4 ms·

so the benefit is that paying by card makes tracking your expenses easier. but the downside is that it also makes makes profiling easier for anyone who can get

by em-bee 3y ago

so the benefit is that paying by card makes tracking your expenses easier. but the downside is that it also makes makes profiling easier for anyone who can get access to your bank statements which not only includes the bank but more critically also walmart or any other place where you shop regularly. i rather track my spending manually. there are tools that can help with that too, like receipt scanners. granted, it's more work, so one needs to weigh the options. for me though, supermarkets are the last place that i want to be able to track my shopping because most of it happens there.

lazide 3y ago
The challenge of course, is it's easy to lose or misplace receipts, etc. Some of us have issues with (essentially) self sabotage that way. Some of us have also had issues with people in our lives not so accidentally sabotaging (or stealing) things that way. Come to think of it, I don't know any long term married couples that didn't have one of the two do SOMETHING like that at some point. The nice thing (or terrible, if you're worried about privacy) about credit cards is you can go back as long as you need and figure out what money went where, from whom. When cash is gone, it's gone. If someone has to provide receipts/prove expenses to get more, that can be managed. If someone can just pull it out, less so. Pros and cons either way, of course.
- em-bee 3y ago
  well, it depends on how you look at it, no matter how much you deceive yourself (or your partner), in the end it only matters if you spend above or below your means. if you spent to much it doesn't really matter where the money went in the past, you need to fix the spending in the future. finding who or what to blame is only half the problem. either you both agree to manage finances or you don't. if you can, put some money aside in a locked savings account that noone can touch. (i had a special savings account that would only generate interest as long as i didn't touch it, but kept paying into it regularly). that's a good way to prevent money from disappearing.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Ah, sweet summer child. The problem cases almost always agree to manage finances together and be reasonable! The money still disappears. No records just makes it easier to be gaslit, or blamed by the actual perpetrator in a court of law. At least when it’s recorded by a third party it’s harder to bullshit about. Two separate friends of mine had their spouses (when under stress) nearly bankrupt both of them using credit cards they signed up for without their knowledge. They found them on their credit reports due to something unrelated, and at least was able to track down what had happened. Both wives had been shredding the statements. One had racked up $80k, another $70k. Personally, I had a large and very vague amount of cash disappear (approx $10k) through likely fake expenses just before getting hit with a bunch of false accusations - when I tried to get away from an abusive ex. Considering I’d been trying to get her to sit down with me and discuss household finances for awhile and how much gaslighting and confusion she was making on the topic (and I really wish I was projecting on this), it was probably a whole lot more. But very difficult to discern. The legal chaos she created shortly afterwards meant I never could get an answer what happened. And frankly was a drop in the bucket compared to the other damage she did. Could have been worse - I have an acquaintance who’s husband got a HELOC on their house and then bailed with all the money before she found out. 5+ years of drama.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      sure, but those are cases of outright deception, where, with a bit more energy by the deceiver, tracking expenses through the bank may not have helped. and i am sorry for what you had to go through. your experience makes me think of a discussion just a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36767454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36767454 i don't know how one can protect against that. the only thing i can think of is to prevent anyone in the family from having a high credit limit. or avoid credit cards altogether. but that's much easier here where credit cards are less common.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Unfortunately, any of the protective actions one could take would be legitimately abusive and controlling against someone who ISN'T one of those messed up people. So if someone feels like they need it, either they really shouldn't be getting married to that person (but are in denial), OR they're probably a legit abusive spouse. And really shouldn't be marrying anyone. And in most places, if you're married, legally you can't stop the partner from entering the 'community' into debt like that, or encumbering community property. So to your point, yeah it couldn't be stopped even with bank tracking. But it is harder to do that way. The most you could do is make the responsible party take on the debt entirely on their own later when the divorce settles, but anyone likely to do this kind of BS will make that a multi-year living hell. It's rarely worth the attempt, as legal fees will often far outweigh any money recovered. There is a reason that 99% of family law attorneys will tell men to just not get married. For guys, 99% of them will also tell them to just not let women live with them (due to various ways THAT is often used against men), etc. Pre-nups are important and can reduce the damage, but are not bullet proof. For women, the system does generally favor them - but they can and will be drug through hell if they end up with a problem spouse too. And can end up with life altering debt (problem gamblers being a common pattern), abusive partners they can't get rid of, etc. They're more likely to be murdered in a bad situation too, by a long shot. If someone has an actual reasonable spouse (and is actually reasonable) but want to get divorced, then it's actually not that big a deal and it can be resolved relatively quickly. And that does happen. But for the most part, most of those people don't end up needing the system anyway - as both people are actually reasonable. And people who aren't from backgrounds that result in them being blind to signs of real problem behaviors usually see and avoid the really dangerous people anyway before they can get their hooks in. The best prevention frankly is having two loving, stable parents who raised someone well, to have not been abused as a child, and to be nurtured, etc.. So that someone knows what 'good' feels like, has reasonable role models that cover the common gender setups and models healthy behaviors, etc. It's far from foolproof though, and those situations are actually quite rare. What is common is setups that LOOK like that, but are actually deeply screwed up when you're inside - but in ways the participants can't or won't see. Folks with NPD, ASPD, and other Cluster B personalities in particular are powerfully manipulative and destructive, and can pretend to be really amazing and wonderful until you're already 'stuck'. Co-dependent behavior is rampant. Etc.
majormajor 3y ago
We can't be that far from the facial recognition in stores/at registers building that same profile for cash customers :(
- em-bee 3y ago
  true, but laws making that illegal are also being considered at least in some places, which means awareness of the dangers does exist
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  It’s still socially acceptable to wear a face mask in public
  - em-bee 3y ago
    not everywhere. at least some european countries and aparently some places in the US too ban the wearing of facemasks, some only on large public assemblies and some ban it in general. covid of course made mockery of those laws.

by em-bee 3y ago

lazide 3y ago

The challenge of course, is it's easy to lose or misplace receipts, etc. Some of us have issues with (essentially) self sabotage that way. Some of us have also had issues with people in our lives not so accidentally sabotaging (or stealing) things that way. Come to think of it, I don't know any long term married couples that didn't have one of the two do SOMETHING like that at some point. The nice thing (or terrible, if you're worried about privacy) about credit cards is you can go back as long as you need and figure out what money went where, from whom. When cash is gone, it's gone. If someone has to provide receipts/prove expenses to get more, that can be managed. If someone can just pull it out, less so. Pros and cons either way, of course.

em-bee 3y ago
well, it depends on how you look at it, no matter how much you deceive yourself (or your partner), in the end it only matters if you spend above or below your means. if you spent to much it doesn't really matter where the money went in the past, you need to fix the spending in the future. finding who or what to blame is only half the problem. either you both agree to manage finances or you don't. if you can, put some money aside in a locked savings account that noone can touch. (i had a special savings account that would only generate interest as long as i didn't touch it, but kept paying into it regularly). that's a good way to prevent money from disappearing.
- lazide 3y ago
  Ah, sweet summer child. The problem cases almost always agree to manage finances together and be reasonable! The money still disappears. No records just makes it easier to be gaslit, or blamed by the actual perpetrator in a court of law. At least when it’s recorded by a third party it’s harder to bullshit about. Two separate friends of mine had their spouses (when under stress) nearly bankrupt both of them using credit cards they signed up for without their knowledge. They found them on their credit reports due to something unrelated, and at least was able to track down what had happened. Both wives had been shredding the statements. One had racked up $80k, another $70k. Personally, I had a large and very vague amount of cash disappear (approx $10k) through likely fake expenses just before getting hit with a bunch of false accusations - when I tried to get away from an abusive ex. Considering I’d been trying to get her to sit down with me and discuss household finances for awhile and how much gaslighting and confusion she was making on the topic (and I really wish I was projecting on this), it was probably a whole lot more. But very difficult to discern. The legal chaos she created shortly afterwards meant I never could get an answer what happened. And frankly was a drop in the bucket compared to the other damage she did. Could have been worse - I have an acquaintance who’s husband got a HELOC on their house and then bailed with all the money before she found out. 5+ years of drama.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    sure, but those are cases of outright deception, where, with a bit more energy by the deceiver, tracking expenses through the bank may not have helped. and i am sorry for what you had to go through. your experience makes me think of a discussion just a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36767454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36767454 i don't know how one can protect against that. the only thing i can think of is to prevent anyone in the family from having a high credit limit. or avoid credit cards altogether. but that's much easier here where credit cards are less common.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Unfortunately, any of the protective actions one could take would be legitimately abusive and controlling against someone who ISN'T one of those messed up people. So if someone feels like they need it, either they really shouldn't be getting married to that person (but are in denial), OR they're probably a legit abusive spouse. And really shouldn't be marrying anyone. And in most places, if you're married, legally you can't stop the partner from entering the 'community' into debt like that, or encumbering community property. So to your point, yeah it couldn't be stopped even with bank tracking. But it is harder to do that way. The most you could do is make the responsible party take on the debt entirely on their own later when the divorce settles, but anyone likely to do this kind of BS will make that a multi-year living hell. It's rarely worth the attempt, as legal fees will often far outweigh any money recovered. There is a reason that 99% of family law attorneys will tell men to just not get married. For guys, 99% of them will also tell them to just not let women live with them (due to various ways THAT is often used against men), etc. Pre-nups are important and can reduce the damage, but are not bullet proof. For women, the system does generally favor them - but they can and will be drug through hell if they end up with a problem spouse too. And can end up with life altering debt (problem gamblers being a common pattern), abusive partners they can't get rid of, etc. They're more likely to be murdered in a bad situation too, by a long shot. If someone has an actual reasonable spouse (and is actually reasonable) but want to get divorced, then it's actually not that big a deal and it can be resolved relatively quickly. And that does happen. But for the most part, most of those people don't end up needing the system anyway - as both people are actually reasonable. And people who aren't from backgrounds that result in them being blind to signs of real problem behaviors usually see and avoid the really dangerous people anyway before they can get their hooks in. The best prevention frankly is having two loving, stable parents who raised someone well, to have not been abused as a child, and to be nurtured, etc.. So that someone knows what 'good' feels like, has reasonable role models that cover the common gender setups and models healthy behaviors, etc. It's far from foolproof though, and those situations are actually quite rare. What is common is setups that LOOK like that, but are actually deeply screwed up when you're inside - but in ways the participants can't or won't see. Folks with NPD, ASPD, and other Cluster B personalities in particular are powerfully manipulative and destructive, and can pretend to be really amazing and wonderful until you're already 'stuck'. Co-dependent behavior is rampant. Etc.

majormajor 3y ago

We can't be that far from the facial recognition in stores/at registers building that same profile for cash customers :(

em-bee 3y ago
true, but laws making that illegal are also being considered at least in some places, which means awareness of the dangers does exist
fullspectrumdev 3y ago
It’s still socially acceptable to wear a face mask in public
- em-bee 3y ago
  not everywhere. at least some european countries and aparently some places in the US too ban the wearing of facemasks, some only on large public assemblies and some ban it in general. covid of course made mockery of those laws.