"Before the Government compelled all of us to have a Bank Account (and the inevitable "Tax File Number") a lot of people, especially the elderly only had a simple Bank Book, which in itself did NOT involve "Account Keeping" fees.
We now have "Account Keeping" fees, "Transaction" fees and various other nefarious methods of extracting money from our accounts by these arrogant glorified money-lenders, the Banks, who thumb their noses at both their customers and the Government! ( and yet Government continues to pander to their every whim, denying any responsibility in applying control to these racketeeers!)" (Crackcup)

Absolutely agree with this point. I believe banks have a right to charge fees for transactions we CHOOSE to have with them, but I have always been strongly against the RECEIVER being charged these fees, when the SENDER has compelled them to receive them this way.

SHOCK! HORROR!! Yes, I DO believe that employers should meet any costs incurred if they choose to bank employees salaries, and Governments likewise for all benefits they choose to go directly to banks, leaving the recipient to pick up the costs of same.

Crackup and Ginx's points"Govt. forced us to have bank accounts" also needs some tuning (perspective).

Short answer, The number of people, cost and efficiency of distribution. To do otherwise was an issue in parliament ...”waste of tax payers money”

Like crime more people, more pensioners, more tax returns More checks to be printed, processed, posted, more chance of the money not getting to the right people and difficulty to get the damn things cashed and yes the embarrassment of cashing them.
(my dad was youth prison guard) he was paid by Social Security cheque he was often challenged at the banks when he tried to cash them about the amount of his 'dole' (sic). Eventually each cheque cost became a waste of money when it could be done at a umpteenth of the cost and many times more secure and a lot easier for the aged recipients.

At that stage something like 70 something % of the public had bank accounts and many business' were going that way too.
FYI I too was cranky as I 'banked' at a credit union which the banks wouldn't transfer individual cheques too. Eventually the gov. forced the banks to do the processing at a fee.(grr grumble grumble)
Business response was ...tough! It's cheaper for them and they got rewards to direct pay from the bank.
The banks saw the profit implications etc. and now fees are BANK profit centre i.e. our fees run the bank so the extra interest they earn is virtually sheer profit . The gov. if any thing should limit bank options (We have the highest fees in the world).

However, to limit either the businesses or the banks would be a 'gross' heresy against the one true god all (even Christians bow to)....Capitalism.

In that context the Tax file number reasoning is clear....security and ease of computerisation.

I know this because I was involved in earlier stages printing the cheques and later selling the computer monsters to governments. :-| sorry (?)

I agree with you about perspective Examinator...

I was not talking about the difficulties incurred by postal payment.

I was talking about who should wear the cost of fees incurred for something the recipient did not choose.

The Government could quite easily stop banks from charging fees for withdrawal of benefits. They choose not to, as they choose not to tighten up on ANY questionable bank practices.

It is illegal in the UK for banks to charge the kind of fees that they do here. The lack of action by Government/s here has led directly to the high cost of fees and charges.

They (banks) do it because they can get away with it.

I trust that is tuned enough for you?

There is sadly a large percentage of people in the community who cannot see that there is actually anything wrong at all. These people are usually rolling in wealth and the situation as it exists suits them admirably. Alternatively there is a second very much larger group of people who are simply people incapable of understanding the precarious position in which they are existing, or being allowed to exist!

The first group are commonly known as Capitalists, who worship wealth and all of its accoutrements. The second group are drowning in their lack of awareness because they have allowed ( willingly or unwillingly) themselves to be brain-washed by the agents of the first group. These people who are oblivious to their own ignorance really believe that they are very "lucky" people, living in a very "lucky" country, even though most of them have sold their souls to the money-lenders, in order to survive from day to day, because they believe that it is the way it is meant to be!

I would like to be a fly on the wall when the day arrives that even the sheets of toilet paper will be encrypted with surveillance microdots!

Examinator:
I am NOT a wealthy person, nor am I an inhabitant of your imaginary "Wolf Creek" ( although I am a country dweller! ). I do NOT use, participate or condone the use of any of the many "daily publicized" drugs ( apart from my addiction to the odd Rum and Coke!) however I do take seriously my right to protect myself and my family from any threat by believing in the preservation of my right to own a suitable firearm. After all, if there were no potential homicidal maniacs walking the streets and the back-roads of this country, then I would be quite happy to allow my continuing security to be dependant upon an invisible country police force!

Crackcup
To some extent we are all prisoners of the money lenders as you put it and certainly I think the whole world (Western) has gone a bit mad with rampant consumerism, waste and greed. However, I think the attitude is turning around and people by and large are sick of it.

Sometimes governments do play a positive role. Many years ago women who were abused had nowhere to go. I met one of the first woman involved in setting up the first series of womens' shelters in Australia and the flak she faced was the idea of governments becoming involved in private home affairs. Ironically there was not much government action on this issue at the time.

Looking back I guess this is the way people thought - you made your bed you lie in or what happens in the home stays in the home. Personally I think we are better off with refuges. This goes for many government programs.

Having worked for government on and off for many years I agree that they have run away a bit in terms of accountability and scrutiny but again I can see that is changing slowly at least in principle (hopefully to be followed by some real change).

Governments don't sit around thinking about how they can gain more control they generally react to a specific problem and sometimes the outcome may be regulation such as the seat belt laws.

I can understand why you might feel more secure in the country with a firearm but can you imagine if we were overrun with guns - there are certainly more homicidal maniacs in urban areas. America is no safer with their open gun ownership laws. In fact it is less safe.

“Before the Government compelled all of us to have a Bank Account (and the inevitable "Tax File Number") a lot of people, especially the elderly only had a simple Bank Book, which in itself did NOT involve "Account Keeping" fees. We now have "Account Keeping" fees, "Transaction" fees and various other nefarious methods of extracting money from our accounts by these arrogant glorified money-lenders, the Banks, who thumb their noses at both their customers and the Government! ( and yet Government continues to pander to their every whim, denying any responsibilty in applying control to these racketeeers!)”

Oh, gotchya. Is there anywhere that you can still just have a bank book? One of those things I never thought about.

No one can get cash or a loan or anything without all those things? Except OUG of course the sneaky bugger.

“The issue "removal of weapons":.... prior to John Howard`s very cunning method of creating a reason for introducing "Gun Control", nearly every property owner had a selection of weaponry to be used in the appropriate situation and at the same time affording him and his family the comfort of self-protection. Now the same property owner is restricted to a single-shot weapon, which is next to useless when faced with a pack of rabid dogs!”

There was a suspicious looking apricot poodle hanging outside my house the other day. But I think one shot would have done it if I wasn’t so worried it was a DoCS worker in disguise.

Crackup, you are not allowed an automatic weapon. Give me your mothers phone number immediately