“If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.”

- George Orwell in the novel 1984.

Well, it appears the struggling, lowest level of society has now been exposed a number of times by front page exposure. Most recently it’s been the apocalyptic carbon tax that will bankrupt everyone. Though a while back I wrote a draft (that I am now publishing) about the “poor well off” after a budget plan to HOLD STEADY FOR TWO YEARS the cut off for certain welfare at AUD$150K. Note: that’s not “cut” anything as is reported, just decided not to raise it with inflation/CPI etc. Very similar to the carbon tax that includes generous payouts for poorer families which trail off so that those earning plenty have to pay a bit.

Well, they finally got to a small part of it.

Every time this happens we see papers queue the pictures of concerned looking families (with their cars conspicuously not in shot lest we see two urban 4WDs sitting in a McMansion driveway) and bleating like Stephen Boyle did in the SMH letters:
“I’m just a wage slave to the ungrateful masses“:

I am one of those people who earn just over $150,000 a year. My wife has decided to stay at home this year and look after our new baby while I continue my work designing internet infrastructure in Third World countries.
Because I have worked very hard and diligently and contribute to society in a specialist way that few others can – but am not greedy and amoral enough to be truly rich – I end up paying for every one else’s welfare.
When our little one was born, we missed out on the baby bonus because my income was just above the $150,000 threshold. I pay $44,450 a year in tax and the Medicare levy, which I do not begrudge. By contrast, if my wife and I both earned $75,000 a year, we would collectively pay, in raw terms, $32,700 a year in tax between us. Upon that, we would not pay a Medicare surcharge.

As a result of Wayne Swan’s budget, I don’t get the dependant spouse rebate, which would have partially redressed the imbalance that my family pays in tax compared with a couple of $75,000 earners. Yet I am not wealthy enough to avoid this tax burden.
I now look at my child with sadness. I tried to do my best for her, but the government parasites got the better of me.
She shall have to attend public school and be treated at public hospitals while I contemplate the folly of working hard for the ungrateful masses.
Stephen Boyle, Gosford

It could almost be a piss take.. But not quite.

The Struggling Proles and their Plasma TV scraps of society
I’d like to suggest a term for “slaves” like Stephen Boyle who complain when they don’t get as many unnecessary handouts: “The Plasma Proletariat”. These are the well off types who think they are on Struggle Street or hard done by when they are denied another handout for a bigger plasma TV or mortgage repayments they decided to over-commit to.

Where do the taxes go?
For your information Stephen your $44.5K of tax pays for the following: Social security & welfare: $14,085, general govt. services: $11,377, health: $6,969, education: $4,043, defence: $2,573, industry & workforce: $1,804, infrastructure, transport & energy: $1,536 and community services & culture: $1,063 (From www.wheredomytaxesgo.com.au ).

Ungrateful or just stupid?
Ungrateful would be someone who thinks they (or their children) don’t benefit from that list in any significant way, particularly when they mention schools and hospitals in the same breath. Not to mention the massive amount of investment from every taxpayer back to the dawn of the nation who paid for things like the snowy river hydro scheme, highways, airports, hospitals, schools etc.

I don’t have kids, so can Mr Boyle send me a cheque for the money he is sponging relative to me by having a kid (education, hospital, DOCS funding, medical research, swimming pools, playground equipment, baby changing rooms, time spent by politicians kissing said babies)? I don’t see that kid earning its keep like they do in developing nations where they’d be stitching together our shoes/clothes and sticking apple logos to iPhones.

Happy to refund it if/when I have kids but in the meantime I don’t see why I should be a slave to the breeding masses like Mr Boyle when I’m not doing the same.

Why stop there: what about my parents generation: “lazy” buggers are starting to retire after (only) working their entire lives, paying for us to be fed/clothed/educated/housed and now they’ll be wanting healthcare, kids off their lawns and a bit of time to travel and relax.. Oh the gall of them to make “slaves” of us all by daring to retire!

Prediction time
Quite why we give out baby bonuses as a reward for adding to the global population problem I’m not sure. The bonus should be to anyone who helps REDUCE or HOLD STEADY the population by having 2 or less kids. Mark my words they’ll be looking back in the future when the population is double today (and our planet completely stripped bare) and scratching their heads.

Impact of the baby bonus

Some facts please
You watch, I’ll bugger up something in these.. But here goes.

Contrary to the assertions in articles on this $150K thing that it affects a big chunk of people it doesn’t really. Some articles do a bit more homework but still make it sound like it affects more people than it does e.g. this one says at the start the measures affect 17% of the population but this measure would only affect the portion of the 17% of community that (in year 1 of the freeze) earn between $150K and $154K (assuming 3% inflation). In year 2 anyone who is earning between $150K and $159K. It might also include people who get a pay cut and would have earned those amounts or ones who get a pay rise. Under the old system the cut off would be $154K at the end of the 1st year.

So if for the 2 years you always earn $160K and above then this whole thing is irrelevant, if you earn $150K and below likewise.

I can haz moar handout?

Just how many could that be that might fit in this $150-160K over two years transition?

Small number really and majority of the articles I’ve read appear to have not done their homework or else made little real attempt at highlighting the facts as they try to make a storm in a teacup.

Saying that because 17% of households or 3% of individuals earn over $150K is like saying that if the USA lowered the drinking age to 18 that affects the ability to drink of everyone over age of 18.
No, it only affects anyone falling between ages of 18 and 21. Well aside from extra queues at the bar.. But anyone already able to drink can still do it, anyone younger than 18 still can’t drink anyhow. Politicians seem to realise this quite well when it comes to retrospectively punishing younger generations by removing the things that they enjoyed or made use of to get to where they are today (e.g. Federal Liberals gutting public education and in particular universities and their funding cuts/HECS fee increases under Howard).

More facts.. MOAAAR!
How does $150K compare to the average wage? I won’t compare it to say poorer nations to really show how well off that is.. Let’s stick to Australia only:

A salary of $150K/year is around 105K AFTER TAX. That’s $8,750/month or $2020/week AFTER TAX or $287/day if you need to go that far down.

According to most recent ABS stats on average weekly earnings Public & Private sector

So the $150K salary is 2.26 times the average before tax.
If we make it completely skewed: $2020/week after tax is still multiples of the before tax rates that mere average people earn.
So even with just stephen working and his wife earning nothing: his household income is still 2.26 times that of a household with just one average earner. There’s that .26 hanging around as a nice buffer as well, so he could hire someone on an average wage for a quarter of the working week to just hang around the house and it’d still be as if the house had two average earners in the house.
So $150K is not a bad household income, there’s little need for complaining about “missing out”.

Glass houses and all that..
I’ll take a moment to be clear that I’m not intending to give the misleading impression I’m on a low income by comparing these. I could, quite rightly, be one of the low income people in the country that are having a genuinely tough time. Stuck in poorly paid jobs or unemployment/underemployment.
But I’m not one of those people and I’m well aware of my stable job, good wage, literate, tertiary educated, no debt, high savings, no kids, quick commute, no mortgage existence in a safe, modern, civilised country called Australia. I do things like volunteer to teach kids and donate to charity because I’m in that nice stable position where I can afford to do so. Someone actually struggling to afford to eat and the like is the type of person who really needs access to govt assistance, but not me and not people like Stephen (who I think tried slyly to dismiss his high paying job as some sort of charity effort he was doing for the developing world rather than the reality of a well paying IT job that is most likely something to do with outsourcing so that a company can do away with hiring as many people in Australia).

I’m complaining about people in a comfortably high wage bracket (like me) who really are in no state of “struggle” other than that which they manufacture out of greed and desire to keep up with the neighbours. I might think I had an expensive weekend because I went out drinking or to an expensive dinner a few times. I don’t for an instant look to the govt to make up my drinking money shortfall: it did plenty in supplying me with the stable environment in which to get educated and grow up healthy (yes, mum and dad probably had a teeny bit to do with that too). I don’t look to the govt to pay my rent in the same way these people seem to want the govt to pony up money for their mortgage payments or new car loan.

Unlike these greedy insatiable sods I am very aware that I did grow up in a great country with great education, health, incredibly high quality of life, extremely high literary rate, safetynets etc that makes us VERY fortunate. So fortunate that even with paying a wheelbarrow of tax and without getting lump sums thrown at me: I seem to be doing ok. Perhaps I’m just not rich enough to be struggling like BHP and Gina Rinehart who seem perpetually about to shut up shop forever if they paid anywhere near my tax rate. Gina: I’ve also read Ayn Rand and she’s wrong: selfishness is not a virtue unless you’re a sociopath.

One needs assistance, the other is probably ok

There’s no need for me to pursue a selfish desire to get as much raw cash handout from the tax system as possible as I think the churches and billionaires do enough of that for all of us.

Solution for the Plasma Proletariat
I have a solution for these poor downtrodden over-mortgaged upper class welfare struggle street proles: charity. They should be used to the concept from a receiving end as they hold their moisturised hands out for a slice of the tax cake (that’s after the First Home Owner’s Grant rort, baby bonuses, Ruddmoney and so on on top of everything else in society).
Stephen or anyone else for that matter is free to donate to charity to reduce his taxable income, but like taxation, charity requires thinking of more than just yourself and your family.
If you get a pay rise (heavens!) that bumps you over $150K and you’d rather not pay your own way but rather rort an unnecessary handout: just give the excess away to a charity like Oxfam or perhaps the Red Cross can heal their bleeding hearts.

Although anyone that blinded by a desire to grab at govt handouts should probably donate to Fred Hollows.

Perhaps this whole $150K freeze will remove the barrier that was forcing these people to turn down any pay rises that would have pushed them over the $150K limit.
*PHEW*
What a relief huh?

Unfair bank exit fees? Do owners allow tenants to break leases without incurring extra charges? No. Renters are liable for anything from a month’s rent to the rest of the lease period. A renter is slugged many times more than the owner is for shifting a 30-year mortgage. What of the other “unfair moving fees” (removalists, cleaning, mail redirection and reconnection fees) an owner can impose on a renter: can we get those paid for by the owners?

While politicians aim their “unfair exit fees” pitchforks: I have a two-year mobile phone plan which has fees if I decide to swap to someone with a better plan. Where are my enraged politicians to take down greedy telecommunications companies?

A two-year gym membership would result in higher exit fees than 30-year mortgage owners would cop. I have a possible solution: mortgage owners could use a small part of the first home owner’s grant, duties exemption or massive tax writeoffs (for negative gearing) to cover these fees.

Nathan Lee Surry Hills

It was followed up the next day by a piece from Ross Gittins on “Demand a better deal and stop moaning about banks“.

Forgive me if I’m less than impressed by the tirade of righteous indignation being unleashed against the banks. It’s self-serving, selective and uninformed.

I guess when you get angry you forget to check things out and think them through. The media and the politicians on both sides are whipping up indignation, rather than conveying information and fostering understanding.

Hear hear!

You'd think you'd read the details on a mortgage contract huh?

So you don’t think I’m just making stuff up
As a concrete example, here’s what Optus had to say about my request to close off my account (because I get shitty reception in the building at work and my phone is pretty useless if I am going to get dropped calls while hugging the window hoping they’ll stay connected.

Hi Nathan,

Thank you for your email.

Your 24 month contract end date is 30 June 2011. Upgrading or Cancelling your service before the end date will incur the following fees-

o $504.00 (including GST) Early Upgrade fee or Contract Cancellation fee
o $112.00 (including GST) Handset Payout fee (8 remaining payments of $14.00 including GST)

I would recommend that you wait until you have only 3 months remaining on your contract to upgrade as we maybe able to offer an upgrade without the Early Upgrade fee.

… snip for brevity..

All the best

Melissa
Web Servicing Team
Optus

So there’s $504 to end my contract nearly a year and a half in and a handset payout fee.. So to get out of just 7 and a half months of a 2 year contract it’ll cost me $616.
Let’s look at what the bank exit fee whingers are complaining about from this article I can gather the following are the exit fees for the big banks:

• ANZ = $700
• CBA = $700
• NAB = $900

So it costs less to move hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage to another bank than it does for me to shift off Optus for ANZ and CBA. So a year into a 30 year contract worth $500k is less expensive to swap than my bloody phone plan.

Fatcat Banker cat says noes.

As I said, maybe they can use some of those tax breaks (for negative gearing) or blatant vote buying handouts (1st homeowner’s grants). If you think the whining is bad now, just wait til these mortgage owners start learning about negative equity. That and politicians seem to forget mortgage owners are in the minority, though I guess most of them are taking advantage of the generous tax scams available to investment property via negative gearing.

Along with the Libs and ALP Bob Brown’s jumped on the bank exit fee bandwagon and reckons:

“It’s time they gave something back to the average Australian.”

No, Bob, they never EVER gave anything to the average Australian. Well, you know, except the fucking mortgage in the first place. *slap*

It's easy to save emissions when you have no electricity.

Although North Korean officials have kept it quiet internationally (like a lot of “internal matters”) the basic idea with this sort of re-value is to reduce the numbers involved in transactions from ridiculous to semi-ridiculous, which by itself isn’t a bad idea. It saves carting wheelbarrows of money just to get a bus ticket or cup of flour. But two things about this re-valuation are pretty god-awful harsh on the population, the first is the timeframe:

North Koreans are thought to have until Sunday to change their old notes into the new currency.

I’m not sure how long the deal has been going, but I’d guess not very long at all.
The goal is:

Many experts believe the reform is intended to curb rising inflation in North Korea.

But the real “let’s take a run up while we screw the population” concept is the following:

.. there appears to be a limit on how much can be exchanged – one report says each adult can cash in only 100,000 won.

That means each adult can exchange about US$740-worth (£445) of won.

That’s 810 bucks Aussie. Or 2 and a half weeks rent at my current place. That’s not all according to the Reuters article:

South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo daily said the ruling, the first time in 50 years Pyongyang has revalued its currency, allows people to keep the equivalent of about $40 in cash — enough to keep a family of four going for two months — and deposit the rest in the bank. They may not withdraw the money on demand.

Tough luck anyone who managed to set a little aside or maybe form part of a not completely dirt poormiddle class. Nope: you guys are back to the state required level of poverty.
I think this also immediately generates the government a list of “near wealthy” (well, near US$750 bucks) people to keep an eye on.

Thank you for your deposit, enjoy our free surveillance as a result.

A list of trader traitors if you will. By controlling ability to withdraw money it essentially rations any money people have and gives the government all but 40 bucks per family worth of its currency to play with. If people ever revolt, the bank can just shut off withdrawals and sweat it out for two months before people have no money left.

An expert on North Korea, Rudiger Frank said of the changes:

officials want to destroy the newly-emerging middle class, many of whom have made money trading in the free markets.

Propaganda poster. The text says "Death to US imperialists, our sworn enemy!"

and another commentator speculates:

The North certainly wanted to get its hands on the cash held by private North Korean traders working the border with China.

So the people aren’t stupid, they didn’t want to have their savings disappear. They might be Downtrodden, scared, bullied, overworked and malnourished, but they’re certainly not stupid: what would you do if your money was about to be made useless? You’d buy anything you can in the hopes of gaining a bartering advantage. Only trouble with that is that everyone else is after the same limited goods.

.. ordinary people were trying to buy as many things as possible with the old money before it becomes worthless – leading to massive price rises.

So shit out of luck there with the goal of reducing inflation huh?

Another North Korean now living in the South said the new won notes were already being used because few people will accept the old ones.

Easy to see why no one would want the old notes: anyone with the maximum swap over amount would be insane to take on any more cash that they have an increasing chance of being stuck with.

I think the only possible way around would be to know a lot of poor people who would fall under the limit and give them a cut of transferring the cash over (and hope they don’t just run off with your money). But given the controls on the withdrawal of money (if the reuters article is correct) that’d be even more difficult to get away with.

Update: Looks like my last suggestion (dividing up money amongst people) can get you killed.

In new reporting on Tuesday, Open Radio for North Korea, a Seoul-based shortwave radio station that broadcasts news to the North, said that police killed the two men in Pyongsong, a market center outside of Pyongyang, on Friday after they divided their savings among a large group of people and urged them to exchange the money for them, attempting to get around the government’s limit.

The answer seems to be: “nothing good”. They are an unnecessary level of proxy between person (e.g. you, me, the average guy in the street) and medical care provider (e.g. doctor, anaesthetist, pharmacist, ambulance service, nurse).
Now in the field of Software Engineering we often add in a proxy between two things for a number of reasons:

• caching (e.g. the proxy accumulates things so it can supply them quicker)
• auditing/logging (e.g. “a paper trail”)
• for coordinating and performing a number of calls to other things (e.g. to talk to A you need to first ask B something)
• for handling errors and exceptions in a nice way

The downside is:

• increased overhead (memory/performance hit)

As far as I can see the only one of those “benefits” are there.. Increased paper-trail. Which in the case of medical care isn’t really a good thing given how much of one there is to start with.
I mean I live in a country with public health (“socialised socialized medicine”.. only the USA calls it that to incite fear of communism, so the z is appropriate) and I’ve only recently been effectively forced to get additional private health cover because the government is pretty much screwing you if you don’t (via tax penalties and lifetime penalties based on age that will kick in for me now) and I can see just how little private health cover offers if you end up outside certain average needs (e.g. waiting lists for various things, lifetime limits, yearly limits, certain hospitals/providers, gap payments.. ). BUT the difference is a year of the near highest cover level of private costs me about what it costs per month in the USA.

Current system costs an arm and a leg

Over half of bankruptcies in the USA are caused by medical costs a recent study said. Some scary bits:

“Unless you’re Bill Gates, you’re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of medicine. “Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.”

and shockingly:

Most of those seeking court protection from creditors had health insurance, with more than three-quarters reporting they had coverage at the start of the illness that triggered bankruptcy.

So it wasn’t even those who didn’t have insurance, it was the ones who did have it but got screwed anyhow!

This sort of thing is pretty much unheard of in the nice public health safety net we have in Australia. It isn’t necessary for me to get private health cover other than to avoid the tax implications and shorten the waiting period if I need elective surgery.

Whether I have private cover or not, if I need treatment (ranging from the “hit by a bus” type situation to developing leukaemia to having a head cold etc) then I’ll get treatment. The same isn’t the case in the USA with private cover needing to cover everything that could happen to you.

I remember during orientation with a US based company: I have never seen so many adults listening so intently to the list of “benefits”. It was like watching kids hearing a fairytale, although this one was about the fantasy of “full coverage”.

Private health-cover in Australia

I’m pretty against the notion of private health-cover in Australia and that the government has to really twist people’s arms to get them to take it up (and they leave in droves when that tax benefit is changed). Having a system that is propped up by people trying to avoid tax is just stupid and means you end up with a bunch of people with pretty much useless cover (e.g. sure, it qualifies you for avoiding the tax break, but can you actually use it? Generally these “minimum cover to get tax relief” schemes provide such poor coverage and high gap payments that you’d have to use the public system)

What it means is that you’re artificially inflating an industry which doesn’t really offer that much benefit and which takes up hospitals which should be available to all for no cost. It also drives a hell of a lot of money to alternative medicine treatments as people try desperately to get some value out of their tax-penalty-enforced private cover. This has three negative consequences in my opinion:

• driving up private health cover further
• promoting health treatments that have no proven benefit whatsoever
• upping the cost of everything because the insurer is paying most of it

Lobbying out of control

This debate in the USA seems to be divided amongst two concerns:

• improving the healthcare provided to all
• maintaining health insurance company profits

Is it just me that thinks one of those is on very shaky ground. What amazes me further is the vast sums of money spent on bribing congressmen from the piles of cash syphoned off the current medical costs (born by US citizens).

Just how many people were denied coverage for something to be able to donate the 9 million dollars to John Kerry’s campaign?

Attitudes need adjusting

One thing out of this whole stupid debate is just how the group attitude of “I ain’t paying for someone else” selfishness covers not only the usual culprits (conservative/republicans) but also many of the democratic/liberal types. I don’t want to further the whole idea that you can only have one of two types of opinion on things (e.g. you’re a liberal or a conservative and that’s all), but I’ve had conversations with people that are furious about a number of usual liberal type issues (same sex marriage, war in iraq, women’s right to abortion, religion separated from state etc) but who on this topic dig their heels in and say they don’t want to be forced to pay for other people’s healthcare.

Perhaps this is one of the weaknesses of the USA’s strength. The cut throat succeed mentality is probably why the USA is the world’s powerhouse economy, although it hasn’t been without casualties. Perhaps now is the time to re-evaluate the situation before the society implodes under the weight of medical costs (and the costs associated with putting off timely medical checkups).

Lots of “socialized stuff” already

Perhaps the people against public health can think about what they currently already pay for in the realm of the dirty socialist concept:

• public roads
• public transport
• public police forces
• public fire fighters
• public libraries
• public utilities
• etc

I really can’t see the same people objecting to healthcare for all taking up arms to protest against “socialised police force” (e.g. police won’t track down your mugger unless you pay for it) or fire brigades run by companies and on an “individual pays” policy (“Oh, your house is burning down.. I’m sorry, your fire brigade insurance only covers week day call outs.. we’ll put it out on monday”).

Some things are never meant to be money making ventures. Ethically healthcare needs to be universal in a civilised society.

Bit of a longer, but most comprehensive coverage of the videos/slides here. In ten minutes you’ll know what happened.

A power point slide show with stick figures gives another explanation here:
http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1

Nice clean, quick description of what’s going on.

The bounce of money (short intro by a news reader.. stick with it), so more of an “end result” type coverage rather than examining how we got here:

Oh and this one is worth mentioning:

How the unemployment statistics are worked out.

Might as well put something silly at the end:

Savings accounts

Anyone who has ever tried to move country will tell you that bank accounts are a pain. Something akin to removing a metre long bandaid from a hairy groin and leg over the period of your stay in the country. Try it now if you like to get prepared: length of elastoplast from ankle to pubic bone.

Conversations with bank account opening people go something like this:

Me: I’d like to open a bank account and get a credit card so I can pay rent, pay bills and receive my pay cheque.

Bank: Great, we’ll need proof of address.

Me: Ok, what’s that then.

Bank: Two of either a utility bill a bank statement or a council rate notice.

Me: But I’m in temporary accommodation and I need a bank account to get a utility bill and anyhow: the first bill will take a month.

Bank: We could use some payslips and a letter from your employee

Me: But I just got into the country and I need a bank account to get paid

Bank: I’m sorry we can’t open one then.

Or you could go down the “we need proof of your identity first” which involves:

• Certified copies of passport/birth certificate signed by your doctor/bank manager/accountant/lawyer who has known you for a certain amount of time
• Proving your address for X number of years
• Stating that you’ve lived in the country for a certain number of years

All of which is really none of their business given they’re not giving you any real interest, charge you to take it out and occasionally completely fuck up the economy via rampant stock market gambling to make vast moneys off this massive slush fund. They should operate on a “no risk, no hassle” policy in my books.

The price you pay for not opening a local bank account: a stream of bad exchange rates and very high ATM fees (5-10 dollars).

Credit Cards

If opening a savings account  is only moderate amounts of pain, then credit cards are worse. This is somewhat fair enough since you could end up costing them whatever the paltry limit that they give you as a dirty expat until you’ve beaten them over the head with your pay slips.

In the UK everything revolves around credit ratings. These credit ratings are surrupticiously collected (you get no choice to opt out!) and then held hostage (you can view it if you have a credit card of course) by the ultimate big brother credit check company: Experian. You can reward them by collecting and making your data available to anyone who pays a few pounds by.. wait for it.. paying them a few pounds.

In HK they want you to be full time employed. Doesn’t matter that you’re on a small fortune by local standards thanks to the ex-pat rate: the guy pushing the little cart of garbage bags up the hill will get a credit card before you. Here’s a conversation I had while trying to get a credit card:

me: Hello, I’d like a credit card please

bank: Sure, we’ll need to see your  ID card, work contract and a business card.

me: Well, I’m on a contract so they don’t give us business cards.

(off in the distance an alarm bell is ringing and armed guards are surrounding the bank: someone in HK that doesn’t have a business card)

bank: You don’t have a business card? (look of horror) Oh, and you’re on a contract: we don’t give cards to people on contracts!

me: But I’m on a decent pay rate I think. You still won’t give me one? What if I earned a million dollars a month, would you still not give me a card? I just need one to get internet at my flat and buy tickets etc.

bank: No. There is another option though.

me: What’s that then?

bank: You can put (equivalent of $8,000 USD) in a term deposit and we can give you a card with a ($4,000 USD) limit

me: Huh? What’s the interest rate.

bank: About 0.5%

me: You’re joking right? You want me to put away MORE than the limit and earn nothing and then you’ll charge me 20% on the balance if I don’t pay on time.

bank: Yes.  (making a puzzled look that I might not like this option)

I think the best story was my friend Sarah who went through massive hassle getting a bank account (proof of where she lived for the last 5 years, certified copies, etc etc) just to get a savings account with limited functionality only to find that her name had a typo thanks to the bank. She told the bank, they promptly closed that account. She queried what was going on and was told “oh, you’ll have to re-apply”. Sho she did, and they rejected her.

Lather, rinse and repeat eh?

Solution to the bank stuff

Try to organise a bank account BEFORE you get to the country. Strange though it seems it’s actually easier to organise outside the country than in. Once you’re in you’re dealing with twits who can’t comprehend that you lived somewhere else in the world. You’ll be bogged in a sea of conditions like “must be a citizen or permanent resident”. There are a few that offer out of country sign up. HSBC have a service for this, although don’t listen to them when they say they’re the “world’s bank”. I call bullshit, they offer a service that’s between ok and mediocre. I think UK HSBC’s best moment was: oh I’m sorry our internet banking doesn’t allow you to view your past statements online because there’s no law to say we have to. They’ll also give you a horribly low credit card limit initially and try to sign you up for an extortionate monthly fee (just swap to a normal account) but that’s better than no bank account.

Backup solution to the bank stuff

If that fails, sad though it makes me to recommend this but: Lie about the irrelevant stuff if you have to (don’t blame me when you end up behind bars).

Stuff like “tick the box to confirm you have lived at this address for the last 12 months” is the equivalent of “I understand the terms of use” or “yes I’m over 18 now show me the hamster porn”. No one really reads them after a while and when you’ve tried to do the right thing and come up against a brick wall of “we can’t” then what are you to do eh?

So you don’t give credit cards to contracts: “Oh, I’ve decided to swap over to full time..” and tick the box. If you’re working for the next year then that IS full time as far as they need to know. Neglect to include the part of the work contract that mentions “contract” and get your boss to write a letter that omits that in a non obvious kind of way.

Or you could just not get paid or buy anything. That solves the problem.

Stay tuned for more areas that the world just plain sucks if you step outside your home country..

Nathan