What ever happened to people knowing the roads?

[The Nature Boy]

What would be even easier is if they signed up for electronic deposits/withdrawals and skip the checks altogether (if their religious institution has it, of course). Both churches I have belonged to have had this as an option, not only for convenience of their parishioners, but also as a way to save on the cost of printing offering envelopes.

There was an old email joke that circulated that listed several signs that one was in a bad church; one of them listed... if there's an ATM in the foyer. 

All joking aside; since giving to one's place of worship is usually on a voluntary basis (although many encourage consistent tithing/giving, etc. of their members), many would likely object to such... on the grounds of invasion of privacy. 

Another reason against such: if the religious institution in question turns out to be corrupt (which can happen); giving that institution the ability to automatically withdrawls from their members/parishoners would be opening a Pandora's Box so to speak.

I would also think that allowing people to pay by check is also an invasion of privacy. With checks, I can tell how much a given person paid whereas with cash, that's impossible.

[jeffandnicole]

What would be even easier is if they signed up for electronic deposits/withdrawals and skip the checks altogether (if their religious institution has it, of course). Both churches I have belonged to have had this as an option, not only for convenience of their parishioners, but also as a way to save on the cost of printing offering envelopes.

All joking aside; since giving to one's place of worship is usually on a voluntary basis (although many encourage consistent tithing/giving, etc. of their members), many would likely object to such... on the grounds of invasion of privacy. 

If auto withdrawal is permitted, it's usually voluntary anyway, so if someone objects they could have many reasons why they would object.  Besides, it's more secure than that check they write out anyway...which has the giver's name, address, account number and bank routing number anyway.

Churchgoers can be a weird bunch anyway.  They listen for an hour about doing right, then I can watch nearly every one of them leave, crossing a street against a don't walk signal or leaving the parking lot without making a complete stop.

[1995hoo]

I would also think that allowing people to pay by check is also an invasion of privacy. With checks, I can tell how much a given person paid whereas with cash, that's impossible.

On the other hand, depending on how much one donates, having that itemized statement can be important because it serves as a record if the IRS later questions the deduction.

I've freaked out some old ladies at Mass when I've made change out of the collection basket–for example, I wanted to give $10 but I only had a $20, so when the basket reached me I put in a $20 and removed a $10. This works better in a a parish where they pass the basket and you can hold onto it for a moment. At the parish we attended when I grew up, the ushers extended the baskets down the pews.

[DaBigE]

I would also think that allowing people to pay by check is also an invasion of privacy. With checks, I can tell how much a given person paid whereas with cash, that's impossible.

As long as the cash isn't put into a church envelope, tracking it is virtually impossible. However, for tax purposes, you want them to know how much you've donated/tithed/offered. If you're a member of said religious institution, does it really matter? Many track your attendance, communion attendance, and tithing as a tool to determine who might need more "guidance". (interpret guidance however you wish)

Another reason against such: if the religious institution in question turns out to be corrupt (which can happen); giving that institution the ability to automatically withdrawls from their members/parishoners would be opening a Pandora's Box so to speak.

No different than any other place that offers automatic payments. I would hope someone would use a little common sense before opening their bank account to such a system regardless of whether it's a religious institution or otherwise. With my church, I have virtually complete control over my offerings...increase/decrease (amount and frequency) and when to terminate the connection altogether.

[PHLBOS]

If auto withdrawal is permitted, it's usually voluntary anyway, so if someone objects they could have many reasons why they would object.

Understood, but if the let's do away with checks altogether (as recommended by some on this thread) concept ever came to pass; many that give by check (but don't want automatic withdrawls) would simply either give less.  Voice of experience here; at my congregation, the larger offering amounts are paid by check vs. cash.  Very rarely does one place a large amount of cash in an offering envelope.

Long story short; such is taking away a choice in terms of payment.

That said, and in an attempt to steer back to (or close) to topic here, it seems to me in this thread and others like it; it seems like the (mostly) younger set are always advocating the elimination of the old-school methods just because they themselves don't use them.  In contrast, the (mostly) older crowd that still uses the old tried-and-true methods aren't, by any means, advocating for the prohibition of the newer technology/methods.

In short, the technoholics want everybody to conform to their ways.

Churchgoers can be a weird bunch anyway.  They listen for an hour about doing right, then I can watch nearly every one of them leave, crossing a street against a don't walk signal or leaving the parking lot without making a complete stop.

While there is some truth to that statement; I'll admit.  Do keep in mind that your post does come off as a stereotype of sorts.  For all you know, there may be some on this board that do attend a house of worship (church, synagogue or even mosque) on a consistent and regular basis.

[agentsteel53]

it seems like the (mostly) younger set are always advocating the elimination of the old-school methods just because they themselves don't use them

I don't advocate for the elimination of checks.  I do, however, scratch my head at my mortgage company charging me $3.50 for an electronic funds transfer, but taking a check for free.  one takes about 30 milliseconds of electrons bouncing around; the other requires a clerk to confirm the amount, and then the inevitable final step of honoring a valid check is ... you guessed it, 30 milliseconds of electrons bouncing around.

so why am I required to pay a "convenience fee" for something that saves the bank some time?

[bing101]

Well thats because the public does not care about the difference between an interstate shield, California spade or US Routes, County Pentagon route, and a forest route shield.

I see maps where US-50 and US-101 is signed as an interstate even though its white. US-50 and US-101 are signed as a Korean expressway Interstate on some maps here in the USA on Business maps. Or even city routes that have expressways.

The Public does not act like AAroads members or Freewayjim members act when it comes to roads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeongdong_Expressway

I seen business maps sign US-50 in Sacramento like this.

[Brandon]

Well thats because the public does not care about the difference between an interstate shield, California spade or US Routes, County Pentagon route, and a forest route shield.

Depends on the state.  I've often believed that a policy of not repeating route numbers from I, US, and SR routes leads to people not understanding the difference between the different routes.  That, and always referring to all routes, be they I, US, SR, or County, as "highway".  (Yes, WisDOT, that's you!)

It's a big difference between say Michigan, where people do know the difference and actually use them in speech, i.e. "take M 14 to I 275 north to M 5" or "take 94 east to US 127 north"; and Wisconsin, where people tend not to know the difference, i.e. "take highway 94 to highway 241 to highway 41 to highway C".

[PHLBOS]

I don't advocate for the elimination of checks.  I do, however, scratch my head at my mortgage company charging me $3.50 for an electronic funds transfer, but taking a check for free.  one takes about 30 milliseconds of electrons bouncing around; the other requires a clerk to confirm the amount, and then the inevitable final step of honoring a valid check is ... you guessed it, 30 milliseconds of electrons bouncing around.

so why am I required to pay a "convenience fee" for something that saves the bank some time?

Guess on my part, that fee is what the bank charges the mortgage company for such a service.  The mortgage company, in turn, passes that charge (or part of it) onto their customers.

[formulanone]

Oh, and I also think the prevalence of automatic transmissions in vehicles is a contributing factor because it allows drivers to focus just a little bit less on the road and makes driving a more passive experience.

As much as I enjoy (and prefer) a manual transmission, the automatic transmission dates back to the 1940s. If anything, it grew in popularity along the same time the Interstate system was initially being built.

[codyg1985]

It is very, well serendipitous, that this article appeared in my newsfeed from forum member Dr. Frankenstein: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/using-maps-vs-gps.html

[agentsteel53]

Guess on my part, that fee is what the bank charges the mortgage company for such a service.  The mortgage company, in turn, passes that charge (or part of it) onto their customers.

the question remains.  why is the bank charging for EFT, but not for a check whose last step in processing is the identical EFT?

[PHLBOS]

It is very, well serendipitous, that this article appeared in my newsfeed from forum member Dr. Frankenstein: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/using-maps-vs-gps.html

That's covered in this thread.

the question remains.  why is the bank charging for EFT, but not for a check whose last step in processing is the identical EFT?

Maintenance fee for the computers that perform EFT.

[1995hoo]

....

Another reason against such: if the religious institution in question turns out to be corrupt (which can happen); giving that institution the ability to automatically withdrawls from their members/parishoners would be opening a Pandora's Box so to speak.

No different than any other place that offers automatic payments. I would hope someone would use a little common sense before opening their bank account to such a system regardless of whether it's a religious institution or otherwise. With my church, I have virtually complete control over my offerings...increase/decrease (amount and frequency) and when to terminate the connection altogether.

I don't give any creditor (charge cards, mortgage company, DirecTV, whomever) access to my bank accounts to withdraw money automatically. Never have, never will. I've always thought it opens you up to too much risk.

[PHLBOS]

I don't give any creditor (charge cards, mortgage company, DirecTV, whomever) access to my bank accounts to withdraw money automatically. Never have, never will. I've always thought it opens you up to too much risk.

Same here.

[realjd]

....

Another reason against such: if the religious institution in question turns out to be corrupt (which can happen); giving that institution the ability to automatically withdrawls from their members/parishoners would be opening a Pandora's Box so to speak.

No different than any other place that offers automatic payments. I would hope someone would use a little common sense before opening their bank account to such a system regardless of whether it's a religious institution or otherwise. With my church, I have virtually complete control over my offerings...increase/decrease (amount and frequency) and when to terminate the connection altogether.

I don't give any creditor (charge cards, mortgage company, DirecTV, whomever) access to my bank accounts to withdraw money automatically. Never have, never will. I've always thought it opens you up to too much risk.

I get frustrated with the city for water payments and with the power company. I can pay both bills with credit cards online but they only support automatic payments by direct debit. It makes no sense that I can't set up an automatic credit card payment.

I do have the city on direct debit but pay the power company manually each month by credit card.

[Scott5114]

Oh, and I also think the prevalence of automatic transmissions in vehicles is a contributing factor because it allows drivers to focus just a little bit less on the road and makes driving a more passive experience.

As much as I enjoy (and prefer) a manual transmission, the automatic transmission dates back to the 1940s. If anything, it grew in popularity along the same time the Interstate system was initially being built.

I would argue the opposite: not having to supervise my car's gearshifting gives me more mental bandwidth to deal with complex navigational problems and traffic exigencies.

Guess on my part, that fee is what the bank charges the mortgage company for such a service.  The mortgage company, in turn, passes that charge (or part of it) onto their customers.

the question remains.  why is the bank charging for EFT, but not for a check whose last step in processing is the identical EFT?

My guess is that the concept of charging a fee for EFT came about when EFT was new and weird, before the check-cashing system was just a front for EFT. Now that EFT acceptance has advanced to the point that EFT is easier than checks, the fee is not removed because fuck the customer, am I right?

[oscar]

I don't give any creditor (charge cards, mortgage company, DirecTV, whomever) access to my bank accounts to withdraw money automatically. Never have, never will. I've always thought it opens you up to too much risk.

I'm more comfortable with that, having been in situations (like being out of town for months at a time, or prolonged post-surgical recoveries) where having my finances mostly on auto-pilot ensured that I didn't miss any payments.  As a side benefit, I will probably never have to pay for a new order of checks, until forced to do so by an address and/or bank change. 

But I do try to get automatic payments charged to a credit card rather than pulled directly from my checking account, to give me a little more protection.  For some bills (such as electric and gas, condo fees, long-term care insurance, county real and personal property taxes, E-ZPass, and of course the credit card companies), charging to a card is either not possible or comes at too high a price.

[jeffandnicole]

You can't charge EZ Pass to a cc? NJ's EZ Pass system allows it. In fact, it goes to my AmEx card.

[oscar]

You can't charge EZ Pass to a cc? NJ's EZ Pass system allows it. In fact, it goes to my AmEx card.

Might depend on where you get your E-ZPass.  I think Virginia E-ZPass allows charging automatic replenishment to a credit card -- it definitely allows that for manual replenishment.  But at the time I signed up, there were advantages to charging to a checking account (I don't know for sure if that's still true).

[Brandon]

You can't charge EZ Pass to a cc? NJ's EZ Pass system allows it. In fact, it goes to my AmEx card.

ISTHA does the same with I-Pass.  In fact, if you use automatic replenishment via credit/debit card, your refundable deposit is $10 instead of $20.

[1995hoo]

You can't charge EZ Pass to a cc? NJ's EZ Pass system allows it. In fact, it goes to my AmEx card.

Might depend on where you get your E-ZPass.  I think Virginia E-ZPass allows charging automatic replenishment to a credit card -- it definitely allows that for manual replenishment.  But at the time I signed up, there were advantages to charging to a checking account (I don't know for sure if that's still true).

Our Virginia account has always charged automatic replenishment to my American Express card except back in the Smart Tag days, and back then the reason it didn't was that I didn't have American Express at the time so it charged to a different card.

[algorerhythms]

On the subject of technology and stupid people...

[PHLBOS]

On the subject of technology and stupid people...

That's both simultaneously funny and stupid.   

[roadman65]

Well thats because the public does not care about the difference between an interstate shield, California spade or US Routes, County Pentagon route, and a forest route shield.

Depends on the state.  I've often believed that a policy of not repeating route numbers from I, US, and SR routes leads to people not understanding the difference between the different routes.  That, and always referring to all routes, be they I, US, SR, or County, as "highway".  (Yes, WisDOT, that's you!)

It's a big difference between say Michigan, where people do know the difference and actually use them in speech, i.e. "take M 14 to I 275 north to M 5" or "take 94 east to US 127 north"; and Wisconsin, where people tend not to know the difference, i.e. "take highway 94 to highway 241 to highway 41 to highway C".

In New Jersey its Route for everything.  When I first moved to Florida I was the only one who did not refer to I-4 as such.  I called it Route 4 as in New Jersey I-78 was Route 78, and even US 1 was often Route 1.  So if you had to take US 1 to I-287 to get to Easton, PA it would be Route 1 to Route 287 to either Route 22 or Route 78. 

That is why no duplicate routes in many states because people are synonymous with all designations.  That maybe why all the PA 202, PA 209, NY 209, etc. with states not getting the proper shield for the right route number.  Many people see the sign and most would not even notice a state shield for US route.  Heck I bet residents of Parsippany, NJ do not even know that the NJ 202 shields near US 46 are even erroneous!