not want to write a check because that gave too much personal information. Thought you might like to have a chuckle.

watchme the catch phrase in that article is "access to" rather than not having.

Maifluer, You are misreading. Those with access are not unbanked in the article. The percentage given with access matches those who have accounts. So in the article those with access are considered to have a household with at least one account. It may be a poor choice of words for readers that take words literally rather then in context but the meaning is clear.

According to a new study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Americans without access to banking services fell to 7% in 2015 from 7.7% in 2013. The decline is part of the post-recession recovery, and last year’s survey reflected the lowest proportion of “unbanked” households since the share was at 7.6% in 2009—the year the biennial survey began.

If no one in a household has an account with a federally insured financial institution, the FDIC considers that family as “unbanked.”

I read it and I stand by my comment. Someone in a household may have a banking account but that does not mean that every adult in that household has an account.

In financial terms households include spouses, sometimes domestic partners, parents, children and other dependents. Since the articles are discussing households with bank accounts that is all that really counts. Room mates are not counted and neither are transients. or couch surfers. Just because every adult in the household doesn't have an individual account doesn't mean a thing about sharing it. Several couples have only a joint account. Access is available to both. Parent/child relationships often have joint accounts or are co signers on accounts. Conservatorships may have accounts in one or several names.

The bottom line is most people in the US have at least some type of bank account. Worldwide figures put people without bank accounts at around 39% but that is mostly from populations in developing countries. Those are facts done through studies, not opinions.

maifleur, I think you're prevaricating. Consider the information watchme has, I found similar information myself. It's from the FDIC and they think 85-90% of people have or have easy access to a bank account. That's 9 out of 10 which, if you leave out those who are most poor and/or in impoverished circumstances of various kinds, including rural dwellers of limited means, suggests most everyone has or has access to one.

Why do people use money orders? That's always been puzzling to me but I think among the situations are by those who are functionally illiterate (there are more people like this around than anyone wants to admit), are uncomfortable writing a check or, as above, have cash but not a bank account. Not one of these more than another and probably including other reasons too.

"Elmer I used to travel and every town had at least one check cashing or pawn shop with signs stating that they cashed checks"

Towns where and of what size? Are you suggesting that these are used by OTHER THAN people in lower socio-economic circumstances?

Well, yes they can take it. BUT: if you have it in the *right* account, they can't. We have most of our money in term deposits which are not accessible if someone wants to transfer money from my account to theirs. WE can't get to our money without going into the bank ourselves. But we do have a small spending amount of money in our savings. THAT, someone who steals our PIN code can take. My sister has had her account wiped and just a few weeks ago, our pharmacist had to run to the bank when he saw his account drained.

"if you have it in the *right* account, they can't. "

That's the part I found troubling. My banker said a CD can be opened or closed over the phone. She said term accounts were no safer than a savings account or bank account. She did agree that by opening various accounts you divvied up your money into accounts with smaller amounts to be ripped off at any one time.

Just because something can be opened/closed over the phone or internet doesn't make it less secure. You still have to jump through a lot of identity hoops to withdraw close out a CD, You can only close it out at it's maturity. You can only add to it during rollover periods unless it's an IRA-CD.

Haven't some of you dealt with banks before? Anyone trying to close an account would know how it is not always as easy as it may appear. The more money of yours they have the harder it is to get them to release it.

I took care of my dad's financial affairs during his final years. He was competent 'til the end but wanted to ease the way should I need to take over at any time. He involved me and added me to his bank accounts long before he actually would need to. I was co signer, had power of attorney and and was the executor of his estate which was in trust. We often visited the bank together and everyone knew me and also knew his wishes since he mentioned them so often. We were greeted like old friends every time we came in. When he passed away suddenly the first time I tried to release funds I was treated like an impostor. LOL Every single time I walked in the stock answer was we have to "talk to legal." I was treated like a stranger they had never seen before in their lives. LOL I finally got do disgusted with the process that I jumped through the final hoops and withdrew every red cent and opened an account at a bank down the street. It was a goodly sum at the time. I put quite a bit into CDs and grew it a bit after giving my sibling his share that he wanted at the time.

Nicole, you need to talk to another banker. That one isn't giving you the best possible information.

wildchild! Yes...you can close a CD out early over the phone. You pay a penalty, usually 3 months interest on a 1 year. All they ask for is your home address and your SS# & birth date. I've done it. :0)

Now If I claimed to be handling the account for someone else they might give me some grief....but if someone sounding like a female, claiming to be me called in I'm sure she could withdraw MY money as easily as I can.

We needed to buy a licence plate renewal sticker quickly last year. (There wasn't enough time to wait to receive it by mail.) We easily found a currency exchange in a nearby town where we could buy the sticker -- for a small premium. The exchange is in a town largely populated by blue collar workers. We know that many workers send money orders 'home' to family in other countries -- where the recipients are not 'banked'.

I would like to know what the definition of banker is in this discussion. Seems a lot of hearsay info is being given out. Snidely made his living in finance as do some of my family members yet there is a lot of mention of bankers giving advice. Banks have various workers in various roles.

In my world a banker is an actual upper level officer, CEO or owner of a bank or group of banks. The teller is not a banker. The loan officer is not the banker. The financial planner is not the banker.

Nicole first you say your banker told you something could be done and now you say you did it yourself. I won't even go into how cashing out a CD early is poor financial management. Hope it was a small CD.

In my tale of closing my father's estate for all intents and purposes I had full legal access to those accounts. The bank stonewalled. Period. They lost my business. Forever.

Most of the people working in banks are not upper level management but mid level or lower. The branch of Bank of America that is nearest to me uses one experienced bank employee and one trainee to answer questions. There is also a manager. Any of these by most people would be considered bankers. By watchme's definition there is only one banker in the whole company which is sort of true as the rest are called officers of various areas. In most banks the head defers questions to the lower knowledgeable people.

As far as closing a CD I had one last year that matured. I received a letter from the bank notifying me of that. In the letter it stated that I could call. come in or make the changes on their website including closing it. Things are changing in every industry as things go to electronic. Different banks require different things.

watchme I also had problems with "legal department" when I asked for a confirmation of deposit for the court for last years settlement of my husband's conservatorship. The "legal" department did not know their a** from a hole in the ground but the manager of the branch just took care of what I needed and told me to come to her if there was any thing that I needed in the future. I am hoping she is still there when I need her again. She did tell me that if one branch would not do something that you knew was legal go to another one as the expertise varied between branches.

When I cashed out a CD I gave up interest for equity. All I lost was interest not the principle. It was a good trade. Trust me. :0)

It's certainly safer than under the mattress...