Cheques being phased out in Australia by 2030

[TimFox]

That's an amusing detail of British law.
American gold coins, including eagles and double-eagles, are no longer legal tender, so their taxable appreciation is dealt with in the same manner as appreciation of precious stones.

[SiliconWizard]

But I do have some gold coins secreted away in a hopefully fireproof box. They have increased nicely in value, and, since they are coins of the realm, they are free from capital gains tax

How dare you try and escape the matrix? You know you don't need coins. You need pills.

[tggzzz]

But I do have some gold coins secreted away in a hopefully fireproof box. They have increased nicely in value, and, since they are coins of the realm, they are free from capital gains tax

How dare you try and escape the matrix? You know you don't need coins. You need pills.

Too true

Must do some research before I really need them.

[vk4ffab]

A comment about needing multiple cards:
In my post above about my experiences with fraudulent charges to my Visa or American Express cards, in both cases I had to wait a few days for a replacement card.
(American Express was willing to FedEx one quickly, but I was literally leaving that morning for Japan.)
While waiting for that replacement, I was able to use the other one.

My experience is the opposite. Got scammed with phony checks a couple of time, not for great sums of money, but enough to implement a no checks policy for my business. But have never had a fraudulent charge put on the debit card. But i keep very little money in that account so if i did get scammed, they would not get much.

Every time I saw businesses accepting cheques it was in conjunction with either

• a requirement that a cheque cleared before service/goods were delivered, or
• the now-obsolete bank's cheque guarantee mechanism

That seemed entirely reasonable to me; if I had run a business I would have done just that. Nowadays businesses pay third parties to take that risk with electronic payments; the increased costs are offset by convenience. Fine, especially since the consumer doesn't notice.

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

The same happened the next month. Oops.

The same happened the third month.  WTF?!

The bank admitted they didn't know the source and couldn't stop the transfers. Absolutely gobsmacking!

Finally after 3(?) months, the bank was able to work out that an obscure merchant bank had made a data entry error, and get the transfers stopped.

The little I've since learned about the banking industry leads me to be less than surprised: processes assumes everything is in order and that the bank is, by definition, correct. Example: Halifax and John Munden which falsely jailed an ex-police officer and caused his wife to attempt suicide[1]

[1] https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ids/dotdot/misc/titbits/phantom_ATM_withdrawals.html and http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.25.html#subj5

Oh back then just about all business to business dealings were with check, so nothing we did was out of the ordinary, no one in their right minds accepted personal checks though without waiting for clearance or at all because the risk was so high. But it does not take much for a check to bounce, someone over drafted the over draft, someone missed a payment date and the whole accounting system gets thrown out of whack. My business has always used cash accounting, so these things smart when delays happen. Now days with instant bank transfers with OSKO (thats what its called in Australia) the accounts payable in another city can get her done without the minion in another needing petty cash or a check.

I am not so naive to think errors and mistakes do not creep in sometimes and they are bloody terrifying to those that have to endure them, but, whats the alternative? Cash? I have substantial savings there is not a hope in hell I would want that kind of money sitting under my mattress. There is a greater chance my house will burn down that a bank error drains my account. This is Australia after all and the 4 seasons here are summer summer fire and flood and we are in fire season

Yes; all agreed.

But I do have some gold coins secreted away in a hopefully fireproof box. They have increased nicely in value, and, since they are coins of the realm, they are free from capital gains tax

An uncle of mine had a bunch of gold buried in his back yard for the exact same reasons, never saw the point of it myself, though one would hope they are an appreciating asset rather than currency in the event of world collapse and even then, a potato might be worth more than gold in that situation. HAHAHA or as we all found out during covid, better stock up on bog roll because that will be the global currency when the zombies rise

[Monkeh]

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught.

[SiliconWizard]

But I do have some gold coins secreted away in a hopefully fireproof box. They have increased nicely in value, and, since they are coins of the realm, they are free from capital gains tax

How dare you try and escape the matrix? You know you don't need coins. You need pills.

Too true

Must do some research before I really need them.

You may need them before you're done.

[SiliconWizard]

Which is odd considering your nickname.

[magic]

WTF, you aren't supposed to know

[tggzzz]

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught.

Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques

Presuming he didn't have $65k in the account, why did the debits succeed?

I'm surprised the bank claimed that unauthorised debits weren't their problem.

[Halcyon]

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught.

Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques

Well, it probably would have.

Just because you have a chequing account, doesn't mean all the current methods are null and void. Precautions still need to be taken, regardless of the method of payment. If you want to go down the path of fraud, cheques are even more open to manipulation than just about any other method of payment.

If you're meaning that the payment wouldn't have gone through on the vending machine via a cheque, yep, you're right, almost no one accepts them anymore (and last I checked, no vending machine did). Hurrah! Finally a win for an obsolete payment method... security through obscurity. Your reward will be 1 kilogram of black peppercorns. Spend it wisely!

[tggzzz]

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught.

Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques

Well, it probably would have.

Note the smiley.

Hurdles before cheque causes a debit:

• victim wouldn't have written the cheque, and sanity checks for large amounts
• eyeballs in victim's bank, strange new large debit to a personal account
• large amount, certainly enough to trigger "large transfer procedures"
• delays for cheques to clear, might have given victim time to raise the alarm
• victim's bank couldn't have absolved themselves of responsibility, but they would probably have tried

Hurdles wouldn't have been insurmountable, but the victim would have been helped by the last point.

Just because you have a chequing account, doesn't mean all the current methods are null and void. Precautions still need to be taken, regardless of the method of payment. If you want to go down the path of fraud, cheques are even more open to manipulation than just about any other method of payment.

If you're meaning that the payment wouldn't have gone through on the vending machine via a cheque, yep, you're right, almost no one accepts them anymore (and last I checked, no vending machine did). Hurrah! Finally a win for an obsolete payment method... security through obscurity. Your reward will be 1 kilogram of black peppercorns. Spend it wisely!

"Fast and thoughtless" has different problems to "slow and thoughtful". Swings and roundabouts.

[Monkeh]

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught.

Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques

Presuming he didn't have $65k in the account, why did the debits succeed?

I'm surprised the bank claimed that unauthorised debits weren't their problem.

He in fact did, and it was authorised to the same extent as any other transaction. And the machine happily displayed the correct price all the way through the process.

As far as the bank was concerned, it was an authorised transaction with card present at a terminal which had been used prior. Not their problem.

[tggzzz]

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

That's nothing. A friend of mine had a vending machine charge him on the order of $65k, and the bank turned around and said it wasn't their problem. Thankfully, the company operating the machine saw reason. It's more than a little disturbing that an error like that can occur on the wire and not be caught.

Ouch! Wouldn't have happened with cheques

Presuming he didn't have $65k in the account, why did the debits succeed?

I'm surprised the bank claimed that unauthorised debits weren't their problem.

He in fact did, and it was authorised to the same extent as any other transaction. And the machine happily displayed the correct price all the way through the process.

As far as the bank was concerned, it was an authorised transaction with card present at a terminal which had been used prior. Not their problem.

Begins to make a little more sense. Still surprised that the amount wasn't challenged; normally everything over £10k is subject to extra checks w.r.t. anti-crime/terror transactions.

Just as well he wasn't making an audiophool purchase, since ridiculous amounts are commonplace there!

[Monkeh]

Begins to make a little more sense. Still surprised that the amount wasn't challenged; normally everything over £10k is subject to extra checks w.r.t. anti-crime/terror transactions.

Just as well he wasn't making an audiophool purchase, since ridiculous amounts are commonplace there!

What doesn't make sense to me is how a machine can display a transaction for.. whatever it was, it was a flower machine so I'd guess $20-50, receive authorisation, and end up drawing $65k. Leaves me with very, very little trust in the entire chain.

Then again, this was in the US, I've come to expect major institutions there to be 20+ years behind the curve.

[tggzzz]

Begins to make a little more sense. Still surprised that the amount wasn't challenged; normally everything over £10k is subject to extra checks w.r.t. anti-crime/terror transactions.

Just as well he wasn't making an audiophool purchase, since ridiculous amounts are commonplace there!

What doesn't make sense to me is how a machine can display a transaction for.. whatever it was, it was a flower machine so I'd guess $20-50, receive authorisation, and end up drawing $65k. Leaves me with very, very little trust in the entire chain.

Then again, this was in the US, I've come to expect major institutions there to be 20+ years behind the curve.

So it appears.

All chains and processes fail sometimes. The key point is how easy it is to repudiate transactions, which largely depends on the Ts&Cs pushing responsibility onto other parties[1]. With CSRs being replaced by chatbots or guided by LLMs, such repudiation is unlikely to get easier.

[1] classically passwords and PINs, which push the responsibility onto the end user: "the correct passworf/PIN was used therefore you must have use it or been negligent".

[Halcyon]

Interesting article in the news today: https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Fcash-no-longer-king-but-it-s-not-dead-australians-follow-the-money-to-digital-wallets-20231020-p5eds7.html

Basically the takeaway point is that Australian citizens are increasingly moving to digital payment systems, instead of cash, which means in a lot of cases, managing ATMs has become a cost burden with a significant drop in the number of machines installed throughout the country.

And whilst Australia isn't a cashless economy "just yet", it seems surprising that biggest reduction in cash users was actually elderly people. Seems you can teach an old dog new tricks?

From a fraud perspective, the use of banking applications give end-users almost real-time information on transactions that occur. Which allows for faster response in disabling cards, disputing transactions and recouping the money.

[SiliconWizard]

And whilst Australia isn't a cashless economy "just yet", it seems surprising that biggest reduction in cash users was actually elderly people. Seems you can teach an old dog new tricks?

I'm not all that surprised for this particular point. Using a card instead of cash is easy, so doesn't require any particular knowledge or affinity to new tech, it's actually easier for the elderly as it doesn't require them to count bills and coins (or even see them correctly as their eyesight degrades), plus that removes the fear of being robbed. And finally, older people, apart from a minority, probably don't care very much about the privacy of their transactions anymore compared to younger people. So yeah, not surprised about this at all.

[vk4ffab]

And whilst Australia isn't a cashless economy "just yet", it seems surprising that biggest reduction in cash users was actually elderly people. Seems you can teach an old dog new tricks?

I'm not all that surprised for this particular point. Using a card instead of cash is easy, so doesn't require any particular knowledge or affinity to new tech, it's actually easier for the elderly as it doesn't require them to count bills and coins (or even see them correctly as their eyesight degrades), plus that removes the fear of being robbed. And finally, older people, apart from a minority, probably don't care very much about the privacy of their transactions anymore compared to younger people. So yeah, not surprised about this at all.

What it does do is introduce a whole new set of problems for them because of digital illiteracy in the older population and that is a tendency to be susceptible to scams. One almost needs to act like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist to protect themselves from scams. Thankfully i get so few calls, texts or emails from scammers, but it takes take some effort to stay on top of things. My phone number according to jlc and other online businesses I buy though is 555123456 and my email address is disposable, because you just know that those aliexpress stores ya buy though are going to share your details with the Industrial Scam Factory Concern. HAHAHA

[Halcyon]

And whilst Australia isn't a cashless economy "just yet", it seems surprising that biggest reduction in cash users was actually elderly people. Seems you can teach an old dog new tricks?

I'm not all that surprised for this particular point. Using a card instead of cash is easy, so doesn't require any particular knowledge or affinity to new tech, it's actually easier for the elderly as it doesn't require them to count bills and coins (or even see them correctly as their eyesight degrades), plus that removes the fear of being robbed. And finally, older people, apart from a minority, probably don't care very much about the privacy of their transactions anymore compared to younger people. So yeah, not surprised about this at all.

What it does do is introduce a whole new set of problems for them because of digital illiteracy in the older population and that is a tendency to be susceptible to scams. One almost needs to act like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist to protect themselves from scams. Thankfully i get so few calls, texts or emails from scammers, but it takes take some effort to stay on top of things. My phone number according to jlc and other online businesses I buy though is 555123456 and my email address is disposable, because you just know that those aliexpress stores ya buy though are going to share your details with the Industrial Scam Factory Concern. HAHAHA

There are some pretty dumb and gullible younger people out there too. In my experience with dealing with older folk, I'd suggest that even though they might not be clued up on the latest technology, they have life experience and aren't silly either.

Some statistics released for 2021-2022 showed that those 65 and older were actually the second lowest group who had been exposed to scams overall. The highest number came from the 35 to 44 year age group.

Now of course there are several ways to read into statistics, and you could argue there are more people in the younger age group which means higher instances of fraud. But nonetheless, it's interesting anyway.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-fraud/latest-release

[TimFox]

Many of us older people are slow to adopt new schemes of dubious improvement over current schemes because we were not born yesterday.

[vk4ffab]

And whilst Australia isn't a cashless economy "just yet", it seems surprising that biggest reduction in cash users was actually elderly people. Seems you can teach an old dog new tricks?

I'm not all that surprised for this particular point. Using a card instead of cash is easy, so doesn't require any particular knowledge or affinity to new tech, it's actually easier for the elderly as it doesn't require them to count bills and coins (or even see them correctly as their eyesight degrades), plus that removes the fear of being robbed. And finally, older people, apart from a minority, probably don't care very much about the privacy of their transactions anymore compared to younger people. So yeah, not surprised about this at all.

What it does do is introduce a whole new set of problems for them because of digital illiteracy in the older population and that is a tendency to be susceptible to scams. One almost needs to act like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist to protect themselves from scams. Thankfully i get so few calls, texts or emails from scammers, but it takes take some effort to stay on top of things. My phone number according to jlc and other online businesses I buy though is 555123456 and my email address is disposable, because you just know that those aliexpress stores ya buy though are going to share your details with the Industrial Scam Factory Concern. HAHAHA

There are some pretty dumb and gullible younger people out there too. In my experience with dealing with older folk, I'd suggest that even though they might not be clued up on the latest technology, they have life experience and aren't silly either.

Some statistics released for 2021-2022 showed that those 65 and older were actually the second lowest group who had been exposed to scams overall. The highest number came from the 35 to 44 year age group.

Now of course there are several ways to read into statistics, and you could argue there are more people in the younger age group which means higher instances of fraud. But nonetheless, it's interesting anyway.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-fraud/latest-release

ACCC data for 2022 clearly shows over 65's account for 25% of all scam reports and for 25% of the amount lost. Couple that cohort with 55+ and you start getting close to 50% of all victims and value. Compare that to any other 2 groups combine and they are the most represented cohort. The amount lost is obviously higher because this group has all the money, but in terms of numbers, the only rational explanation is a lack of digital literacy. FYIW, i am 52.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-calls-for-united-front-as-scammers-steal-over-3bn-from-australians

[tggzzz]

And whilst Australia isn't a cashless economy "just yet", it seems surprising that biggest reduction in cash users was actually elderly people. Seems you can teach an old dog new tricks?

I'm not all that surprised for this particular point. Using a card instead of cash is easy, so doesn't require any particular knowledge or affinity to new tech, it's actually easier for the elderly as it doesn't require them to count bills and coins (or even see them correctly as their eyesight degrades), plus that removes the fear of being robbed. And finally, older people, apart from a minority, probably don't care very much about the privacy of their transactions anymore compared to younger people. So yeah, not surprised about this at all.

What it does do is introduce a whole new set of problems for them because of digital illiteracy in the older population and that is a tendency to be susceptible to scams. One almost needs to act like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist to protect themselves from scams. Thankfully i get so few calls, texts or emails from scammers, but it takes take some effort to stay on top of things. My phone number according to jlc and other online businesses I buy though is 555123456 and my email address is disposable, because you just know that those aliexpress stores ya buy though are going to share your details with the Industrial Scam Factory Concern. HAHAHA

There are some pretty dumb and gullible younger people out there too. In my experience with dealing with older folk, I'd suggest that even though they might not be clued up on the latest technology, they have life experience and aren't silly either.

There's a famous example of an extremely competent (and very nice) old lady that fell prey to scammers.

Why extremely competent? Well, she and her husband were pioneering programmers, back in the 50s - and their son was a certain Tim Berners-Lee (you may have heard of him).
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/tv/watchdog/WebScript_CourierScam_040614.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lee_Woods (I don't know why that article uses her maiden name; I never heard her use it)l

[CatalinaWOW]

ACCC data for 2022 clearly shows over 65's account for 25% of all scam reports and for 25% of the amount lost. Couple that cohort with 55+ and you start getting close to 50% of all victims and value. Compare that to any other 2 groups combine and they are the most represented cohort. The amount lost is obviously higher because this group has all the money, but in terms of numbers, the only rational explanation is a lack of digital literacy. FYIW, i am 52.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-calls-for-united-front-as-scammers-steal-over-3bn-from-australians

Here in the US the elderly are also the number one age cohort for being scammed.  But the number two cohort is the teen to thirty age group.  It seems that experience helps up until the facilities start to fade.

[tggzzz]

Many of us older people are slow to adopt new schemes of dubious improvement over current schemes because we were not born yesterday.

Petronius Arbiter's famous quote applies to new products as well as new org-charts, viz: "I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

In my case I spent a large chunk of my career on the bleeding edge of technology in a well-known industrial research lab. That required keeping on top of all the new products and technologies, so that I/we could advance them.

99% of them weren't an advance. At best they were different (but not better), and nowhere near as good or revolutionary as their proponents claimed.

Recognising which were "froth" and which were "liquid" meant I didn't go down the blind alleys (now mercifully forgotten) that seduced many people.

Summary: most claimed advances aren't an advance.

[coppice]

Petronius Arbiter's famous quote applies to new products as well as new org-charts, viz: "I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

In my case I spent a large chunk of my career on the bleeding edge of technology in a well-known industrial research lab. That required keeping on top of all the new products and technologies, so that I/we could advance them.

99% of them weren't an advance. At best they were different (but not better), and nowhere near as good or revolutionary as their proponents claimed.

Recognising which were "froth" and which were "liquid" meant I didn't go down the blind alleys (now mercifully forgotten) that seduced many people.

Summary: most claimed advances aren't an advance.

The main reason "advances" are advances is "we control this one, and we don't control all the alternatives already out there performing well".