[HN Gopher] No Fixed Address Bank Account ___________________________________________________________________ No Fixed Address Bank Account Author : acqbu Score : 204 points Date : 2022-05-08 08:41 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.hsbc.co.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (www.hsbc.co.uk) | version_five wrote: | The need for an address is incredibly outdated imo. Not just for | banking but for anything. It's the equivalent of when places used | to want to to give a home landline number. | | I think there needs to be more discussion about how we move away | from addresses to some other kind of basis for taxation, | education, health, etc (not blockchain), a real answer that lets | me declare my residency on the highest territorial level possible | and transact electronically or to a physical location I pick | syshum wrote: | I want politics and taxation to be more local in the smallest | division practical, with extreme limits being placed on the | power and scope of larger political organizations. In short I | fully support US Style Federalism and oppose the move to make | the US Federal Government all powerful | | If I was in the EU I would support sovereignty of the nation | states,and oppose efforts to make the EU Government all | powerful | | the move to make governments larger and all encompassing | including calls for a 1 world government, are IMO a threat to | individual freedom and will not have the desired effect you | seem to think | sgjohnson wrote: | Fun fact, US states have more freedom from the Federal | government than EU member states have from the EU. | | US states can basically just ignore or refuse to enforce the | federal law with little to no consequences (immigration | sanctuary states/cities, Texas no longer treating suppressors | as NFA items, etc.), but EU member states can't. EU law is | binding to all of them and there's no escape from it. | 323 wrote: | > _EU law is binding to all of them and there 's no escape | from it._ | | Only in theory, in practice EU countries break EU law all | the time, with minimal consequences. Some like Poland even | openly, it recently said something like "we'll rather pay | the fine than respect this particular EU law". EU states | remain fully sovereign. | orangepurple wrote: | The EU projects power in the same way the Federal | government projects the majority of its power: under the | threat of withholding funding for large projects | derriz wrote: | That's quite a stretch. | | US states cannot just ignore federal law - unless the | federal law is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court | - a federal institution. | | There are effectively no limits to US federal powers - | while the treaties governing the EU enshrine the principle | of subsidiarity[1] - and the powers granted to the EU are | specified in treaties. A topical and obvious example is | that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't | happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or | competition, the EU has no competence in this area. Or the | idea of the EU imposing a health care system like the | Affordable Care Act or deciding drug laws or gun control | laws is unthinkable. | | An individual cannot be arrested, charged, convicted and | imprisoned for breaking EU law the way the feds can do in | the US, regardless of state law. There are no EU prisons. | | By any measure the US is far more centralized than the EU - | money is power as they say and 64% of government receipts | in the US are at the federal level while the EU budget | represents only 2% of government spending in the block. | | [1] - | https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the- | pri... | syshum wrote: | >>US states cannot just ignore federal law | | They absolutely can and do. State government are under no | compulsion to enforce federal law, nor do they have aid | federal law enforcement. Sure the FBI can still arrest | you but as a practical matter the federal government | relies heavily on local law enforcement for support in | their efforts and task forces. | | The state governments can neuter federal enforcement by | refusing to supply personnel and equipment or other | support to federal law enforcement task forces and | actions | | Conversely the federal government also supplies (i.e | bribes) local law enforcement with money, and gear to | grease the wheel for that support. | | The supremacy you are referring to with the Supreme court | is about when Federal Law and State law conflict then | Federal law would win over State Law. Personally I think | this is bad but until there is a constitutional amendment | to change it that is the reality. However that supremacy | does not mean state law enforcement or governments must | enforce federal law, only that they can not | overrule/supplant a federal law with their own | | >> A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe | vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as | it's unrelated to trade or competition | | Well according to the Current Draft our federal | government did not have the power either. It is funny you | mention trade, you do know that ACA is a trade regulation | the constitutional power that allows ACA to exist is the | interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution, that | was MASSIVELY expanded in power by the court in the | abomination / disgraceful 1942 Wickard decision which | effectively made every activity a commercial interstate | activity that can be regulated by the federal government. | | Personally if the court is in the mood for over turning | precedent someone should take a case to them aimed | squarely at over turning that abomination, putting the | federal government back into their proper scope and place | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | On the other hand, I still remember how, back in the | 1980s, U.S. states that were reluctant to raise beer- | drinking age from 18 to 21 were brought to heel: no | federal funds for highways, I think it was. | syshum wrote: | pmoriarty wrote: | _" A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe | vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as | it's unrelated to trade or competition"_ | | The US Federal government has been very crafty in | associating just about anything to "interstate | commerce"[1] and thereby expanding its power enormously. | | I'm sure the same thing could happen in the EU given some | creative lawyering and a judiciary willing to swallow | their arguments. | | It's the appointment/election of particular judges and | their willingness to craft or go along with certain | arguments and interpret laws in certain ways that is | really at the crux of how nations are governed. | | Like the old saying goes: It's not votes that count, but | those who count the votes. Likewise, it's not the laws | that matter, but those who interpret the laws. | | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause | blibble wrote: | EU budget is far craftier than that | | member state departments that are under its sole control | are still funded by national budgets | | the 2% is just the head of the snake | derriz wrote: | The EU budget is tiny - under EUR150B euro per year[1]. | And what's more it has being falling in absolute terms in | the last number of year. | | While the US federal government spends over $20 trillion | a year. This isn't comparable at any level - regardless | of any snake-anatomy analogy. | | I'm not sure what your definition of a "member state | department" is? But knowing something of the political | set-up in a number of EU countries, none are under the | "sole control" of the EU (commission I guess you mean?). | | [1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/eu- | budget-added... | seoaeu wrote: | Your point still stands, but US federal spending is more | like $4-7 trillion depending on the year. I assume you | went based on Google's answer box, which somehow confuses | total GDP with government spending. | syshum wrote: | Doesnt the EU pass unfunded liabilities back onto the | member states? | | Meaning the EU will pass a law or regulation or program | that the member states then have to fund with domestic | taxes? | | Generally speaking for the federal government, if they | want to pass a program or requirement the federal | government must also pay for that, for example the | federal government could not require the state | governments to put in bike lane on all road with out | giving the states the money to do it. | | That is why the Federal government is so large.. | | Also defense spending, We actually honor our NATO treaty | by spending no less than 3% of our GDP on national | defense, something the EU nations never do | blibble wrote: | that's because agencies used to implement federal policy | (e.g. the FDA) are attributed to the federal government | budget, | | whereas the EU member state equivalents that implement EU | policy get attributed to national budgets | | the EU doesn't fund enforcement of the GDPR, the national | information commissioners do | | not having to pay to implement its policies makes the EU | look many, many times more efficient than it actually is | sgjohnson wrote: | > or deciding drug laws or gun control laws is | unthinkable. | | They have. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(EU)_2021/555 | | This stupid thing almost caused Switzerland to leave the | Schengen area, and it upset a lot of countries that | didn't want anything to do with it. | | At least the complete ban on handguns (that the | Netherlands wanted) didn't happen. | | As a firearms enthusiast in the EU, this actually upset | me. Not that it affects me too much in the country where | I live (I just can't have 30rd mags, which is stupid, but | it could have been a lot worse). | | > There are effectively no limits to US federal powers | | There is. The 10th amendment. Of course, there's the | commerce clause, that's been abused ad infinitum. | pibechorro wrote: | this is the only sane way forward. | rmah wrote: | The idea that more power in the hands of local governments | _seems_ attractive. Even knowing better, it still seems | attractive to me... | | You imagine people knowing the lawmakers better. You think | that the lawmakers will be more connected to the community. | That they'll be more likely to protect the freedoms that they | also want to enjoy. At first blush, this all seems | reasonable. | | However, if you look at history, the actual practice is the | _opposite_ of that. When power is mostly exercised locally | (at the town level), over time, laws are passed to regulate | the minutia of daily life. When shops can be open. Laws about | who can work in which trade. Laws about who can use "public" | infrastructure and when. Laws about what you can do with your | pets. Laws down to what colors and fabrics your cloths are | made of. And, of course, laws to protect their hold on power. | | It turns out that people in power at local levels are nosy | parkers who will try to _force_ everyone they can to live the | way they think is best. And they become generationally | powerful. Sad but it 's the historical reality. | | Personally, my speculation is that it's because most people | try to exercise all the power they're given. And since those | local lawmakers don't have to think about "big" issues in a | broader sense, they just make laws about "small" issues and | deal with big issues only when they are pushed in front of | them. | throwmeariver1 wrote: | Tell that American school and public boards that get raided | by crazy people. I think the opposite and would love to see | power taken away from local entities. | syshum wrote: | That depends on the context, I have a feeling we differ | widely on what we view as the "crazy people" that are | taking over given the natural demographics of HN and that | fact that I am generally politically unaligned with most | people here given I am a individualist libertarian | politically | | that is the beauty of local control, if School Board in | another state does something you do not like, good news it | does not effect you. If the Dept of Labor does something | nationally you do not like well there is nothing you can do | about it as your power is diluted due to national level, | and you can not move... | throwmeariver1 wrote: | Not everyone can just relocate I can't believe that's the | only argument people in this thread come up with. | syshum wrote: | It is not even close to the only argument, it is however | the only one you have locked on to because in your mind | you can easily refute it with "well not everyone can | move" as if that practical matter changes anything in the | equation. Hint it does not, it is pointless truism that | does not even come close to defeating the argument | sokoloff wrote: | If you don't like the local government, in the extreme you | can move. If you don't like the world government, where are | you going to go? | | (Same argument applies today to the EU or US Federal | government as well, for citizens who might be practically | confined by the policy of those governments and unable to | move outside their purview.) | throwmeariver1 wrote: | Ah... the entitlement is showing not all people can just | move and not all people want their town to be run by a | HOA Karen just because she had the most free time to | print posters. It's way easier to influence councils in | small towns and press your agenda without oversight than | in the ,,world government". | syshum wrote: | That is until the world government becomes the HOA Karen | which is how I view the current federal government of the | USA | | I have a feeling you only support massive federal | governments because your political worldview is the | current worldview that has power, something tells me if | that power were to shift you would be singing a different | tune | | For someone like me, that believes in Individualism and | local control I have no team so "my team" is never in | power. I see both sides as evil authoritarians that want | to restrict my freedom. I am more able to fight this | authoritarianism at my local level than I am at a | national or worse global level | throwmeariver1 wrote: | In a real democracy the government is voted by the | majority and if the majority goes psychotic nothing will | help us. People like you always argue against government | because you are in the minority and you want to force the | majority to your will. Disgusting. | sokoloff wrote: | Is it the No True Democracy argument that any problems we | see with the federal government are a result of flaws in | the too-low percent pure democracy that it is? | | I think the trick of democracy is to avoid the tyranny of | the majority. We have some structures in place in the US | intended to prevent the worst of them from occurring. I | find it amusing (and if it happened more frequently, | annoying and then scary) that these exact controls are | seen by some as inconveniences or impediments. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority | syshum wrote: | >> Disgusting. | | Wow, opposing mob rule is "Disgusting." now | | >real democracy | | That is why I oppose "real democracy", I prefer a | Constitutional Republic with powers widely distributed in | a federalist model. | | >if the majority goes psychotic nothing will help us | | No, that is the exact thing a Constitution, Distributed | Power, and Checks / Balances is designed to counter, to | ensure the majority can not simply force their will over | the minority.... and the smallest minority is the | individual | | What is actually disgusting is your rejection of natural | individual rights in favor of majoritarian rule | sokoloff wrote: | It's also way easier to press your agenda in your family | or in your friend group. That's a feature, not a bug, | IMO. | | A powerful and inescapable government seems way worse | than deciding between living with, trying to change, or | moving away from your local government. | throwmeariver1 wrote: | You seem to have absolutely no experience with the | governance of rural America and the abuse of it. Just | look how Scientology or the Mormon church are taking over | cities. There is no way to fight back if a giant entity | with money and questionable morality decides to get | involved. | andai wrote: | Now imagine the same thing on a global scale. | throwmeariver1 wrote: | It's easier to put out one fire instead of thousands. | xboxnolifes wrote: | Exactly, and at the local level you only need to put out | 1 fire: the one affecting you. | sokoloff wrote: | California would like a word. | | (Read that literally or politically, however you choose, | but I don't relish a "it's completely out of control; all | we can do is pray for rain or the winds to shift and hope | it burns itself out while sparing 90% of the people..." | scenario on a world scale, whether in politics or wild- | fires.) | throwmeariver1 wrote: | California has the exact same problem I described it's | not that the overall governance is the problem it's | usually on local levels like the San Francisco DA or the | LA county labour board... | sokoloff wrote: | Have you considered the possibility that there are just a | lot of people who want different things from each other | and from you? | | By the time you get to a group of citizens the size of | San Francisco or Los Angeles, are you really going to | benefit from me weighing in from Massachusetts, Anna | weighing in from Rotterdam, or Jiang from Shanghai on | what crime or homeless problems the city is facing or how | tall buildings should be allowed to be in some part of | the city? That's not just a few wackos running for a | local dog catcher position. | beamatronic wrote: | Voting out all elected government officials over age 30 would | be a good start to a better tomorrow. | sandworm101 wrote: | Because just letting people pick where they want to be | taxed/sued/regulated doesnt work. Laws change from one place to | another. Where you live matters to which laws apply to you. | Where your bank account lives matters to which laws apply to | it. Would you rent a london appartment to someone if you might | have to sue them in Quebec should they fail to pay rent? | Avamander wrote: | I don't think OP necessarily meant what they said on an | international scale. | | The first step would be to avoid the requirement when in the | same city, state or country. To the extent possible, if there | are legal reasons, maybe those should be reviewed. There are | options for sure. | asah wrote: | Agree it shouldn't be a hard requirement, but fyi a secure | physical address is pretty valuable for re-establishing | relationships if electronic communication breaks down or is | lost. | Avamander wrote: | > a real answer that lets me declare my residency on the | highest territorial level possible and transact electronically | or to a physical location I pick | | So a digital identity system needs to be implemented. Something | akin to what quite a few countries have already implemented. | | I'm unsure why it would require more discussion at this point. | It's not hypothetical science fiction without practical | examples. | Spooky23 wrote: | Well to start, the assholes using a South Dakota trust held | by a Nevada LLC to run a Delaware corporation would have a | harder time hiding their beneficial ownership and might have | to pay taxes. | | Also the "mark of the beast" crowd is real, really loud and | politically powerful. | Avamander wrote: | > Also the "mark of the beast" crowd is real, really loud | and politically powerful. | | Can't that be bypassed by implementing the system but | making it voluntary? That crowd is honestly quite | unfathomable to me. | bragr wrote: | > It also forced all people, great and small, rich and | poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right | hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not | buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name | of the beast or the number of its name. | | If it practically excludes people from transacting it | kind of plays into the prophecy. That's how people go off | on bank accounts and debit and credit cards as being the | mark of the beast. | throwmeariver1 wrote: | Yes, you are living in le cyberspace. | timthorn wrote: | > It's the equivalent of when places used to want to to give a | home landline number. | | Or today, when companies assume that everyone has a mobile | phone - if not a smartphone? | Hendrikto wrote: | > (not blockchain) | | Why not? | billpg wrote: | Because blockchain solutions to anything are almost always | awful. (And I'm unsure about needing the word "almost".) | FateOfNations wrote: | I always replace "blockchain" with "distributed ledger" and | see if the idea still make any kind of sense (it rarely | does). | White_Wolf wrote: | Awful? Ignoring the crypto coins, I'd love to see all | spending/funds in for governments, ONG, non-profit orgs, | (mass)media channels, public hospitals, all companies that | have shareholders/sell shares, anything that runs on public | funds and so on should be tracked via publicly available | blockchains. You can probably see where I'm going with | this. | | I have mixed feelings about banks, national banks, lenders, | art trading, casinos, pawn shops and such though. I'm a bit | worried about tracking private individuals at that extent | because of these. | alar44 wrote: | I don't think there needs to be any discussion. The 10k | programmers living as nomads can get a PO box. | | Problem solved. No need to reorganize society for the 0.001%. | caymanjim wrote: | Things you can't do with a PO box and no fixed residential | address: get a driver's license; vote; prove to the last | place you were resident that you're no longer resident and | don't owe them taxes anymore; get insurance (vehicle, medical | options severely limited); get a PO box in the first place. | devoutsalsa wrote: | This is incorrect. I am a digital nomad w/ a PO box and it's | not accepted by many financial institutions that do KYC. My | credit union requires me to list a "real" address. My credit | card company required me to list a permanent address as well. | Any time there's a fraud alert on my of my accounts & I have | to provide proof of residence, there's a good chance | submitting a document w/ my PO box will not be accepted. | | I use my dad's address for my permanent residence. But since | I'm not on the utility bills, it can be hard to provide true | residence. In one case, I had to write up a lease agreement & | buy renter's insurance to get one of my accounts unlocked. | They wouldn't accept a bank statement, my driver's license, | or voter registration card. It was a real pain in the ass, | and resolving it took a good 2 weeks. | ghaff wrote: | At least in MA for a driver's license, there are a lot of | documents that can be used for proof of residency including | things like cell phone and auto insurance bills. | | Lots of people's names aren't on utility bills. They may be | sharing a place with others or utilities may be included in | the rent. | rigrassm wrote: | I do this exact same thing. Though, I have the benefit of | sharing a name with my father so proof of residency had had | never been an issue. It feels like cheating but it's so | damn convenient lol. | devoutsalsa wrote: | You have hacked the system. Bravo. | bfz wrote: | I'm not sure I have the faculties to address what bothers me | about this comment, but there is so much tied to traditional | society the comment seems to ignore. | | - Voting districts - obviously tied to physical land, with | different styles of vote counting system per area, often | according to local cultural needs. I come from a society where | special voting considerations exist in order to achieve actual | peace. Prior to that system being introduced, there was war. | The right to vote and the manner in which the vote occurs is an | essential and inalienable attribute of all democratic | societies, often deeply saturated in historic customs taking | centuries of diplomacy to achieve stability. | | - Public services - voting and taxation are directly related to | policy in a local area. The tax that I pay my local council is | accountable almost directly to me because I can schedule an | appointment with the very people whom I elect to spend my taxes | as I desire. My physical address in that locale entitles me to | an opinion on the use of those taxes, and a stake in ensuring | awareness of local policy, and that the policy works for myself | and the people around me. | | - Land rights - a requirement for a physical address, or the | alternative of no requirement for a physical address, (is/is | not) an implicit endorsement of land ownership and encouraging | long term placement of people within fixed communities. | Community quality and composition varies greatly across every | region of the world, and for folk spending most of their life | inside cities, it is easy to forget the concept of a community | exists. Establishing a physical local presence is essential for | many kinds of growth, not least, starting a family and | therefore the continued growth of a healthy society. | | So to summarize, I think what bothers me is that the only | possible way to arrive at what the parent comment suggests | would be to avoid participating or contributing to any of these | essential traits of civil society, which is to say it is an | opinion explicitly rooted in contributing to civic decay. It's | not "incredibly outdated", a physical address comes with many | essential implications that ought to be encouraged. | gorgoiler wrote: | I've always thought that voting, at the national level, might | benefit from non-geographic constituencies. | | The representatives might be for 24 to 34 year olds, | unmarried mothers, children, prisoners, or of course the | homeless. People who need more representation than they are | probably getting. | | The more categories you fall into, the more votes you get. | Maybe that's not a bad thing when faced with the status quo | of money based politics. | | It is a poorly thought out idea but your comment reminded me | to give it some more time. | jdasdf wrote: | >Voting districts - obviously tied to physical land, with | different styles of vote counting system per area, often | according to local cultural needs. I come from a society | where special voting considerations exist in order to achieve | actual peace. Prior to that system being introduced, there | was war. The right to vote and the manner in which the vote | occurs is an essential and inalienable attribute of all | democratic societies, often deeply saturated in historic | customs taking centuries of diplomacy to achieve stability. | | People shouldn't be voting on local issues, land should. | | Voting on local issues should be 100% correlated with your | investment in that locality. | ahtihn wrote: | So back to aristocracy? | DoreenMichele wrote: | There have always been travelers in the world. They have long | had friction with settled peoples who feel a fixed address is | essential. | | Even American military members have friction with the rest of | America over this. It just gets mitigated by the fact that | the federal government makes accommodations for them. | | Military members historically had trouble opening local bank | accounts so there are military banks on military | installations and when I was a military wife I could cash a | check at the PX/BX because banks don't like cashing out of | town checks. | | This is not just a homeless issue. This is problematic for | all kinds of people with nomadic lives and this has long been | true. | Angostura wrote: | Fundamentally it's an issue of how people in a settle | community, with communal rules and support handle people | who aren't part of that community. | DoreenMichele wrote: | It's frequently outright abusive of the nomadic peoples. | People want soldiers to lay down their lives for national | security, natural disasters, etc but then want to treat | them as unwelcome outsiders, don't want to hire their | spouses, will happily gouge them for rent, etc. | zabzonk wrote: | Is this a USA thing? As a child of an RAF pilot who moved | around a lot (here and overseas), I have never encountered | this. My Dad had the same bank account all his life, at the | bank in the town he was born in, in the UK, and never (as | far as I know) had any problems cashing cheques etc. back | when such were things. | Spooky23 wrote: | It was. The US has/had a distributed banking system with | thousands of banks. It's archaic and stupid. | | Basically, you can tell from the routing number on a | check where the bank is. Back in the day, if the bank | wasn't from NYC or the same region they wouldn't honor | the check. Checks were mailed between clearing systems | and would take weeks to clear. My dad maintained a bank | account at the Bank of New York specifically for business | travel in the 80s. | | That's mostly gone now as ACH is automated and quick. | nine_k wrote: | The problem is that the US is rather larger than the UK, | so a distributed system was (and maybe still is) a | natural fit. For the same reason, all the citizens of the | US can't just come to one place and vote for a President, | like ancient Athenians could. | ISL wrote: | Not cashing out of town checks (especially in large | amounts) is definitely a thing in the US. | | For larger transactions, it is also common to get a | "cashier's check", drawn on the bank's own accounts to | minimize the seller's counterparty risk. | | The rationale for the in-town restriction is also to | limit counterparty risk: if the check is from an | unfamiliar bank, it is more likely to be bogus and the | seller won't be able to verify the account with a quick | call to a known bank nor expect to be able to address | fraud within the local law-enforcement framework. | zabzonk wrote: | I take your word for it, but I rember getting cash on my | UK credit card several times when I've worked in the US. | Of course, these were for small amounts, and the credit | card company were the ones finally at risk. | | I have suddenly had a vision of Clint Eastwood, in High | Plains Drifter mode, riding into town and attempting to | cash a cheque :-) | maccam94 wrote: | Credit/debit cards and checks are totally different | systems. Cards can be checked for available funds | instantly. Checks need to be cleared through the ACH | system (in the US at least), which is an asynchronous | process that might take more than a day to complete. If | you cash a check from a different bank at your own, | usually it will actually draw funds from your account and | the check will be deposited after it clears. | zabzonk wrote: | It's been a long time since I had a cheque book, but way | back then the cheque at the bank (not for electricity | payments and such) trying to get money needed to be | backed up with a bank's card, and the risk was on the | card issuing bank. | couchand wrote: | I'm not familiar with UK banking but this sounds like | something lost in translation. The checks the ancestors | are speaking of are personal checks, basically just an | IOU -- I'm guessing this is more like your "for | electricity payments and such". The cashier's check | mentioned above sounds to be more like your "cheque at | the bank", where the instrument carries value itself, | rather than being a draft on the writer's account. | s0rce wrote: | I was paid by the Canadian government through a | fellowship while I attended graduate school in the USA. | They paid my entire years fellowship in a single check | which clearly said Government of Canada, however, the | check was denominated in US dollars and drawn on a US | bank, yet I still got a lot of confusion and difficult | when trying to cash it and had to convince them it was, | in fact, possible. | Angostura wrote: | One of the advantages of Empire :) | DoreenMichele wrote: | I'm American, so, yes, I'm describing my experience with | the USA. | ghaff wrote: | Of course, it's all tied up with state government too. You | need to be a resident of some state to get a driver's | license. And no high tax state wants, say, Nevada to offer | state residency that puts your name on an office door in | exchange for an annual fee. Then there's voting/jury | duty/etc. | madeofpalk wrote: | This of course is a particular peculiarity with the US, | having such varying state taxes. | Spooky23 wrote: | There's other weirdness too. CDLs are different between | states. Oregon used to issue lots of shady licenses to | undocumented and on the run type people. | DoreenMichele wrote: | Well heeled people already do pretty much as they please. | Own a house in one state, travel as you see fit in your | RV or whatever. | | It's only a serious hardship for poor people. | yazaddaruvala wrote: | Maybe it's better to think of local government as a Proof | of Stake system. Where you Stake the value of land+house | as collateral (using an address) to access trust based | services like voting, banking, etc. such that everyone is | clear that you can pay the annual fees or penalties (if | ever applicable) for that local government / bank. | | Sadly that does mean poor people who can't stake capital | or spend capital on rent in an area get left out of the | system. | | What would a system look like that didn't use Proof of | Stake as collateral to get people access to trust based | systems? | skybrian wrote: | Or alternatively, have a relative who will let you use | their address? That seems a lot cheaper. | | A hard case is combination of not having money and not | having family. | DoreenMichele wrote: | Homeless people frequently are homeless in part because | they don't have any relatives they are on good terms | with. Most of the world blames the homeless person and | chalks it up to their presumed bad behavior but it's not | unusual for them to be fleeing an abusive situation. | skybrian wrote: | Yes, I should have said "not having family they're on | good terms with." | ghaff wrote: | Even absent owning a house or otherwise having a | permanent address in a given state, well heeled people | probably have a stable/trusted relative or friend who can | serve as a nominal permanent address and place to receive | official mail. I did this for someone for a few years. | mperham wrote: | A PO Box costs ~$100/yr. | Spooky23 wrote: | You need a physical address for many things. | leephillips wrote: | Doesn't work. Usually banks, for example, won't accept a | PO box as a residential address. They need to know where | you actually live. | 13of40 wrote: | There are private services that make it look like a real | street address. The top hit when I just googled it was | $9.99 a month, so pretty affordable. | leephillips wrote: | Banks and some other entities have databases of these | services. Some will not accept these addresses. They will | let you use them for mail, but they will also require a | physical address and proof that you live there. But | others will not. It depends on which mailing service you | use and which bank, etc. This is my personal experience. | reidjs wrote: | You are basing this on the premise only people with a fixed | address can provide value to society. One of the best | classical guitarists I have ever met is homeless, living on | the street, but provides extreme value to everyone within | earshot. Doesn't he deserve a bank account to safely store | the few dollars he makes playing Mozart, Beethoven, and other | works of art on the street? Would you rather he gets mugged | by some criminals and loses everything he earned that day, | week, month? | yakubin wrote: | Regarding voting, I think people who pay taxes should only be | allowed to vote based on the place they pay their taxes in. | It really annoys me that because I don't have a long-term | address, I need to separately register where I live at a | given time to vote in local elections, to have any say in | what the money I pay in taxes is spent on, while there are | many people who pay their taxes in one place and vote in | another, where they haven't contributed a penny. Those things | should be linked. | vineyardmike wrote: | I travel a lot, I spend 50% of time at home in city A, 25% | in city B and 25% in city C. Often when I travel it's | election time in some locality. Once in a while it's an | issue I have a strong opinion on, and I spent a lot of time | in that city so I understand the issue. I'd love to be able | to split my voting power by where I spend my time and offer | 25% of a vote to city B's impactful referendum. Instead I'm | forced to pick only one city to call home even though I | feel a sense of being at home in multiple places. | | I think voting should be about where you physically are and | where you spend your time. | dazc wrote: | What about people who don't pay tax because they don't earn | enough. Should they be allowed to vote? | ElevenLathe wrote: | They still owe taxes, it's just that some years their | obligation is $0. | | Edit: also there are things like fuel and sales tax that | almost everyone owes, even if they don't have to pay | income tax. | yardstick wrote: | I don't think I should be eligible to vote in every city, | state or country I've paid sales taxes in over a year. | version_five wrote: | I think your concerns are valid, but I think we can come up | with ways to avoid them without forcing people to declare and | be bound to a specific location. | | Just want to add that for example in France there is a "gens | du voyage" status for nomadic people that allows then to | access government services without a fixed address. I don't | know enough about it to say if it's successful, just saying | there are options. | hungryforcodes wrote: | This doesn't work at all for people who move around. I might | have an assignment one year in Berlin then another for two | years in Bangkok, then another three years in Singapore. | sfriedr wrote: | So how do you manage your banking and tax issues without | going insane? Is your company providing you with high- | quality tax advisors that help you deal with this issue? | ghaff wrote: | From my limited knowledge, companies do tend to handle | the tax work for expats. In fact years ago when I was | interviewing for an international position where I'd have | been moving around a lot, as I recall, they told us | something like they'd take some fixed percentage off our | paychecks and handle the whole thing. | | If you're on your own, you presumably have to hire an | appropriate accountant. | | This comes up even internally in the US if you're | spending a lot of time in a number of states as a non- | resident. | jhugo wrote: | It's not that complicated if you are just earning salary | / self-employed income in places. GP's situation with | those three countries -- given their fairly sane tax | systems and streamlined reporting -- is probably about as | complicated as an American's tax, especially if you have | multiple states involved. | [deleted] | lmc wrote: | I think this is a really interesting discussion. I'm a bit of | a nomad myself and cautious of the things you bring up - if | everyone behaved like this, there'd be no community | development and things would decay. But, you already see this | in more common situations, like the movement of young people | to cities, e.g.: | | https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191121-can-tiny- | aband... | bfz wrote: | Just for some context, I was nomadic for well over a decade | and consider that time an extravagant extension of youth, | and a needless stunting of my growth into adulthood in | absolute terms. By my late 30s I see no reason to encourage | nomadism, or to celebrate or encourage others in the belief | that it is a healthy way to live, it essentially amounts to | the epitome of the dark side of individualism. When my | children are of age, I would strongly discourage it for all | the reasons in the original reply. Floaters don't grow - in | the worst case they turn into "professional expats", and | those (according to anecdotal experience) tend to develop | into some of most fragmented and purposeless personalities | on the planet by the time they reach middle age. | jcims wrote: | Holy moly just because you couldn't figure it out doesn't | mean that nobody else can or will. | | I'd argue the opposite. Reducing friction with nomadism | increases the likelihood of a pilgrimage and | radicalization of hyper aligned internet communities into | meat space. | pmoriarty wrote: | _" I was nomadic for well over a decade and consider that | time an extravagant extension of youth, and a needless | stunting of my growth into adulthood in absolute terms. | By my late 30s I see no reason to encourage nomadism, or | to celebrate or encourage others in the belief that it is | a healthy way to live, it essentially amounts to the | epitome of the dark side of individualism."_ | | Way, way too many people never leave the area/country | they were born in. | | By traveling to radically different places you can learn | about different people, customs, and cultures. You can | see how the norms you were brought up with aren't | absolute and that good and bad people exist everywhere. | Travel can really open your eyes to the humanity of every | person everywhere. | | You can also learn what it's like to be the outsider, the | one that's different, who can't speak the language and so | is not treated like the first class citizen you're used | to being back home, you might learn what it's like to go | through the bureaucracy of a foreign land, and hopefully | this will all help to to develop some empathy for people | from other countries and who speak different languages | when they come to yours. | | You can learn to engage with, survive, and thrive among | people very different from you. Learning the customs and | languages of other people and places can be very useful | for both you and them, as you can act as an intermediary | or unofficial ambassador between your own country/culture | and theirs. | | That's not to mention your seeing and experiencing all | sorts of wonderful things you might never have imagined | were you to stay in one place all your life. | | There are so many great things about travel, though life | as a permanent nomad or expat is not for everyone. At the | very least, though, it can really open your eyes and your | mind. | zmgsabst wrote: | Being nomadic post teenage years is natural among | animals, particularly for males, before settling into a | pack when mature. | | I'd encourage you to not suppress that instinct in others | just because you're not currently in that phase of your | life. | ambrozk wrote: | Both of you are correct. | lmc wrote: | Out of interest, where did you go, and what were your | reasons for stopping? | | I think I can relate to a lot of what you say. I'm not | saying I'm doing things the right way, but I've met | people that you're describing that are basically on a | very long holiday. | | It's a proper cliche, but travel has definitely broadened | my horizons. I hope you don't discourage it too much - | emphasize travelling with purpose, and when to stop. | bfz wrote: | Mostly Asia. I stopped for exactly the reason in the | previous comment.. I realized that what initially seemed | like a fun and academic idea about the people I was | meeting absolutely did develop into a fundamental life | choice, after the umpteenth drink shared with someone who | might have initially seemed eccentric and interesting, | but had very little depth and purpose almost immediately | below the surface. | | The choice was to either seize the endless excitement of | travel permanently, and further develop my own | eccentricities at extraordinary risk of accomplishing | little material, or swallowing my pride and acknowledging | the dream of travel may have been a substantially emptier | experience than originally promised. | | This is not to say I did not "develop" - I met numerous | people, swap emails, send Christmas gifts, had amazing | experiences, and so on, but the question is what | permanence these actions and relationships have, and at | what cost those experiences are gained. I still itch - | regularly - to jump on a plane to a country I have never | been before. It is so easy to indulge in that sense of | adventure. But I notice this comes most often during | times of stress, and nowadays I always weigh that | adventure against the actual costs of what I am leaving | behind. Due to this, adventure holds very little of the | appeal it once did, and I often wonder how many of those | life-loving expats I met who did not admit to running | from their old lives were still on the run from | something, perhaps while living with complete delusion | that they were only having fun. | | On the other hand I did meet people who had found a real | sense of belonging and purpose in their life through the | foreign communities they interacted with, but even if I | were one of those, over a long time horizon, I don't | imagine the outcome to be so much different on every | occasion. There are only so many children to educate and | schools to build before the satisfaction gives way to the | wariness of ones own ephemeral relationship to their | environment, the only answer to which is yet more | adventure, or the cold reality of going home and | discovering what was missed in the meantime. | | As another reply suggested - travelling with purpose | makes a lot of sense. Some of the most interesting people | I met were NGO or higher education placements there | temporarily to accomplish a specific task. | iovrthoughtthis wrote: | you sound fun | lmc wrote: | Thanks for sharing. Seriously. | hungryforcodes wrote: | Thanks for the judgement -- much appreciated! | | On the other hand I was basically non nomadic until about | 40 and always discontent. Then for the last few years | have been working in different countries and love it. I | also try and at least understand and if possible | contribute to each culture I encounter in a small way. | I'm not sure how that counts as fragmented and | purposeless. | sausagefeet wrote: | > So to summarize, I think what bothers me is that the only | possible way to arrive at what the parent comment suggests | would be to avoid participating or contributing to any of | these essential traits of civil society | | I don't think this take is very realistic. Most people want | to live in a home with a static address. They aren't doing it | because they need an address to participate in society. | However, there are people who are more nomadic and the | physical address requirement for some things can be a | challenge. | JadeNB wrote: | > Most people want to live in a home with a static address. | | Statistics can address what most people _do_ do, but how | can one possibly speak to what most people _want_ to do? | (Even if one could, I can believe that people 's | preferences are much less absolute than they are shaped by | existing affordances; maybe some people who currently want | one thing would change their mind if obstacles to the | alternative were removed.) | Someone wrote: | I concur that most people want to live in a home, but | except for the fact that's it's engrained in the legal | system, what do you really need a static address for | nowadays? I could give suppliers lat/long coordinates of my | front door or the route to my house, and my physical | mailbox gets more spam than mail I really need, and the | latter also could be delivered via email. | | A static email address is much more useful (or, actually, a | static digital identity) | nine_k wrote: | How soon until we end up with government-mandated email | addresses? Email is already a required field in many | governmental forms in the US. | Spooky23 wrote: | I don't see it until biometrics and sovereign identity are a | thing. The only people who really benefit are really rich | people and really poor people. It also creates a dozens of | hundreds of truly difficult problems. | | In the US, people pitched a fit when the tax authority started | requiring facial verification for sign in to access sensitive, | vulnerable to fraud records, so it ain't happening here. | | The really rich people don't really care, and nobody really | cares about the really poor. Nobody cares in the least about | the elderly. Everyone else has a home and has more to lose to | the rampant fraud that happens when you make things like this | easier. | Vladimof wrote: | > It's the equivalent of when places used to want to to give a | home landline number. | | Lots of places still require a phone number (many email | services do for example). | nivertech wrote: | What about digital nomads? Not my situation, but still | interesting. | Normal_gaussian wrote: | It seems froma banking perspective an address is more secure | than most forms of identity. This makes sense as it is very | hard (though not impossible) to pretend you live at an address | that is not directly sympathetic to you for a long period of | time. | | So here HSBC seem to be saying - if you are working with a | charity (ie. have a case worker), and that charity vouches for | you, then we've done the dance that makes it less of an issue | for the charity to help you with an address. _but you still | have an address; its just the charities ' address_. | | This is a good solution for homelessness. Its hacky, it will | miss people, but it is quick. | | I expect the path to getting digital nomads a verifiable | address via some kind of service will be a long one; and being | able to bank without an address even longer. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > It seems from a banking perspective an address is more | secure than most forms of identity. | | My Indentity card has chip and pin on it with my biometrix | data. Some countries have cryptograpgic signatures in them. | | You think addresses are secure? They are not even real. They | are not a spesific location like GPS coordinates. | | They are any written text that gets mailto you. An address of | 'big yellow house' can be valid. The following 'address' was | delivered: | | "Lives across the road from the Spar, his ma and da used to | own it, his mother was Mary and da Joseph, moved to Waterfoot | after he got married, plays guitar and used to run discos in | the parochial hall and the hotel in the 80s. Friends with the | fella who runs the butchers in Waterfoot too."' | | https://static.guim.co.uk/images/favicon-32x32.ico | | Postcards with 'England' can get delivered to the right | person: | | https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/christmas-card- | addr... | Normal_gaussian wrote: | As fun as those ways to address a postcard are, they are | not addresses that the bank will accept. The bank checks | against a database of valid addresses; this is a common | problem for people that have just built a house - most | companies used cached databases so refuse to accept your | address until it has trickled down. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Firstly, they have no authority to refuse - if I have | just moved to a new address, the bank had a legal | obligation to deliver my monthly statements, letters, | etc. Their database is their problem, I have lived at new | addresses and every serious institution has a way to | manually enter abtirary address. You might get some | nonsence from the customer service person and might have | to speak to a manager to get it sorted, but if you show | up with contract of purchase for a new house that states | your address, they can't turn you away. | | I have also been registered with several improtant | institutions at an address that does not exist, because | the telephone operator made a mistake - and the address | was preposterous, they have put me in a house number | 15000. So they don't check much. | | Thirdly, addresses are not real. They are a myth, like | simultanous events in special relativity, they do not | exist in the real world but people who never had to deal | with them much don't realise it. | | What we call an address is a set of instructions to the | postman, and if that set of instructions gets the post to | your door, it is valid. Anyone paying attentions should | have noticed that they often recieve post with slightly | different permutations of their address. And ofcourse I | have given a few silly examples. But there are genuene | addresses that are unkowable. I lived in a building that | spaned 3 streets, (one for each side, the last side was a | house). It had 2 entances and 2 addresses. | | There are addresses that are not a {street}{housenumber}, | there are addresses that are a grid and no map software | knows how to deal with them | | And lastly there are houses that have no 'official' | address! A lone hamlet near the coast might have no name | at all. | | So the only way to determine if an address is real, is to | sent a letter, and to see if it arrives. | ghaff wrote: | >A lone hamlet near the coast might have no name at all. | | In the US, a lot of addressing was rationalized to | support E911 service. So for example, a "camp" (i.e. a | cabin without utilities) I would sometimes rent used to | just have a name. But at some point it got an address on | the dirt road it sits on. They also did things like | change a road segment name if there was a gap between it | and another segment with the same name. | dan-robertson wrote: | For political reasons the U.K. (and US) are opposed to | having identity cards so that isn't really a workable | solution. 8 think it's also inaccurate to say that your | address _for the purposes of banking_ is 'anything one can | write on a letter to have the Royal Mail deliver it to | you'. For example, you probably can't give the address of a | hotel where you're staying. | ghaff wrote: | It's probably more accurate to say that it's any | residential address that, in the case of the US, is in | the USPS address database. Though there are probably | exceptions. | Nextgrid wrote: | I don't understand the issue considering HMRC has a | record of every taxpayer? Are these people who are | against ID cards also not paying taxes? | Symbiote wrote: | They're also against having a population register. | | Denmark has a population register ("CPR") [1], but does | _not_ have identity cards. It 's required that you update | your address in the register if you move house or | emigrate. | | Everyone also has a NemKonto ("EasyAccount"), which is a | nominated bank account linked to the CPR (somehow) to | receive payments from public institutions. That should | make fraud of this type even more difficult. | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Det_Centrale_Personregister | Danieru wrote: | Plus those accounts are going to be locked rather quick if | large amounts start getting wired in. | | I imagine accounts setup to help the homeless would make poor | money mules. | | Sort of the inverse situation making corporate accounts hard | to get in Japan. Such an account can receive large volumes of | cash without raising red flags. | Nextgrid wrote: | Unless the rules have been tightened since then, fintechs | such as Revolut and Monzo (back when it was a prepaid card) | used to open accounts instantly with no KYC with low limits | (which they get raised when you pass KYC), so I wonder why | they wouldn't just do the same and skip the KYC step | altogether. | data_maan wrote: | Is this still happening? I feel all fintechs use KYC now. | Even other services, such as Airbnb, oddly have started | to use KYC. | Nextgrid wrote: | > It seems froma banking perspective an address is more | secure than most forms of identity. | | I disagree, an address is trivially falsifiable compared to | something like an ID or tax record (both of which the | government can actually authenticate, and I'd expect/hope | that financial institutions have a way to verify them that | way). | | The concept of a useless, trivially-falsifiable "proof of | address" became a standard in the country so what the bank is | doing here is merely covering their ass. As long as the | entire country believes that "proof of address" is secure | then they're in the clear - whether that stops any financial | crime doesn't actually matter, especially when the government | would rather focus on internet filters or endless gossiping | about lockdown parties. | Normal_gaussian wrote: | The bank needs an address because they verify the address | themselves. They literally send your card and sensitive | info to it. | | If you try and register 100s of cards to one address, they | would notice. If you try and register to 100s of different | addresses you can bet your backside that a majority of the | residents would return to sender. | | Before your address is verified your account has much more | stringent fraud flags. | sgjohnson wrote: | Have a P.O. Box for correspondence. Or a super low-rent place | that you're "domiciled" in. | | Of course, it has to be in a tax haven. Otherwise there's no | point in being a digital nomad in the first place. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _Have a P.O. Box for correspondence._ | | In the US, the USPS required you to prove your address before | they will rent you a PO Box. | patio11 wrote: | Most digital nomads of my acquaintance bank in either their | country of origin or in a regional hub. Getting access to an | address sufficient to open a bank account is not terrifically | difficult for socially established people who e.g. have family | members in the middle class, capability to rent an apartment | for at least a month and get a lease issued, etc. | | There are a lot of people in the community who play a bit fast | and loose with taxes but from a banking perspective they're low | risk retail accounts and, even if not in technical compliance | for KYC, not out of bounds for tens of percent of the retail | portfolio of many banks. | | (Personal opinion disclaimer, yadda yadda, I would not identify | as a digital nomad but have many acquaintances who do and am | intimately personally and professionally acquainted with | banking internationally.) | sfriedr wrote: | How can you skip (at least parts of) KYC requirements these | days? | | To me it seems KYC gets ever more pervasive: I had opened a | bank account 5 years ago in the EU/UK space and 4 years ago | closed it again. Now I opened an account again at the same | bank - and the process was significantly more involved, more | documentations needed to be provided for the same service, | even though I had been their customer before. | | The KYC requirement makes me feel uneasy from a privacy point | of view: If it would be an eyes-only verification, I would be | happy to provide a lot of data to prove I'm not a bad guy. | But since the data gets stored and potentially forwarded to | third parties, this significantly increases my risk for data | and identity theft, as number of increasing data breaches | show: https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/96667-the- | top-data... | | And there is also a long-term risk associated with excessive | KYC data hoarding about individuals: The atrocities in Nazi | Germany were in part possible because the government gathered | data about the Jewish population (e.g. by enacting | essentially KYC-like requirements for its citizens; though I | guess through this lense the word should be "KYJ") and then | subsequently used that data to round them up: https://encyclo | pedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/locating-t... | | Also, what do you mean by "not out of bounds for tens of | percent of the retail portfolio of many banks" | [deleted] | Terry_Roll wrote: | So I know someone who decided to move to the Caribbean, the UK | bank stopped them from using internet banking, they could only | transact with the bank using the phone. Why is this, well in | the UK new legislation appeared in 2000 or 2001 iirc which | allowed banks to carry out their own "security" related affairs | which includes data sharing under the guise of security. Fraud | and financial crimes were handled and investigated by the banks | instead of the Police and if the banks felt there was a case | only then did it get handed over to the Police for prosecution. | Perhaps a bit of Jeremy Bentham philosophy at play but also | Maslow's hierarchy of needs considering the wide picture of | house prices, home ownership and the wider changes seen in UK | society. | | Its like GDPR creates the impression you have control over your | data when you dont if its labelled as scientific or law | enforcement data. | sfriedr wrote: | "Maslow's hierarchy of needs considering the wide picture of | house prices, home ownership and the wider changes seen in UK | society." | | What do you mean by that? I cannot immediately see how house | prices and home ownership issues drive diminishing banking | privacy . | Terry_Roll wrote: | You are more likely to stay out of trouble if you own your | house and have a family to support, unlike housing | association tenants. | | When it used to be the council providing the housing, some | tenants learned they could get a new kitchen every two | years, so right on the two year point, they simply smashed | it up and the council fitted a new one. An example of the | tenants gaming the system paid for by taxpayers. Although | Margaret Thatcher is despised by many for doing things like | selling off council houses to their tenants, it was a | clever way to offload costs back onto the tenants as many | bought their homes and started to get into "property" | ownership. | | The Northern Island troubles with the IRA largely died down | because they made more money "on paper" by becoming | landlords and gave up drug dealing and knee capping. A | surgeon I spoke to once said some hospital in Ireland was | the best for knee surgery and those skills have been lost | because the IRA werent doing knee capping's any more! | | So Maslow's hierarchy of needs is based on things like high | priority need for food and shelter at the bottom of the | pyramid and social media like facebook and instagram at the | top to keep the ego happy with loads of bot followers. You | see this everywhere now, even here on hacker news with the | upvoting downvoting system, but Google's more recent | removal of the dislike button is perhaps best known. | | Psychological population control without having to fire a | bullet or bomb, deploy police and the food regulations | helping to manage the hormonal fluctuations to keep people | docile. Populations controlled with the push of a button, | clever init! LOL | LunaSea wrote: | As far as I know there is no legal way to be a digital nomad. | | You have to live about 6months in the same country at the very | least. | Etheryte wrote: | No you don't, where did you get this idea from? If you're | referring to the EU tax residency logic, then that's based on | where you spend the majority of your time, as well as where | you have significant connections. Time alone isn't even the | deciding factor. If we ignore the other factors for a moment, | six months doesn't have any importance here either. You can | live in 12 different countries in a year, a month at each if | you'd like, for example. Your tax residency will be based on | where you spent the most time between all those and then all | the other additional factors. | sgjohnson wrote: | > Your tax residency will be based on where you spent the | most time between all those and then all the other | additional factors. | | Also false. Depends on the tax laws of the countries, but | most likely you wouldn't be considered tax resident | anywhere, absent of having a strong economic interests in | one particular country (and tax havens wouldn't care about | this, and the burden of proof would be on the tax | authority). | sfriedr wrote: | This. Tax laws are very complicated and the 6 months rule | is more a rule of thumb than a "hard" rule. In practice, | the tax authorities have a set of tests they perform, | where the time spend in a country is just one item among | many - and these rules vary from country to country. | refurb wrote: | Indeed. Every country is different. Being a "tax non- | resident" doesn't necessarily mean you own no taxes | either. | | In Singapore, tax non-residents simply pay a different | rate. To be exempt from income tax entirely, you need to | work in Singapore for fewer than 60 days. | | https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income- | tax/basics-o... | sgjohnson wrote: | It goes even deeper than that. There's also the question | on where is the money being made. | | Say a hypothetical scenario, I'm self-employed contractor | working through a corporation in, say, Panama, and I | spend some 120 days a year in Singapore. | | Would Singapore even subject me to any taxes? | | But yes, ultimately one can be a digital nomad, not be a | tax resident anywhere, and not be subject to any income | or corporate taxes anywhere. You just have to be very | particular about the countries you pick. | refurb wrote: | Yes they would tax you because the work was done in | Singapore. | | Would they know? Probably not. | sgjohnson wrote: | But it's not you earning any money, it's an entity in | Panama. | | Just outlining the complexity of this. | refurb wrote: | That's not how Singapore defines "Singapore earned | income". | | They define it by "where the work was completed" not | "where income come from" or "country where you were | hired". | | Many countries do it that way. | | Edit: I misread. Well if your Corp doesn't pay you I see | the point, but you're also the sole owner? | yardstick wrote: | You'd still have to pay the corporate tax rate in Panama | I assume? | | How would you eventually obtain beneficial use of that | money? Ie how and when would it reach your personal bank | account? If it won't, how do you plan to use the money | for your own gain? I assume (haven't done any research) | that Panama wouldn't let you treat things like paying for | Netflix, movie tickets, supermarket shops, clothes shops, | etc as business expenses? | | At some point you'd need to transfer it from Panama to | yourself and at that point it would be taxable (capital | gains or income tax depending on how you transfer). If | you time things right you could be resident in a country | without income tax eg UAE. But you would have still paid | Panama corporation tax I believe. | sgjohnson wrote: | Panama doesn't tax income on foreign gains, so the corpo | tax there would be 0%. | LunaSea wrote: | That list of countries is usually pretty thin if you also | remove countries which forbid you of working while on a | tourist visa. | sgjohnson wrote: | Most countries actually don't care about you working on a | tourist visa, as long as it's incidental to the travel | and the work is online. | | The US is the exception here, not the norm. | LunaSea wrote: | > The US is the exception here, not the norm. | | That is incorrect. This is actually the norm in most | countries in the world. | | > Most countries actually don't care about you working on | a tourist visa, as long as it's incidental to the travel | | But it's not | | > and the work is online. | | The work being online just makes it better hidden and | thus a more difficult fraud to detect but it has no | incidence on the legality of the work. | ghaff wrote: | This comes up periodically. | | Generally speaking, events, meetings, etc. are fine in | many countries with just a basic visitor's visa. (US, it | needs to be a B-1 Business visa.) | | However, as you point out, remote online work is hard to | police. That said, you shouldn't say that remote work is | the reason for your visit. And you should be somewhat | discrete--e.g. not renting a co-working space. | PeterisP wrote: | I wouldn't bet on "most likely you wouldn't be considered | tax resident anywhere" - first, you have a default tax | residency at your country of origin and the local law is | likely to say that you lose it only if you can prove | another tax residency. | | Second, countries are likely to err on the side of | caution which benefits them, so if you have unusual | arrangements, then it's quite plausible that you are a | tax resident of multiple countries and owe taxes to all | of them - many countries have bilateral treaties to avoid | dual taxation (which is the default outcome in many | cases), so a digital nomad in an unusual situation might | owe taxes to two or more countries, but are very unlikely | to owe tax to no country. | | "the burden of proof would be on the tax authority" - no, | definitely not. The tax laws generally assert their claim | on all income accrued in a certain country. The | abovementioned 'non-dual-taxation' treaties have a | process so that in reasonable scenarios the worker only | pays tax in their home country, but if they don't apply | (for example, because the 'home country' is a tax haven | with whom there such a treaty isn't made), they owe tax | where they earned the income. The mere fact that you are | a tax resident somewhere else does not mean that you're | exempt from local taxes, that requires fulfilling the | criteria of those dual taxation treaties. | | The weak point there is _enforcement_ - there are all | kinds of ways how a digital nomad can ensure that they | won 't be hassled much to collect the taxes they owe and | they often can avoid paying them - but legally, they | still owe them and are at the mercy of the authorities | not finding out or not caring. | flower-giraffe wrote: | Interesting that the selection of branches includes Belgravia and | Notting Hill Gate, two of the most expensive areas in the UK | | The branch list does not include Camden Town where there are | homeless people sleeping in the streets near HSBC. | | The underlying issue here is that Covid has accelerated the | transition to cashless digital first transactions that are | controlled by private entities that have their own agenda. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | The cost of living of an area of London don't really correlate | (in the way you're suggesting) to if homeless people can exist | there. | petesergeant wrote: | > Notting Hill Gate, two of the most expensive areas in the UK | | That's not really how London works though: less than a mile | north of Notting Hill Gate you start to hit some areas of | serious poverty: | https://jamestrimble.github.io/imdmaps/eimd2015/ is a good tool | for exploring. | 1equalsequals1 wrote: | This is somewhat inaccurate; Maybe if it's updated to account | for recent years | octoberfranklin wrote: | > If you aren't receiving support from Shelter or one of our | other partners, you won't be able to access the No Fixed Address | programme. | | I mean basically this should be called "We Let You Use Our | Partners' Address Bank Account". | notahacker wrote: | Sure, but since one of those partners is a homeless charity, it | means "you can have a bank account whilst homeless" which is | potentially a big deal to a homeless person trying to save some | money. | | (It isn't particularly useful to me, who lives full time on a | mobile boat, but that's more of a "first world problem") | mdavis6890 wrote: | I find it strange that we are okay with business requiring our | physical address. Maybe with some rare exceptions, I can't think | of a good reason why these businesses need to know where we live. | Even banks. Usually the reason given is security, anti money- | laundering, anti-terrorism or whatever. But I think the real | reason is government control and surveillance. We should not be | okay with this. | MBCook wrote: | I don't find it odd. It's "normal", in that it's basically | always been that way. They needed your address to contact you | in a formal/reliable method: through the mail. | | Yes we have other communication methods now but the requirement | has stuck around. | | Maybe it's because it's always been like that but I really | don't see the issue with it. | mdavis6890 wrote: | I'm the past I could provide whatever address I want. The | bank wouldn't care or check it, because why? | | The new thing is that you have to prove you actually live at | the address. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | It sounds like you can think of good reasons, you just prefer a | conspiracy theory. | ulzeraj wrote: | This is basically saying "We are going to allow you to | participate on society just a little as long as you follow the | rules and is associated with these institutions we approve". | | How is this not considered a violation of human rights and | dignity? Oh I forgot... gotta keep those unwashed 87% of the | world population out of our pretty financial system. | johnywalks wrote: | > follow the rules and is associated with these institutions we | approve | | Isn't that the definition of a society? | mjburgess wrote: | Depends on who "we" is -- here, a bank is saying it is their | prerogative to decide your access to banking based on | arbitrary private charities that they like | | As a matter of fact it is their prerogative. This indicates, | i'd say, a failure of the state to provide access to what is | now a basic need (banking). | otterley wrote: | I suspect that the bank is actually trying its best to | supply services to the indigent without running afoul of a | strict regulatory regime. You make it sound like they're | being intentionally unreasonable out of some sense of | cruelty. | unreal37 wrote: | Do people who are convicted of financial-related crimes | (like money laundering) deserve access to banking too? Just | curious how absolute this right to banking should be. | PeterisP wrote: | Yes, banking is a requirement for proper participation in | society, and we definitely want convicted felons to be | able to properly participate in society once they get out | of prison (otherwise what's the point of letting them | out?) so they should deserve access to banking, and in EU | they do have that right. | | It might reasonable to deny a known fraudster access to | _credit_ , but they should have access to a bank account, | for example, to make electronic payments for their rent | and utilities. | pibechorro wrote: | Most of the financial system is nothing more than money | laundering for cartels and corrupt oligarchs. We need to walk | away from the brick and mortar banking institutions. | wildrhythms wrote: | In America we call this a credit score: a black box system that | nobody, not even the credit agencies, can describe or | understand. Obligatory dhh/Apple Card Twitter thread on this | subject - https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1192540900393705474 | JohnWhigham wrote: | Yup, for the longest time I've maintained we entered a | cyberpunk society when credit scores were introduced. An | absolutely soulless abomination of a system designed to treat | you as a number and not as a human. | Andy_G11 wrote: | Interesting - could really help some people who do not have a | fixed address. Great to see that an employment services firm, | Reed in Partnership, is one of the partners who will be used to | validate the candidate's authenticity - it can be a struggle for | someone without a fixed address to get a bank account and it is | often easier to initially get part time employment than it is to | get a bank account or a lease in your own name. Lessors want a | bank account, and banks want proof of a place of residence. | However, where does the employer deposit the salary? I know this | is a problem - I was in this precise position twenty years ago. | [deleted] | shrumm wrote: | Chile has a great system which guarantees a free bank account | linked to your national ID called Cuenta RUT. It has some limits | like only a debit card and a max value you can store there but I | think it's a fantastic idea. You just need to walk in to any | branch with your ID and you're all set with an account you can | receive and send payments from. If you need something more from | your bank account - it stands to reason you have the necessary | documentation to apply for a 'regular' bank account which most | do. | | Even foreigners with any kind of work permit get this ID called a | RUT and are eligible. | danlugo92 wrote: | Venezuela just imemented something like this as well. | lettergram wrote: | > Chile has a great system which guarantees a free bank account | linked to your national ID called Cuenta RUT. | | To me this reads as a dystopian nightmare. I want a bank | account not associated with me in any way digitally or on | paper; where I have total control. | | Otherwise the government can seize my assets at a whim. | | Funny story, in IL I have a bank account with chase. They | decided to close the account because it wasn't active (making | regular deposits) (I'd do yearly deposits and use it to pay | static bills) AND give it to the state. So the state of IL took | custody of my bank account, without warning. I then received | something in the mail I had to respond to within 10 days to get | it back. I filed the paperwork, but nothing. Money just gone. | I'm currently fighting to get my money back. | | Anyway, the point is political actors can debank people they | disagree with (see Wikileaks) and destroy them. Ideally, that | wouldn't be possible. The government should answer to the | people, not control their people. | throwaway787544 wrote: | There are a multitude of ways to claim unclaimed money that | the government holds. I've used it to claim $15 before, it | was easy. https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money | | This process is not dystopian in the least. It's functioning | system put in place by the government to help people. | | Political actors can and do seize assets in private banks | too. Private banks are also subject to laws. | TheCoelacanth wrote: | Sounds like you would consider the entire world dystopian | then. I don't think there's any country, with the possible | exception of a few failed states, that lets you have a bank | account that isn't tied a real person. | lettergram wrote: | You can actually do it in the US to an extent. Basically | create a LLC with owners masked. Enable an authorized user | to be an attorney and register with bank. Then use bank and | routing number. | | You can also use crypto and have a crypto wallet. | | Prior to 9/11 it was far easier and widespread among elites | to have effectively anonymous bank accounts. | kennydude wrote: | It's weird seeing this all of a sudden, when Monzo has for a long | time not required a fixed address. They require an address just | to get your card sent to, but nothing else (so you could get it | sent to a hotel, P.O box etc). | janandonly wrote: | So, HSBC is now trying to catch up with Bitcoin? | | Better late then never , I guess. | dijit wrote: | HSBC were the ones who blackholed my request to open a new | account for monthly rent deposits (because I was going to be co- | living). | | It was months of back and forth before they finally told me that | I had offhandedly mentioned my salary and they wanted proof of | that. Despite never needing proof before, and despite them being | the bearer of my bank account so they could see this. I had to | refuse to leave the HQ on Fleet Street for 4 hours before they | even told me that. | | They wouldn't accept my payslip pdf as proof. So I walked across | the street to Barclays and opened 3 accounts on the spot and | never looked back. | | Ironically to this topic, I had to close that account when I left | the UK because I didn't have a UK address. But HSBC handled my | case really badly, I nearly lost my accommodation because of | their opaque stalling (I need to prove direct debit before move- | in). So I would never go back. | ricardobayes wrote: | Opening a bank account as a fresh immigrant before the age of | neobanks was a nightmare. In my desperation I even called a | private bank in Jersey only to be told a need a whopping 5M | pounds deposit to open an account. After visiting 20+ branches | in person in London, one manager took pity on me and opened a | business account. I had all paperwork fully ready, they just | weren't interested, or at least I wasn't aware of the 'dance' | required to open an account. You couldn't just walk in an open | one. You needed an appointment for another day. | 323 wrote: | The hard part opening a bank account in UK as a fresh | immigrant is providing a proof of address. The easiest way is | to show your NINo paper (SSN equivalent). It will take you | about 3 months to get that paper, so you need to manage | somehow without a UK bank account during this period. | | I had no problems, opening the account online and only | showing up to the branch for the final papers, but I had that | NINo paper. Maybe you chose the "wrong" banks? Some like | Lloyds are much more accommodating to immigrants and have few | requirements. | r0snd0 wrote: | vrdmn wrote: | My experience was exactly the opposite. Being a new immigrant | in UK, Barclays handed me a list of required documents and also | made it clear I needed a NI number (UK tax number) before I | could open an account. At this point I did not have an account | I could get my salary paid in. | | Walked across the street to HSBC and all they needed was a | letter from my employer and I had my account in a few hours. | haspok wrote: | I had the same problem with Barclays (a long time ago...) | when moving to the UK, they wouldn't accept a letter from my | employer and they wouldn't accept a rental agreement either | as proof of address. Solution: the confirmation letter that I | received from the NI people was finally good enough, so I | could open an account only a month after I'd moved to the UK! | Btw. the NI number is a must anyway, so it's just that it | takes some time until you get it. | | This is a direct consequence of there being no official | central registration of one's address in the UK, unlike in | many other countries. You might call Austria bureaucratic for | example, because you have to register within 3 days of moving | (and another registration is necessary within 4 months), but | then you get official papers that prove your address, so this | never becomes an issue here, unlike in the UK. | sfriedr wrote: | Is the NI really a must in UK? I have heard of people | working there that are working only for a few years in | academia who don't have an NI - or at least so they claim. | ricardobayes wrote: | yes but you're taxed at some 'emergency tax' rate which | is really high. | throw748383818 wrote: | I lived there just fine without one. I wasn't working, | but rented a house and opened a bank account, I don't | remember ever being asked for one. | haspok wrote: | Yes, of course, if you have the "money-honey", you don't | work or expect maternity or jobseekers allowance, and you | are not interested in state pension, you can get by | without one :) | | I just checked, and for healthcare you don't actually | need it in the UK. In other EU countries you usually have | to pay health insurance for yourself if you are not | working (sometimes a LOT of money), but not in the UK. | cm2187 wrote: | Same. Barclays gave me an error in their app at the end of | their account opening process, telling me to take an | appointment at the branch, but telling me I can't take an | appointment, then sending me a welcome email. I tried calling | them but I can't get beyond their voice recognition system | that doesn't understand what I call about, and this is their | premier banking experience. I must say that I have no idea | whether I have an account with them or not right now. | | I also helped a friend who just arrived in the UK. The | procedures are completely circular. You need a proof of | address to open a bank account but you need to have a bank | account to do anything that will give you a proof of address. | | As for natwest their account opening procedure involves | printing a blank pdf form, filling it by hand and going to | the branch with it. Welcome to 1999! | ricardobayes wrote: | You can exchange your drivers licence and a tenancy | agreement and those take care of the proof of address. | PeterisP wrote: | Isn't that the whole circularity problem - in UK often | you need a bank account before you can get a tenancy | agreement. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | When I opened an account with Barclays as an exchange | student I was given a signed and stamped letter by the | university and told to go to a specific Barclays branch | nearby and ask for a specific person who would help me. I | thought the whole circularity of the thing was just absurd, | especially when on the other hand I could pay with | contactless on the tube (very advanced at that time). | dazc wrote: | > Barclays gave me an error in their app at the end of | their account opening process, | | Don't take this personally, every Barclays customer | experiences random error messages as an everyday benefit of | banking with Barclays. The only good thing I can say is | that they still have physical branches where you can walk | in and talk to a person who is usually nice and helpful. | miohtama wrote: | In the EU, you have a right to open a bank account: | | https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/financial- | pr... | | Sadly, Boris fixed this for the UK. | signal11 wrote: | UK law requires its 9 largest banks to offer fee-free basic | bank accounts[1]. While that's not the same as a legal | right to an account, it ensures people with poor credit | history have access to banking -- it's pretty inclusive but | IIRC does require an address -- the 'no fixed address' | approach fixes that. | | [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/basic-bank- | account... | Kwpolska wrote: | This sounds good in theory, but the way it's implemented in | Poland is a bit of a joke. The basic account must be your | only bank account in Poland. You need to visit a bank | branch to open it (for any other accounts, you can usually | just take a selfie and a photo of your ID card), banks tend | not to promote its existence and hide it in unguessable | places on their websites, and there are some other random | limitations (eg. no e-government access, no Google Pay). | The basic account is free, has a free debit card, and has | five free operations and five free ATM withdrawals. But | normal accounts with cards cost nothing if you have some | minimum usage, standard transfers done in online banking | are free, and withdrawals in the bank's own ATMs are | usually free too. | | The effect? Less than ten thousand basic accounts existed | in 2020, two years after their introduction. (source in | Polish: https://serwisy.gazetaprawna.pl/finanse- | osobiste/artykuly/14...) | blfr wrote: | Banks routinely offering a better account than basic | minimum is to their credit and expected in an even | slightly competitive sector, not a joke at all. That in | other countries it needs to be legislated is weird. | rr808 wrote: | Sure but this is for citizens where I'm guessing OP was on | a working visa. | the_svd_doctor wrote: | The first line in the link says it's for anyone residing | legally in the EU. Not just citizens. | pards wrote: | Same in Canada. The regulation is called "access to basic | banking" [0] | | [0] https://cba.ca/newcomers-to-canada | refurb wrote: | _"....if they meet the identification requirements set | out in the Bank Act. "_ | | Not sure I see a difference? | PeterisP wrote: | Identification does not require a fixed address, and it's | not like the UK "no fixed address bank account" discussed | in the original article can be opened without a proper | ID. | donthellbanme wrote: | In the USA, you don't have a right to a bank account. | | In most cases, unless you bounced a check (There is a | separate system banks use on checks. It not tied to credit | agencies.) you can get an account by walking in with any | check, or money, though. | | Many of our poor are stuck with Payday, with their | outrageous fees. | | Some homeless shelters offer p.o. boxes. Very few sadily. | | All the Covid fun money blown out of tee shirt bazokas to | fraudsters, and big healthy businesses; none went to people | without an address. None. | toast0 wrote: | > In most cases, unless you bounced a check (There is a | separate system banks use on checks. It not tied to | credit agencies.) you can get an account by walking in | with any check, or money, though. | | ChexSystems _is_ a credit agency. They just specialize in | one data point (as of now). | dan-robertson wrote: | It's easy to say that poor people make (or are forced to | make) terrible financial decisions. But that may not | entirely be the case and we may be missing some of the | advantages of those decisions. See for example | http://www.businessinsider.com/check-cashing-stores-good- | dea... | ricardobayes wrote: | Cashing a check takes 6 weeks in the UK. Not many people | can wait that long for their salaries to show up. | uuyi wrote: | HSBC are notorious bastards and I fired them ages ago. | | They transferred PS2000 out of my account randomly one day with | no cause or explanation when there was PS118 available in it. | The next day they froze the account and a specific contact at | HSBC forced me to make a repayment arrangement for the money. I | refused and opened a dispute and it took me 14 months to get it | back and all fees incurred for entering an unarranged | overdraft. It ruined my credit rating for 3 years. Every | contact I made with them was handled by someone utterly | incompetent or disinterested in solving the problem even when I | involved a solicitor. | | Never an apology, never an explanation, never a true | resolution. | | NEVER work with HSBC. ALWAYS keep your finances distributed | between multiple accounts. | | With Santander mostly now who so far, touch wood, have | succeeded in not fucking anything up. Halifax as a backup. | PaywallBuster wrote: | > ALWAYS keep your finances distributed between multiple | accounts. | | always get biten in the hand, when the bank you trust with | 90% of your savings decides to lock your account or wtv | | never again, keep it distributed as much as possible | dazc wrote: | I went through a bad mental and financial episode 15 years | ago and was really struggling to keep my account in good | order. All the advice I heard was call your bank, explain | your position and they will help you sort it out. | | So I did that and the way HSBC helped me was to immediately | cancel all my cards so I was left high and dry. Since my | problems had only just begun I realised my credit record was | still good and opened an account with Barclays the next day | who were more than happy to issue me cards and a line of | credit. | | The moral of this story is that if you have financial | problems do not tell your bank. | PeterisP wrote: | The core business of banks is trading money-right-now for | future-money and vice versa. | | So if you have the type of financial problems where you | need money-right-now but have some good future-money to | offer in exchange, they'll be glad to help you make a deal | (and vice versa for investments), and you should absolutely | talk with your bank about such problems. | | However, if you have the type of financial problems where | both money-right-now and future-money are lacking, then | yes, no bank is going to be helpful there. | jhugo wrote: | They'll only help you if you qualify for a product they can | sell you. | sfriedr wrote: | Diversifying your banking lowers your risk or being locked | out of an account, but increases the risk of data and | identity theft somewhat, as various digital copies of your | IDs and other data now reside on even more servers, creating | a larger attack surface in case of a breach of one of the | banks. | thfuran wrote: | It's fine. The credit agencies already leaked all of | everyone's info so we don't have to worry anymore. | uuyi wrote: | Working in the sector it's everywhere already even if you | have multiple bank accounts or not. The banks are by far | the least of your worries. | DoreenMichele wrote: | _If you aren't receiving support from Shelter or one of our other | partners, you won't be able to access the No Fixed Address | programme._ | | Well, I hope it helps some people but color me unimpressed. It's | hard to prove homelessness and some people don't qualify for | services and etc. | | I wish some bank would pull its head out of its butt, accept an | email address as adequate contact info and let people pick things | up at the local branch (like a new debit card). | | Online banking is encouraged anytime you, say, try to call the | bank these days. They have the capability to implement this. | | They could do it quietly and not make it "a homeless program." | nightski wrote: | Banks can't decide these things on a whim. They are heavily | regulated. | dan-robertson wrote: | Regulators don't just invent rules randomly. Banks are in | regular communication with regulators about what (they think) | the right rules should be. | andai wrote: | >accept an email address as adequate contact info | | I wonder if the international anti terrorism / anti money | laundering regulations are making that more difficult. For | example N26 was under fire for not doing much to verify | identities in this regard. | Nextgrid wrote: | _ID_ verification can be done with ID /driver's license or | tax records though - the _address_ shouldn 't matter and as I | explained in other comments the vast majority of documents | requested as proofs of address are trivial to forge anyway. | alar44 wrote: | I'm sure they can't do that because it makes money laundering | trivial. Makes it waaaaay to easy to invent fake people. | PeterisP wrote: | ID requirements would still apply (and be a serious obstacle | to invent fake people), it's just about the address | verification. | vmception wrote: | You don't need to invent fake people, just use the ID of a | real one. | | If someone opened a bank account with your ID and name, | would you ever know? A checking account doesn't gain | interest so there will be no tax filing about paltry | amounts, and if they don't frame you or overdraft the | account then or never use an institution that you'll ever | use then what? Its not like the statements will ever come | to your address. | PeterisP wrote: | Unlike USA, most countries have a more stringent ID | system so that this scenario simply does not happen. | Like, it technically can happen but in practice does not | - I spent a few years working in a bank on fraud, and we | had zero cases of a forged ID. We had attempts with | stolen IDs (there's an electronic database of IDs | reported lost/stolen, but there's a time gap until people | report that), we had gangs trying to use homeless people | (with their real IDs) for money laundering, we had all | kinds of interesting fraud schemes but zero cases of | forged IDs used to open accounts. | | An ID is hard to forge (again, as far as I understand in | USA it's different because USA doesn't have a proper ID | system) - counterfeiting currency is simpler than | passports, and has ways of remote verification (banks use | it to e.g. verify when their customers have been declared | dead which has all kinds of financial obligations to the | institution) so you'd generally need to get someone in | the actual government agency to issue a real fictitious | ID; that's definitely possible but very rare, that's | within the domain of sophisticated organized crime and | costly/risky enough to make it not worth it for simple | fraud - like, getting a real poor person with a real ID | to do what you want is simpler and cheaper, so that's | what criminals did. | | Also it's risky to use, as forging IDs is a felony by | itself, and you'd risk immediate arrest by going to a | bank and trying to use it; I believe we had one fraudster | arrested in the branch when trying to use a stolen ID, it | was more than a decade ago so I don't remember the | details. | | So someone opening a bank account with my ID and name | would require my passport being stolen without noticing | it and, crucially, when I do notice it and report it (to | get a replacement) the old ID is invalidated, that bank | would get notified and the account would get blocked at | that point as the fraudster can't provide the replacement | ID. Of course, all of that isn't possible with a central | registry of IDs which seems anathema to USA and UK, but | is successfully used in many other countries. | rosnd0 wrote: | You can just go on forums like crimemarket.cn and find | hundreds of people using fake IDs to open bank accounts | in Germany. It's really not unusual at all in Europe. | Banks don't do much to verify IDs, they almost never even | check basic security features like OVI and OVD. Usually | they don't even bother with UV. | | Anyone can print flawless Romanian ID cards with an | inkjet printer and some teslin sheets at home, those are | valid everywhere in Europe and you can even safely fly | with them (outside of Romania, obviously) if you feel so | inclined. | | Have you seen what Greek ID cards look like? | | Every day, thousands of bank accounts are opened around | Europe with fake IDs. | [deleted] | imtringued wrote: | I thought this was about generating a new bank account number for | every invoice based on the headline. | nraynaud wrote: | In France it's integrated in the system, charities can be the | address of the homeless people they follow, and that address can | be used for almost any red tape. | cmroanirgo wrote: | > _To access the No Fixed Address programme, you must be | experiencing housing or homelessness difficulties and receiving | support from one of our partner charities. | | If you aren't receiving support from Shelter or one of our other | partners, you won't be able to access the No Fixed Address | programme. _ | fumblebee wrote: | This is something that really resonates with me - this should be | a norm adopted by all banks, not the exception. Kudos to HSBC. | | However, my interactions to date with the company have been | riddled with signs that they are a dinosaur-corp, built on a | foundation of inefficient and illogical processes, legacy tech, | and Kafka-esque bureaucracy. | smokey_circles wrote: | I'm a pessimist but this probably has more to do with | circumventing those pesky KYC and AML laws that HSBC keep getting | fined over | sonthonax wrote: | I remember moving to the UK at 19. I was room sharing so had no | bills in my name. I had no job yet, so no payslip. Only | documentation was a British passport. | | I eventually gave up trying to find a bank that would do passport | only bank accounts. And just forged a few utility bills. HSBC, | despite being the most onerous bank in terms of demanding | documentation was the most lax in actually doing any due | diligence. | rmccue wrote: | Monzo will do this; I signed up for a bank account without a | permanent address, and had one within 30 mins of arriving in | the UK. They still require an address to mail you your card (so | not the same target market as the OP), but it wasn't too | onerous. | Nextgrid wrote: | The problem is that there's ultimately no due diligence you can | do on a utility bill that can't be defeated by a fraudster. No | utility will answer a call to confirm/deny someone's details | (as it can be abused), and even then, utilities that don't rely | on a physical location (wireless telecoms/internet) themselves | can't prove (and don't particularly care about) the address | they have on file so even a legitimate utility account doesn't | guarantee the account holder actually has access to that | address. | | The banks are only requiring them to cover their ass because | the country seems to have accepted the idea that a utility bill | is somehow an authoritative document, so they can claim their | due diligence was up to scratch (well they're not wrong, as you | can't reasonably do any better) if things go wrong. | Animats wrote: | It's only for people who are "in the system" of poverty: | | _" If you aren't receiving support from Shelter or one of our | other partners, you won't be able to access the No Fixed Address | programme. View the list of supporting charities. To access the | scheme, you'll need to call the charity, or visit their website | and complete an online referral form."_ | m00dy wrote: | now the time comes for poor man's money | notatoad wrote: | are there any charities or organizations out there that are | simply providing fixed addresses? I get that providing housing | has a lot of challenges, but it seems like providing addresses to | people for the sake of receiving mail and having an address to | put on forms shouldn't be that difficult. | | I'm not homeless, but I move relatively frequently and putting | down my parents' address any time i need a more permanent address | is a huge convenience for me | hunter2_ wrote: | I imagine there would be quite a lot of legwork involved | whenever the address gets implicated in things like fraud, | collections, warrants, etc. so while it does seem like a | charity could get in this business, the expenses would probably | put an enormous dent in the previous allocation of resources | (food, clothing, etc). | DoreenMichele wrote: | I'm some places, yes. But I don't think it's common. | | I wish it were more common. Lack of a mailing address is a huge | barrier to getting their lives back and this would be a | seemingly low cost thing to do. | | Most charities focus on "feeding a man a fish" while doing | little or nothing to help them get a fishing pole and learn to | fish, so to speak. | YuccaGloriosa wrote: | A required next step, for the removal of cash from society. | ghaff wrote: | Although I don't do so often, I appreciate the ability to pay | cash for many things if I want to. At least in the US, the | continued availability of cash is likely to be very sticky. | Although it's increasingly marginalized especially middle to | upper class. | anticristi wrote: | Welcome to Sweden. | sfriedr wrote: | I happened to be in Austria, when this happened: https://orf- | at.translate.goog/v2/stories/2204205/2204206/?_x... | | If you had a bank card from a certain big Austrian bank | ("Erste Bank"), that day you could not pay by card, nor get | money from the ATM; basically you were locked out. Safe to | say, chaos ensued for a number of hours, as many people had | too little or no cash with themselves. I remember being at a | cantine where a long queue had formed with people with the | trays wanting to pay and cantine staff running desperately | around with "name lists" to register people in return for | their promise to pay when service resumed, which it did in | the afternoon. | | A cashless society is much more prone to black swan events. | | Surprisingly I was told by acquaintances that the incident | didn't make headlines the next day, and was casually | mentioned among other political scandals. | davidmitchell2 wrote: | You are correct but it is one in year or decade. Right... | rest of the time all is good. people will opt for | convenience. | sfriedr wrote: | One year (one day actually) in a decade comes close to | the very definition of a black swan event. :) | | And yes, people will opt for convenience, not rational | behavior: | | In some cases, that black swan event will cost more than | the cost of inconvenience. For example in the US, it is | "inconvenient" to retrofit buildings to make them | earthquake-resilient, but when the earthquake black-swan | hits -and it will hit for sure, the only question is | when- damages will be huge, and costs as much as 4 times | higher than investments in earthquake-resilience today: | https://www.optimumseismic.com/earthquake- | preparedness/what-... | | I'm sure Kahneman & friends have a name for this | cognitive bias that somehow makes it hard for humans to | correctly assess the risk and cost for black swan | prevention (sometimes, because of the rarity, these | computations in principle can't be made). This type of | cognitive bias seems also connected with difficulties | humans have in thinking on time scales that exceed their | own life spans ... | davidmitchell2 wrote: | Lets be honest - not having cards working for a day is | not the same as earthquake. Sure people will miss | trains/rent etc. 1 or 2 business may go under but for 90 | % people all will be fine. Heck I am sure if many | shops/metro will be free if some one like erste bank or | Sparkasse does not work. | Ekaros wrote: | Reminds me I should add some cash back to my wallet... | 127 wrote: | Removal of cash is a great way to further remove the population | of its personal power and enable authoritarian forms of state. | cnxsoft wrote: | tlb wrote: | For context: UK businesses are more serious about requiring an | official address than the US. In the US, you can just fill in any | plausible address. Your parent's house or a friend's house is | fine. It used to be important to be able to get mail sent there, | but not really any more since you can get everything by email. | | In the UK, you frequently have to provide a current tax or | utility bill with your name and the address you're claiming, to | show that you're the official owner / renter of that address. | It's a considerable hassle when moving there. | Nextgrid wrote: | > In the UK, you frequently have to provide a current tax or | utility bill with your name and the address you're claiming, to | show that you're the official owner / renter of that address. | | This doesn't do anything to prevent fraud though - utility | bills are trivial to forge and can't be validated in any way, | though a lot of companies that don't deliver a physical product | (wireless telecoms/internet) don't actually care about your | address so bad guys can also obtain a "legitimate" fraudulent | utility bill by opening a SIM-only contract in a phone shop | with any address they desire. | | > It's a considerable hassle when moving there. | | Back when I was living in shared accommodation I had no utility | bills in my name (everything was included in the rent) and I've | had no issues with using a niche VoIP provider's invoices as | proof of address - their invoices look like any other utility | bill but obviously since it's VoIP it's not actually tied to an | address and yet was accepted everywhere, proving once more the | uselessness of this entire "proof of address" charade. | tlb wrote: | Yes, like many things it's a hassle for the rule-abiding | without being much of an obstacle for fraudsters. | 323 wrote: | In UK a government letter addressed to you is accepted as proof | of address. Like the NINo paper (SSN equivalent). And UK gov | doesn't require ownership proof on the address you provide to | them. | mdavis6890 wrote: | I find it strange that we are okay with business requiring our | physical address. Maybe with some rare exceptions, I can't | think of a good reason why these businesses need to know where | we live. Even banks. Usually the reason given is security, anti | money-laundering, anti-terrorism or whatever. But I think the | real reason is government control and surveillance. We should | not be okay with this. | kevincox wrote: | I wish I could bank without an address or phone number. Just | email me all correspondence. | meltedcapacitor wrote: | How does account recovery work for those who lose access to | their email? | kevincox wrote: | The bank still needs to KYC and have loads of ID. I actually | don't want my bank using my phone or my address as a recovery | mechanism, neither of these is particularly secure. | Gigachad wrote: | You call them and verify your identity like you normally do. | Nextgrid wrote: | You walk in a branch with a government-issued ID? | m00dy wrote: | It is possible but I don't want to get downvoted for no reason. | InCityDreams wrote: | Is being downvoted such a bad thing? | napier wrote: | Stay away from HSBC if you value your money and sanity. *unless | you're a drug cartel; I hear they get great service. | jstx1 wrote: | Valuing your money has nothing to do with it, your money is | just as safe with them as with any other major bank. | Tarq0n wrote: | Does the UK government really leave this to private institutions | and their "partner charities"? In the Netherlands the government | will just give you a PO box if you're homeless. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | Good idea. Given that in many (most?) countries the post/mail | system is a part of the state apparatus I think it's only right | that every citizen automatically be given a P.O. box address as | an enumerated positive right. | unreal37 wrote: | I keep hearing "In the Netherlands" as a reply to any social | dilemma. | | Surely, not everything is paradise in the Netherlands... | PeterisP wrote: | Of course, Netherlands sucks in many aspects, so (tongue in | cheek) if even a place like Netherlands has a working | solution for some problem, then it can't be that high bar to | pass for any _proper_ country, can it? | DoreenMichele wrote: | In the US, a PO Box is not a valid address for some things. I | believe this includes voting and banking. | | This is an issue for some Native Americans who have a PO Box as | their only address on the reservation and have difficulty | exercising their right to vote because of it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-08 23:00 UTC)