Quicken Starter Edition question
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Richard Maine on 23 Jun 2010 16:56 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1jkjf83.hlxnye1931pw9N%nospam(a)see.signature>, Richard Maine > <nospam(a)see.signature> wrote: > > The biggest drawback, in my experience, is somewhat subtly related, but > > from a criticaly different perspective. Because the bank takes the money > > from your account immediately, you have *NO* information about if or > > when the check actually got to the payee. > > yes you do have information: there's a status field, at least with my > bank That's your bank. It hasn't been the case with any of the several I used such things with. Besides which... > > A secondary drawback is that it isn't integrated with my personal > > finance program. > my bank's web site is now my 'checkbook'. it's much, much better than a > paper one. Apparently you don't use a personal finance program at all. A good personal finance program is a *LOT* more than just a checkbook. If all you need/want is a checkbook, then that might be fine for you, but sure not for me. (To briefly tie a little back to the thread's original subject, Quicken Essentials doesn't go much beyond being a checkbook, which is much of its problem). Plus you apparently have everything completely dependent on your bank. Change banks and you get to redo it all (and maybe find that the new bank doesn't work the same way). If the bank changes anything (say they decide to start charging, increase their charges, just change the service in some inconvenient way, or whatever), you are stuck with it unless you change banks. You don't even have personal copies of your data under your own control (nothing on the bank's servers counts as being under your control). Maybe completely turning over control of your entire financial life to a single bank is fine for you. Obviously, you would not be the only one. Other people do that too. But don't try to tell me that the *ONLY* (your term) drawback relates to losing a few days of float. Well, feel free to tell me, but it would be a waste of time, as I'm not buying that one. Heck, I don't use my ISP's email or usenet services. I preferred to pay for 3rd party services just so that I wouldn't be so tied to the ISP. That proved handy when I switched ISPs a few years back. (And further handy because my current ISP later stopped offerring usenet service.) Financial stuff is a lot bigger deal than email+usenet. No way I want to "sell my soul" to any single bank. I have credit cards from multiple banks, and part of the reason is so that I can feel free to tell any one of them to go take a flying leap should I get sufficiently annoyed with them. It is less convenient to maintain multiple checking accounts; actually I do have 3 of them at the moment, but 2 are for various business purposes instead of home use. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: nospam on 23 Jun 2010 17:30 In article <1jkjk9q.3fd1c0jmtwckN%nospam(a)see.signature>, Richard Maine <nospam(a)see.signature> wrote: > > > The biggest drawback, in my experience, is somewhat subtly related, but > > > from a criticaly different perspective. Because the bank takes the money > > > from your account immediately, you have *NO* information about if or > > > when the check actually got to the payee. > > > > yes you do have information: there's a status field, at least with my > > bank > > That's your bank. It hasn't been the case with any of the several I used > such things with. Besides which... then you need to find a better bank. don't fault online banking because you picked a bank that offers a system with limited functionality or charges fees for what should be free. > > > A secondary drawback is that it isn't integrated with my personal > > > finance program. > > > my bank's web site is now my 'checkbook'. it's much, much better than a > > paper one. > > Apparently you don't use a personal finance program at all. i haven't found one that doesn't suck in one way or another, and i don't want to be tied to particular software. > Plus you apparently have everything completely dependent on your bank. > Change banks and you get to redo it all (and maybe find that the new > bank doesn't work the same way). If the bank changes anything (say they > decide to start charging, increase their charges, just change the > service in some inconvenient way, or whatever), you are stuck with it > unless you change banks. You don't even have personal copies of your > data under your own control (nothing on the bank's servers counts as > being under your control). that is an issue, and yes i most certainly do have copies. what if you want to change software? i know someone who has used quicken for years and wants desperately to change to something that doesn't suck. he's tried a few of the alternatives but they don't properly import his history (spanning over a decade), or they don't support certain features he needs. he's *stuck* with quicken. > Maybe completely turning over control of your entire financial life to a > single bank is fine for you. Obviously, you would not be the only one. > Other people do that too. where in the world did you get the idea that one turns over control of their entire financial life to a bank merely by using online banking?? > But don't try to tell me that the *ONLY* (your > term) drawback relates to losing a few days of float. Well, feel free to > tell me, but it would be a waste of time, as I'm not buying that one. i can't think of any other drawback. it's a *substantial* improvement over paper checks, envelopes, stamps and handling all that paper. > Heck, I don't use my ISP's email or usenet services. I preferred to pay > for 3rd party services just so that I wouldn't be so tied to the ISP. > That proved handy when I switched ISPs a few years back. (And further > handy because my current ISP later stopped offerring usenet service.) i don't see how that relates to banking. > Financial stuff is a lot bigger deal than email+usenet. No way I want to > "sell my soul" to any single bank. I have credit cards from multiple > banks, and part of the reason is so that I can feel free to tell any one > of them to go take a flying leap should I get sufficiently annoyed with > them. It is less convenient to maintain multiple checking accounts; > actually I do have 3 of them at the moment, but 2 are for various > business purposes instead of home use. so get accounts at multiple institutions. my bank has atm fees, but charles schwab has no atm fees, period. if an atm dings you a couple of bucks, they cover it. unfortunately, it does show up as a debit followed by a credit rather than not being there at all, but that's minor.
From: nospam on 23 Jun 2010 17:31 In article <michelle-FA5C4B.13424523062010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > > There are a few businesses that still require checks or cash. My > > > former landscaper, for one. The company that fertilizes my citrus > > > trees, for another. > > > > the bank will mail one for you. > > Yeah, but as I said, at a cost of $6.95 a month. as i said, some banks don't charge for it.
From: Richard Maine on 23 Jun 2010 17:54 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > so get accounts at multiple institutions. No. Actually I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing now, thank you. Everything has problems, including it, but I did not post to this thread to look for suggestions about what I should do. Nor did I post to tell you what I think you should do. I posted to this subthread because *YOU* were the one who asked why everyone else didn't do things the way you do (in particular, you questioned why anyone would still use paper checks instead of doing it all online). I tried to explain some reasons why some people (me, for example) might choose differently. If I haven't adequately explained myself, I guess that's too bad, as I have said (more than) enough on the subject. None of this means I think that everyone should do things the way I do (in terms of banking). I'm quite sure it is ill suited to some people. I have no intention of trying to "convert" you or anyone else. That's just not a crusade that would much interest me at all. But I was not asking for and am not interested in your advice on changing my banking practices. Please note that I did not suggest that you change yours. I just said that your apparent preferences were not for me, which is not at all the same thing as saying that you should change them. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: nospam on 23 Jun 2010 18:22
In article <1jkjnc3.115zokd1q85doyN%nospam(a)see.signature>, Richard Maine <nospam(a)see.signature> wrote: > > so get accounts at multiple institutions. > > No. Actually I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing now, thank you. > Everything has problems, including it, but I did not post to this thread > to look for suggestions about what I should do. Nor did I post to tell > you what I think you should do. the issues you mentioned could be resolved by making some changes, but if you don't want to do that, that's fine. your choice. > I posted to this subthread because *YOU* were the one who asked why > everyone else didn't do things the way you do (in particular, you > questioned why anyone would still use paper checks instead of doing it > all online). I tried to explain some reasons why some people (me, for > example) might choose differently. If I haven't adequately explained > myself, I guess that's too bad, as I have said (more than) enough on the > subject. i think online banking is substantially better, and the main reason people don't use it is because they're resistant to change. one day paper checks will be a relic of history, but if they suit you today, so be it. some people still use film cameras. :) > None of this means I think that everyone should do things the way I do > (in terms of banking). I'm quite sure it is ill suited to some people. I > have no intention of trying to "convert" you or anyone else. That's just > not a crusade that would much interest me at all. i'm not trying to convert anyone. use whatever you want. it's when you say things like i'm dependent on one bank or giving up control that's a pure crock. i have more control than i ever did. > But I was not asking for and am not interested in your advice on > changing my banking practices. Please note that I did not suggest that > you change yours. I just said that your apparent preferences were not > for me, which is not at all the same thing as saying that you should > change them. i'm not suggesting anyone change anything, just pointing out the benefits. |