My partner and I recently avoided a scam involving a man calling himself “Kowal Marcin” who was falsely claiming to work for the Polish branch of a vehicle dealership called Autohansa. This post is to hopefully help others being scammed by him if they happen to google his name.
We found a Dethleffs campervan/motorhome on Facebook marketplace for a great price, €10500 which was much much cheaper than others of that level in other locations. We should have known at that point but being from the other side of the world we thought it may be normal. The Facebook listing had the van in Germany and the account (which has now been deleted) told us it was their brothers vehicle and to email “[email protected]” (note the real CIVD is the German motorhome association, but their address is actually [email protected]). “Kowal” was able to produce pictures and the German papers for the vehicle which seemed legitimate but must have been obtained by some other means. He was supposedly using Trans Logistic to transport the vehicle for €500 (again we naively thought this wasn’t unusually cheap) to anywhere in Europe within reason. The website he gave (eu-trans-logistic.com) seemed legitimate but also turned out to be part of the scam, including the email address listed on the site which corroborated his information. Worth noting is they would not answer their listed phone number and Kowal was “not able to call”.
Eventually we reached out to the real owner of Autohansa who we found via LinkedIn and who confirmed that “Kowal” was a known fraud and had scammed people in the past. By this time we managed to string “Kowal” along to provide his bank account details (through the fake Trans Logistic who would apparently act as a middleman in the transaction) but did not pay him anything. He was using an account with the Spanish online bank BBVA but has apparently also used HSBC accounts previously. When he did not receive payment he repeatedly emailed me throughout my night asking what was going on and I have ignored him since.
If this sounds familiar, even if the names are different, be very careful!!!

———————————————————————
Increase in benefit cap levels from April 2023
New regulations have been issued in relation to benefit cap levels in Great Britain.
Coming into force on 1 April 2023, the Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI.No.335/2023) increase the four benefit cap levels -

• the total amount of benefits to which working-age benefit households are entitled to in a year is raised from £20,000 to £22,020 for couples and lone parents nationally, and from £13,400 to £14,753 for single people; and
• for those in London, the cap is raised from £23,000 to £25,323 for couples and lone parents, and from £15,410 to £16,967 for single people.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/335/made
———————————————————————
Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland to receive £22 million funding to continue delivering Help to Claim service for a fifth year
However, DWP confirms that service will still only be provided either online or by telephone and that those unable to access support via these channels should contact their local jobcentre instead.
Welcoming the continued funding, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice Clare Moriarty said -
*’As the cost of living continues to put household finances under pressure, our top priority is supporting the many people coming to us for help. We’re glad to continue this important support. We’ve seen first-hand the difference our advisers make in helping people access universal credit.
We’ll continue to use our frontline insights and unique data to suggest enhancements to the benefits system, further helping the people we support.’*
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-people-set-to-benefit-from-free-support-to-help-claim-universal-credit
———————————————————————
DWP expects NI records of universal credit claimants who have not had credits added automatically as a result of a 2019 system change to be fully updated over the course of 2023/2024
Response to written questions in Parliament also confirms that any state pension entitlement affected by the issue will be reassessed, and 'any underpayment addressed accordingly’.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-06/159003
———————————————————————
Automation of sanctions decision-making suggests a ‘computer says no’ culture with individual claimant circumstances ignored, says PCS
Union also warns that putting onus for decision-making onto work coaches will destroy relationships with the claimants they support, and risk more violent incidents in jobcentres.
Promising that it will continue to negotiate and campaign for a fairer social security system, the PCS adds -
’We will demand that the system allows our members to support and not punish people who need a social security system. Our demand is for a massive increase.’
https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/budget-announcement-what-it-means-dwp-members
———————————————————————
DWP outlines current work to test new online application processes for health and disability-related benefits
Written answer in Parliament confirms that trials are underway for digital work capability questionnaires and online claims for attendance allowance and PIP.
Mr Pursglove said that for applications for employment and support allowance (ESA) and universal credit on health grounds -
’Claimants can apply ... through existing New Style ESA and universal credit online application portals via gov.uk. Additionally, we are testing a digital work capability questionnaire (UC50) in universal credit.’
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-13/163822
———————————————————————
HMCTS announces changes to timetable for court and tribunal reform programme
However, Chief Executive says that reform of social security and employment tribunals will be completed over the next year.
https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2023/03/20/hmcts-reform-achievements-challenges-and-next-steps/
———————————————————————
Number of households subject to benefit cap decreased by 7 per cent in the three months to November 2022
New DWP statistics also show that 41,000 households left the universal credit cap, with less than 10 per cent leaving due to having earnings at, or over, the earnings threshold.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-cap-number-of-households-capped-to-november-2022
Note: the new statistics relate to England, Scotland and Wales. Statistics relating to the benefit cap caseload in Northern Ireland to November 2022 were published by the Department for Communities in February 2023.
———————————————————————
DWP confirms that its ‘In Work Progression offer’ is now available across all of Great Britain
Department also highlights that a further 460,000 working claimants in the 'Light Touch' regime will be required to engage with the offer from September 2023.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-drive-to-help-workers-on-universal-credit-boost-prospects
———————————————————————
Restart scheme will cost more per person and help fewer than planned, Public Account Committee finds
New report also highlights areas for improvement, including better information sharing between work coaches and providers and improved record-keeping about barriers to work faced by claimants.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/194323/restart-scheme-will-cost-more-per-person-and-help-fewer-of-them-than-planned/
———————————————————————
Minister sets out details of new ‘Universal Support’ programme to help disabled people and those with health conditions into work
Under the programme, people will be able to opt-in to receive up to 12 months of 'place and train' support to help them move into suitable work and to sustain that employment for the longer-term.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-16/167120
———————————————————————
UK’s system of income replacement is an ‘inadequate patchwork’ that in most cases falls far behind the support available in other rich countries
Fabian Society says that the next government should introduce a comprehensive new system of ‘British employment insurance’ to stop incomes plummeting during sickness, maternity and unemployment.
Really insightful report with a number of key recommendations https://fabians.org.uk/publication/in-time-of-need/
———————————————————————
Cash-first approaches should be the default response to financial crisis, says APPG on Ending the Need for Food Banks
Parliamentarians from across the political spectrum also call for funding and guidance to make sure strong local support systems are in place so no one has to turn to a food bank.
For more information, see APPG on Ending the Need for Food Banks – 2022/23 Inquiry from the website of the Trussell Trust which acts as the APPG's secretariat.
https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/research-advocacy/appg-ending-food-banks/
———————————————————————
IPPR calls for suspension of benefit sanctions until inflation is brought under control
In addition, highlighting that those living in the north of England are at a higher risk of sanctions, think tank suggests that local Jobcentre Plus practice may play a significant role.
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/the-sanctions-surge
———————————————————————
Just 45 of the 960 LHA rates for Great Britain were at or above the 30th percentile of local rents in the 12 months to September 2022
Responding to a written question in Parliament, DWP Minister also highlights that there is no Broad Rental Market Area where all five LHA rates meet the latest 30th percentile of local rents.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-14/165317
Note: the most recent Rent Officers Order - that freezes LHA rates for 2023/2024 at the levels applied in April 2020 - was the subject of a ‘Motion to Regret’ in the House of Lords on 23/03/23, which highlighted how the LHA freeze has resulted in unaffordable rents and called for the government to align LHA with local housing rates. However, following the debate on the issue, and despite the government’s response including no plans to move away from the current LHA rates freeze, the motion to regret was withdrawn.
———————————————————————
Less than 10 per cent of calls to the DWP’s Future Pension Centre were answered in the 4 weeks to 26 February 2023
Minister confirms that helpline has experienced 'unprecedented levels of contact' from people considering whether to pay voluntary NI Contributions in order to increase their state pension entitlement.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-15/166271
———————————————————————
Calls to DWP’s Disability Services enquiry lines take an average of almost 20 minutes to be answered
Response to written question in Parliament also shows that less than three-quarters of calls to the service line were answered.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-20/169179
———————————————————————
DWP confirms that administrative exercise to correct state pension payments has identified more than 46,000 underpayments
Progress report on LEAP exercise shows that it has so far resulted in more than £300 million being paid out.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pension-underpayments-progress-on-cases-reviewed-to-28-february-2023
———————————————————————
Discovery phase for ‘Move to UC’ in Northern Ireland to begin next month
Three-month exercise will involve around 500 tax credit claimants in the Andersonstown and Enniskillen Jobs & Benefits office areas.
https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/news/discovery-phase-move-uc-begin-april
———————————————————————
DWP’s online apply for PIP service currently being offered to 60 people a day
Work and Pensions Minster also provides update on 'private beta trial' for attendance allowance claimants.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-20/169308
———————————————————————
‘Relevant threshold’ for purposes of calculating surplus earnings under universal credit to stay at £2,500 until 31 March 2024
DWP makes determination that provides for further extension of temporary increase in threshold that was originally due to end in April 2019.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/welfare-reform-act-2012-regulations/welfare-reform-act-2012-regulations#universal-credit-jobseekers-allowance-and-employment-and-support-allowance
———————————————————————

First, I want to express my gratitude to all the people at CFPB.gov and Reddit/other forums who have been a great help. What took months of back and forth with my financial institution's customer service to sort out many disputes and billing issues, took only a couple of weeks to resolve favorably once CFPB stepped in. YMMV, but for me, the CFPB process mostly has been smooth as long as you have strong supporting evidence.
Now, my question is: Would CFPB send a complaint directly to the business that provided the service or product in dispute, or only the financial institution (PayPal/Cashapp, credit card commercial bank, etc) used to pay for the service or product in dispute? For example, if I had a complaint against Apple, would CFPB send the complaint directly to Apple, or the financial institution used to make the purchase from Apple?
So far I have only sent complaints to banks. However, I realized that if I choose the subject of the complaint related to "gift cards, purchase refunds, or product services not rendered," then I am able to select a business as the recipient instead of a financial institution. If I choose the subject related to credit card or other banking fees, I can only select a financial institution as the recipient instead of a business. Not to confuse CFPB with BBB, I'm aware that BBB is the organization that sends complaints to businesses directly. But from experience with both platforms, most businesses and financial institutions don't seem to take BBB as seriously as CFPB, though I have not tried with larger businesses that do care about their BBB review. I assume CFPB has a greater authority in this domain.
My second question, is CFPB only limited to US businesses or financial institutions? For example, Wechat and Alipay are based overseas, but the online transaction took place in the US which withdrew money from a US bank account, would this be in scope of CFPB?
Small claims is also an option, but I would think that is a last resort.

Like anyone who wants pulls our funds. We are a bank as a collective and we approve the loans with low low risk due to the number of people lending the money. Like getting a ton of people to I’m eat a quarter to help you get a car.
Like imagine kicking in a dollar every Friday to help someone buy a house.

First, I want to express my gratitude to all the people at CFPB.gov and Reddit/other forums who have been a great help. What took months of back and forth with my financial institution's customer service to sort out many disputes and billing issues, took only a couple of weeks to resolve favorably once CFPB stepped in. YMMV, but for me, the CFPB process mostly has been smooth as long as you have strong supporting evidence.
Now, my question is: Would CFPB send a complaint directly to the business that provided the service or product in dispute, or only the financial institution (PayPal/Cashapp, credit card commercial bank, etc) used to pay for the service or product in dispute? For example, if I had a complaint against Apple, would CFPB send the complaint directly to Apple, or the financial institution used to make the purchase from Apple?
I realized that if I choose the subject of the complaint related to "gift cards, purchase refunds, or product services not rendered," then I am able to select a business as the recipient instead of a financial institution. If I choose the subject related to credit card or other banking fees, I can only select a financial institution as the recipient instead of a business. Not to confuse CFPB with BBB, I'm aware that BBB is the organization that sends complaints to businesses directly. But from experience with both platforms, most businesses and financial institutions don't seem to take BBB as seriously as CFPB, though I have not tried with larger businesses that do care about their BBB review. I assume CFPB has a greater authority in this domain.
My second question, is CFPB only limited to US businesses or financial institutions? For example, Wechat and Alipay are based overseas, but the online transaction took place in the US which withdrew money from a US bank account, would this be in scope of CFPB?
Small claims is also an option, but I would think that is a last resort.

I was out accompanying my parent for some tests. I was finding it difficult to interact with the people due to my speech blocks. I couldn't get the words out of my mouth without occasional pauses and it's really frustrating to struggle speaking a language I already know, all because of the syllables in that language that my tongue or mouth has stopped saying those words.
My country mainly functions in that language, that is people and places, this is a widely spoken language. I can't take public transport because sitting in the back I sometimes go mute when giving directions because I just can't get those words out. When I'm all by myself at home, I can easily communicate or say those words without this much of a struggle. Phone calls and going places, meeting people has become a real struggle. I can't go on like this anymore. I want to speak but I can't. I speak fluently which isn't really a problem but when it comes to doing official things that require interaction, giving my name, phone numbers, speaking to drivers on call or ordering something, I can't get the words out and people run out of patience or they get my anxiety meter high up.
I avoid places, heaven forbid I can't even call an ambulance even if I'm dying (if I'm conscious about my speech blocks). I feel ashamed that I can't be independent because I can't be of much help to whoever that is with me, if I'm to accompany them or help them with matters doctor's appointment, going to the bank or institutions because I myself am avoiding such interactions like a kid, I feel embarrassed to call myself an adult because I can't adult without my parent by my side all because of my speech blocks.
I can't always be on preplanned mode just because I pause during some interactions. I can't take up a job because I speak c**p in the national language because my mouth doesn't elicit those words. It pains so much when they respond with "you struggle with this language, don't you?" Or "you don't speak this language, do you?", the moment they hear me speak at length. I die of embarrassment on the inside.
I speak a couple of languages and I struggle with all those because of the 'A, E, I, O, U, R...' such sounds in words. At times even with the words I can speak fluently, I go mute the moment I reach the counter at some pharmacy or institutions.
I want to be a normal person (interact normally). I'm ruining my life even with all the abilities I have all because I struggle to function in the society.
I'll be told, accept the speech issues, just take it easy etc but it isn't that doable. If I'm in line at a busy counter and the moment my turn comes, I go silent, exhaling or trying to get the words out, the people behind me and the one at the counter will increase my anxiety and I'll be thinking about it the whole day.
There's a lot more. I need speech therapy or hypnotherapy kind of to get rid of the thoughts in my unconscious mind, because I'm unable to control it either way all by myself. I can't afford any kind of therapy.
I want out of this frustrating situation.
Edit: I also feel proud of myself for doing things in-spite of my messed up mind and other issues. I feel like I've lost my confidence due to all these thoughts constantly playing on my mind. I was way more confident before and now I feel like a child in an adult's body. I just want to do things without having to worry about my speech issues.
I might have a trauma kind of thing occurring pretty late from when it all began because I was bullied in school, due to which I hate being around authority figures and intimidating personalities and I got my fear of speaking and saying my name from school days but I've really come a long way from then but I want to be calm and free of worries without constantly having to come up with preplanned responses or actions.

Speaker Series: NM’s Largest Climate Polluters Report
What: First Report on NM’s Largest Climate Polluters
Where: Pre-register on Zoom at LINK
When: 6:30 PM MT, Monday, March 27, 2023
Who: Gabe Pacyniak, JD UNM School of Law and others.
Description: Hear authors of the report, “Impacts of NM’s Largest Emissions Sources" including Gabe Pacyniak, JD discuss the February 1 report that for the first time examines the climate and health damaging pollution from large stationary sources in New Mexico.
The report identifies 189 stationary sources that together contribute approximately 25 percent of the state’s climate pollution along with a large share of conventional pollutants. The largest share of pollution from these sources comes from the electric power and oil and gas sectors. Other large stationary sources include mines, manufacturing facilities, airports, and universities.
The report also analyzed where large sources are located and suggested that there may be equity benefits to reducing emissions in those areas with a high percentage of people of color, lower-income people, or people with health vulnerabilities. Four regions—the San Juan Basin; Permian Basin; Albuquerque, Bernalillo, and Sandoval Counties; and Las Cruces and Dona Aña County—were identified as areas with clusters of large stationary sources.
Finally, the report finds that current state policies are not adequate to achieve climate pollution reductions from these sources in keeping with the state’s climate goals but identifies ways that climate pollution policies could be designed to both reduce climate pollution and maximize public health benefits for communities where these sources are located. UNM’s Just Transition Grand Challenge initiative and the nonprofit organization PSE Healthy Energy hosted the report. The report was funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.
Event on Facebook: LINK
***All Events are Free and Open to the Public***

Speaker Series: NM’s Largest Climate Polluters Report
What: First Report on NM’s Largest Climate Polluters
Where: Pre-register on Zoom at LINK
When: 6:30 PM MT, Monday, March 27, 2023
Who: Gabe Pacyniak, JD UNM School of Law and others.
Description: Hear authors of the report, “Impacts of NM’s Largest Emissions Sources" including Gabe Pacyniak, JD discuss the February 1 report that for the first time examines the climate and health damaging pollution from large stationary sources in New Mexico.
The report identifies 189 stationary sources that together contribute approximately 25 percent of the state’s climate pollution along with a large share of conventional pollutants. The largest share of pollution from these sources comes from the electric power and oil and gas sectors. Other large stationary sources include mines, manufacturing facilities, airports, and universities.
The report also analyzed where large sources are located and suggested that there may be equity benefits to reducing emissions in those areas with a high percentage of people of color, lower-income people, or people with health vulnerabilities. Four regions—the San Juan Basin; Permian Basin; Albuquerque, Bernalillo, and Sandoval Counties; and Las Cruces and Dona Aña County—were identified as areas with clusters of large stationary sources.
Finally, the report finds that current state policies are not adequate to achieve climate pollution reductions from these sources in keeping with the state’s climate goals but identifies ways that climate pollution policies could be designed to both reduce climate pollution and maximize public health benefits for communities where these sources are located. UNM’s Just Transition Grand Challenge initiative and the nonprofit organization PSE Healthy Energy hosted the report. The report was funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.
Event on Facebook: LINK
***All Events are Free and Open to the Public***

Speaker Series: NM’s Largest Climate Polluters Report
What: First Report on NM’s Largest Climate Polluters
Where: Pre-register on Zoom at LINK
When: 6:30 PM MT, Monday, March 27, 2023
Who: Gabe Pacyniak, JD UNM School of Law and others.
Description: Hear authors of the report, “Impacts of NM’s Largest Emissions Sources" including Gabe Pacyniak, JD discuss the February 1 report that for the first time examines the climate and health damaging pollution from large stationary sources in New Mexico.
The report identifies 189 stationary sources that together contribute approximately 25 percent of the state’s climate pollution along with a large share of conventional pollutants. The largest share of pollution from these sources comes from the electric power and oil and gas sectors. Other large stationary sources include mines, manufacturing facilities, airports, and universities.
The report also analyzed where large sources are located and suggested that there may be equity benefits to reducing emissions in those areas with a high percentage of people of color, lower-income people, or people with health vulnerabilities. Four regions—the San Juan Basin; Permian Basin; Albuquerque, Bernalillo, and Sandoval Counties; and Las Cruces and Dona Aña County—were identified as areas with clusters of large stationary sources.
Finally, the report finds that current state policies are not adequate to achieve climate pollution reductions from these sources in keeping with the state’s climate goals but identifies ways that climate pollution policies could be designed to both reduce climate pollution and maximize public health benefits for communities where these sources are located. UNM’s Just Transition Grand Challenge initiative and the nonprofit organization PSE Healthy Energy hosted the report. The report was funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.
Event on Facebook: LINK
***All Events are Free and Open to the Public***

Speaker Series: NM’s Largest Climate Polluters Report
What: First Report on NM’s Largest Climate Polluters
Where: Pre-register on Zoom at LINK
When: 6:30 PM MT, Monday, March 27, 2023
Who: Gabe Pacyniak, JD UNM School of Law and others.
Description: Hear authors of the report, “Impacts of NM’s Largest Emissions Sources" including Gabe Pacyniak, JD discuss the February 1 report that for the first time examines the climate and health damaging pollution from large stationary sources in New Mexico.
The report identifies 189 stationary sources that together contribute approximately 25 percent of the state’s climate pollution along with a large share of conventional pollutants. The largest share of pollution from these sources comes from the electric power and oil and gas sectors. Other large stationary sources include mines, manufacturing facilities, airports, and universities.
The report also analyzed where large sources are located and suggested that there may be equity benefits to reducing emissions in those areas with a high percentage of people of color, lower-income people, or people with health vulnerabilities. Four regions—the San Juan Basin; Permian Basin; Albuquerque, Bernalillo, and Sandoval Counties; and Las Cruces and Dona Aña County—were identified as areas with clusters of large stationary sources.
Finally, the report finds that current state policies are not adequate to achieve climate pollution reductions from these sources in keeping with the state’s climate goals but identifies ways that climate pollution policies could be designed to both reduce climate pollution and maximize public health benefits for communities where these sources are located. UNM’s Just Transition Grand Challenge initiative and the nonprofit organization PSE Healthy Energy hosted the report. The report was funded by the Environmental Defense Fund.
Event on Facebook: LINK
***All Events are Free and Open to the Public***

When most people apply to the "taxes are theft" argument, there's two main approaches:

1. Appeal to their humanity: Doesn't work on sociopaths
2. Appeal to pragmatism: Doesn't work on idiots

But there's a better response: If libertarians claim they don't need government services, then call them on their bluff, and point out that money itself is a government service. If you bring up something like roads, libertarians will insist that the market will provide a cheapebetter alternative once taxes go away. But when it comes to money, the free market alternatives already exist, but libertarians refuse to use them because the alternatives are useless without government backing.
This isn't exactly a new argument: There's the famous "Render unto Caesar" line from Jesus himself in the bible.

1. You cannot have fiat currency without taxes and spending

In David Graeber's book "Debt: The First 5000 Years," Graeber explores the history of money citing actual research rather than the historical fanfiction.
Money is circulated throughout the economy by government spending. If there was no government spending, then there would be no money to go around. Money has value because of the demand created by taxation. In the absence of taxes, then the dollar would effectively be worthless.
Hence, if libertarians are really against the idea of taxes and spending, then they should be demanding zero dollars in their bank account, rather than asking for more of them. Their entire goal is to increase their supply of dollars by cutting off the supply, which doesn't make any fucking sense.

2. Free market currencies exist, but they've been rejected by the free market

Libertarians will respond to the previous point by insisting that free market alternatives like gold and bitcoin are not only viable, but superior. But every argument in favor of these alternatives treats them as investment vehicles for the sake of generating more fiat, rather than a currency in itself. This isn't simply my opinion, it's the outcome of the free market itself.
Here's the fundamental problem: Money is supposed to be a medium of exchange, which means it must be agreeable to both parties: Something people are willing to gain, and something people are willing to lose. Except those are two opposing goals, so how can it be both? Libertarians champion gold and bitcoin because the scarcity will encourage hoarding and discourage spending. They never seem to understand that you can't have a transaction without spenders. They assume that their employers will pay them in gold coins, rather than keeping them for themselves.
Fiat currency solves this by using inflation to encourage spending, and taxes to encourage demand, which is why it's been embraced by the free market.

3. Fiat currency is so appealing that even foreign nations are willing to adopt it

Libertarians will claim that the only reason people use US dollars is because they're forced to by law against their will. But if that were the case, then why do foreign countries use them as well, when they obviously don't have to? Again, it's because the dollar represents a government service that these countries are voluntarily opting into. And no, bitcoin in El Salvador doesn't count, because bitcoin in El Salvador is valued based on the amount of fiat dollars you can trade the bitcoin for.

4. The US financial system as a government service

In addition to opting-in to government currencies, libertarians also opt-in to the following:

• Access to regulated/insured banks, as well as wire transfers through government systems
• Access to government court systems to settle financial disputes
• Access to government record keeping systems that track who owns what
• Access to law enforcement if people wrong you
• Access to various legal rights and protections

For instance, libertarians will whine that they still have to pay taxes even if they leave the country, but that's enforceable if they want access to US banks, which no one is forcing them to do. When you apply for a bank account, you promise you're following US tax laws, and you agree to let your bank report suspicious activity to the IRS. If you don't agree to those terms, then take your money somewhere else. But libertarians aren't willing to do that, because they want to opt-in to the service and security of the US banking system, but without the responsibility of paying for it.
Likewise, you opt-in to paying property taxes because it's part of the property contract. You can try to sign a property contract that doesn't include this, but in this case, the state has no obligation to recognize it as valid. Asking the state to recognize the contract as valid is a service that you opt into voluntarily. Otherwise, what's stopping someone else from producing their own contract claiming ownership over the same piece of land?

5. People only go to jail when they commit fraud, which only happens when you voluntarily opt-in

Libertarians frequently claim that taxes are coercion because they'll go to jail if they don't pay taxes they never agreed to for services they never asked for. But they always rely on false analogies where they say the mafia did something illegal and then claim that the IRS is doing the same thing, but lacking in any real world examples.
Here's the problem: Tax evasion is only a felony if there's proof of fraud, and we live in a country where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Proof of guilt only happens if there's a paper trail, and the paper trail only happens if the person voluntarily entered an arrangement with intention to deceive.
For instance, most employers will ask you to sign a form where you consent to taxes. The employer voluntarily enters the agreement because it means they can report your wages as a deduction, and the employee voluntarily enters the agreement because it gives them access to better jobs.
What if you disagree with the terms and refuse to pay taxes? Then you're free to walk away. What if you agree to report your income but then forget? You'll be sent a reminder and be given the chance to issue a correction. The only way for you to go to jail is if you knowingly lie and even when given the chance to come clean.
By contrast, there's millions of undocumented workers in America who don't pay taxes. But since their employer isn't writing off their wages as a deduction, there's no paper trail for a tax evasion case. They might get in trouble with immigration, but they generally do not worry about the IRS.
Libertarians will reply with "It's still illegal even if I don't get caught!" But this is a completely different goalpost. The original claim was the threat of jailtime, and jailtime doesn't happen without a paper trail that you opted into voluntarily. If there's no jail time, then there's no coercion.

6. Money spent is no longer yours to control

Lots of libertarians think they can invalidate taxes because they disagree with how some of that money is spent. This is a nonsense argument that would never be used in any other context.
For instance, if I spend $3000 on rent, then I can hope that my landlord spends all of that money on things I personally support, but he legally doesn't have to and he probably won't. The contract says I'm paying money for shelter, and as long as he provides that, then it's still a valid transaction.
If you pay property taxes so the state recognizes you as the registered owner, then that's the service you voluntarily opted into paying for. It doesn't matter if the money is later spent on different services you disagree with. Once money changes hand, it's no longer yours.

7. Why opting out is unprofitable

If you sell goods on eBay, then you agree to pay various fees for things like shipping, insurance, commission, payment processing, and sales tax. Libertarians will claim that the last one is rape and slavery because you cannot proceed if you refuse to pay but all of the other examples are voluntary because you can refuse to pay by not proceeding.
But what happens if someone tries to opt out of all government services and taxes by hosting an eBay clone overseas? Legally, if you're outside of US jurisdiction, then the US can't do anything to stop you. So why don't more companies actually do this? The simple answer is: Because they would end up losing a lot more money.
If customers know the company is outside of US jurisdiction, then they know they won't be able to hold the company accountable if someone screws them over. Likewise, legitimate payment processors won't want to do business with them, because they don't want to deal with customer complaints, or have their reputation damaged by illegal markets. You'd have trouble finding reliable developers, because reliable developers would want to work for a company that actually obeys the law. etc.

8. "Charging taxes implies ownership!"

This is a non-sensical argument that libertarians make that goes like this:

1. Charging property taxes is only valid if government owns your land
2. Government does not own your land.
3. Therefore, taxes are invalid.

Once again, this is a silly argument that would never be applied to the free market. For instance, you cannot invalidate parking fees simply because the manager of the parking lot doesn't own your car. You cannot invalidate eBay commission fees simply because eBay doesn't own the goods you sell on eBay. etc.

We are about to be blamed for what is coming, so it's best to be prepared for the real reason this pathetic shit-show is occuring. 5 management changes that had clear and present outcomes could have turned the tide of our country.

1. Post 2000 - Failure to set policed rules and regulations. The dot-com bust was insane! And we all had recovering stress about Y2K fears. The market was very wild-west at that time. Tech companies shot up so fast and were overvalued by over a thousand to one. Politicians, celebrities and sports stars were endorsing things they had no idea about, only for boosting their own income. The conflicts of interest were insane and once the fool's buy spree ended and all these internet/computer companies' books revealed they had nothing but liabilities, they collapsed. The magic of the internet was met with the sorcery of stupidity. And the government did... nothing. They blamed it on poor people and the middle east? In-rushes of minorities spontaneously buying stocks? The breakdown of America? At no point did they say that people in power and wealthly positions in trust made stupid leveraged bets on shit they got dead wrong. After that, they should have REGULATED with a capital R. Jail time for crime. Transparency of books and people. Full disclosures placed on News and 'journalists'. Management of debt instruments for investing.
   
2. Post 2008 - Failure to remove threats to American investment, growth and economic stability. After the Great Recession, short selling should have been put to rest. Financial incentives to destroy companies and put people out of work are counter-productive to economic growth and civilian contribution/wellness. If you have enough money, it allows for gaming the market. Short selling and everything around it is devastating to economic success. The only lesson learned from the reckless stupidity and short selling, was that the US tax payers would come to their rescue. Insurance for increased future stupidity! Like the movie the Big Short says, they blamed poor people and minorities. At no point did they say that people in power and wealthly positions of trust made stupid leveraged bets on shit they got dead wrong. Only difference is this time they learned that they can bite the hand that feeds.
   

Like the previous mentioned, jail for crime, transparency, proper regulation and ethical management should have been implimented from this event. This in my mind is where we 'lost the battle to cancer'. Hedge funds were smart... but they learned that they can get real stupid and destructive and get rewarded. Insurance for recklessness. Investing became a game, where it became easier to make one team lose, then to cheer for a team to win. The more money you had, the more oppourtunity to buy the refs, the camera person, the announcer, and eventually, the audience. The amount of government regulation and management imposed on options after 2008 should have been strict audits, compliance checks, quality control via third parties, income verification, weekly reporting, heavy tax brackets, and yes, time for crime.

1. 2009 - Failure to remove obvious hiways for unethical motives and high level crime. After Bernie Madoffs' crimes came to light, the infrastructure he used for the crime should have been eliminated. Payment For Order Flow. Lack of transparency and piss poor regulation and management. Hey! This is starting to become a common theme here! Well fuck my truck and call it a hybrid! This fucker caused the losses of 10's of billions of dollars and the SEC only found out because Madoff confessed to his sons, who brought it to their attention. They were fucking obligated to do something. They had to be given the information because they were unable to find it themselves. If you ever watch a kids show and they make out the cop to be the idiot, that cop was too smart for the SEC. Just when you think they couldn't get more idiotic, they make commercials about theaters and utter threats about emojis as their countries fucking banking system collapses. That's like caring about a lone J-walker when closer to you is a 158 car collision (158 'at risk'banks). They left all the pathways for crime, most notebly of which is PFOF. Even fucking Citadel said it was bad.. like holy fucking shit! That was of course until they committed those crimes using it! Now it's good? Jesus. Well as you guessed it, for the issues, At no point did they say that people in power and wealthly positions of trust made stupid leveraged bets on shit they got dead wrong. They blamed it on everything else. After that, they should have found every route for crime he comited and sealed them up tight. They should have put a greater emphasis on regulation ENFORCEMENT and management. They should have made investigation a priority. Madoff was like a Diety being exposed as fake. No one after should have been put on a pedestal.
   
2. 2020 - The big problem is that the banks got all that money! Then they made stupid bets on stupid! Now they need to tame inflation, provide liquidity, manage dollar value vs. Gold, save bonds, and increase the interest rate or taxes. Every option comes with pain and it is impossible to manage now. On top of that, the failures mentioned earlier are biting them in the ass and short sellers are salivating at the US banks now. At no point will they say that people in power and wealthly positions of trust made stupid leveraged bets on shit they got dead wrong. Now it's not just poor people and minorities, I am proud to say it's because of poor people and minorities talking to each other! Because you know that people who haven't eaten more than 1 meal today affected the +100 trillion dollar stock/bond markets!?
   
3. 2021 - In June of 2021 during the run-up of AMC, they should have closed positions and been transparent. It would have affected the economy, but we would be doing better long term. They are just making everything worse, and I fear what the outcome is. They should learn from it and enforce and fairly regulate and ban PFOF and manage conflicts of interest, among everything else. They probably won't. I know that I am not selling.
   

We have a company that survived COVID. We get called a penny stock, but have up to a 1,054.00% borrow fee!? We have 4+ million people around the world saving the theater industry! We have an entire community and have slowly became a mutual fund - NCMI, HYMC - a fucking Gold mine!, Walmart distributed popcorn - among the highest value added snacks there is. We have stubbed fake news, watched our CEO drop his shorts on livestream (he fucking knows about naked shorts and he is on our side), haven't sold as per OBV, and we even have fake accounts and bots try to pursue us to sell. We are so fucking numb to stupidity that red makes us buy and deep red makes us heavy hoard and double down. We don't care if you are different here. All people equal - APE. We are a sports team all wearing the same jersey. We all hug and cheer when we win, and we are fucking winning. Our theater is doing better than their banks! Our popcorn is in better taste than their 'advising'. If they are 'smart money', I'd rather keep my money and be stupid. The only thing they have managed to compound is our numbers of AMC investors. The water is rising, and they lied about knowing how to swim. We are owners of AMC, and we aren't leaving.

So I got my first job as an customer experience executive in HDFC. Mainly I have to handle the Welcome desk or Counter 1 all day with my senior working there from a year. Now the part that I hate the most is , the senior I am working with is very mean. She only dictates what work I have to do irrespective of its importance or process. As I can't search any courses about banking systems on internet too. I am feeling very irritated. If I go to someone else, they say "what you have learnt in this week?" Bro? How I am supposed to learn things, no training, no written or recorded help. How the hell are you asking this question?
Very irritated and maybe leave the branch and change. All are mean except 2-3 people who helped me during this journey.

I have an idea for a challenge season. Another free agents set up, where you will do a solo season with sometimes being paired up, put in a team or a solo daily. Losers go into elimination/draw (random selection or winning team votes in a losing player depending in the challenge for that day). Here's whats different, they bring back individual bank accounts. (To help from people throwing challenges and so everyone who makes a final ends up with money).
Let them go out and mingle with the locals, and have parties again. Bring back some characters who aren't there just for clout, and make it fun again! Bring some carnival games back in the dailys and cut down on the movie set challenges.

After April 1 I'm going to be registering a company. With that, I will need a bank account. I'm doing a little bit of research now. I want the least fees possible. All I want is a simple online banking account with a money card. I'm not looking for easy access to credit or overdraft abilities.
From what I've researched, ASB has $0 monthly fees on their business accounts. $10/yr card fee. Though I suspect there could be other fees which I may not be accounting for.
ANZ looks to be free for the first year (dependent on a few conditions). Otherwise $8.50/mo with 200 free transactions a month, each one costing $0.20 after. I personally trust ANZ and find their app & website best to navigate.
BNZ MyMoney for Business is $8.50/mo with no charges for electronic transaction fees. I assume this is an unlimited amount. As I haven't banked with BNZ before, I'm unsure of their UI and general banking experience.
I probably won't consider Westpac because I bank with them personally and hate their online UI.
What's people's experiences? What bank do you use? What do you like? What's bad?

Hello! I joined this subreddit since I’ve been baiting a scammer for about a couple of weeks now, but I’m still really unsure as to what the scam is.
The story is that they messaged me claiming to want to be with me and how they’re willing to pay me for it without ever wanting nudes/other sexual favours. They DM’d me on instagram with a script along the lines of “Hi,I came across your profile,honestly I find you really attractive,and I'd really love to be friends. I’d literally Do or pay anything just to make this work. Text me back if you're interested. “
I haven’t given them any of my information and everything they have of me is on my public Instagram page, which truthfully only includes my face and friends, I don’t tag locations ever. You can’t easily find my country or city through my tagged photos as I manually go through them and hide the ones that have any information as to where I could be. The only way to even know is to go on my friends accounts and find their location as they all tend to be far less concerned about these things, and my friends live quite a far distance from me anyways.
Even down to the name they refer to me as is a very very obscure nickname of mine that isn’t at all close to my actual name and that’s the one I have on my page. Now, at the time when we met my bank account was temporarily in the negatives and I sent a cropped screenshot of just my balance [not even including what bank I used] and used this “broke teenager” narrative. My banks interface is really generic so you genuinely can’t tell. They asked for my phone number too but I lied to them saying I can’t afford to sustain a phone number- truthfully that is just because I don’t want them to have my number to sell to other scammers. So I’ve been really pushing for this idea that I can barely afford to live right now.
This scammer was playing the long game it seems as it has been two weeks of them essentially waiting for me to respond when I remember that they exist. They’re trying to build momentum to when they “send me money” but they’re now mentioning two government websites that don’t deal with transactions beyond tax returns, insisting they are going to be sending me money through the tax office. I’ve lived in my country for my entire life, I’ve dealt with both these websites as they are generally used by people in my country to store information such as addresses and licenses, banking info, and other sensitive informations.
I initially thought it was an identity theft scam but after lying and telling them that I don’t have these accounts set up- they’re asking me what other accounts I might have? I genuinely don’t know what this scam is anymore, this person has the assumption that I am a broke teenager with less than $0 in the bank account and barely any information that they can steal.
I don’t plan on sending anything, even down to any hobbies I might have or names of my pets, I just want to know what the scam COULD be at this point. If anyone has experienced a similar scam and has seen the full extent of it, or even has a theory, please let me know!