vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Having worked at a financial institution, this is a somewhat simple, two-part solution. 1) The lendor/vendor/financial institution simply turns off the overdraft protection in all its forms. If no funds are available at a pin-presented transaction, the payment is simply declined. No fee, no overdraft, no mess. 2) This sticking point for a recurring transaction, is that merchants such as Netflix, Gold's Gym etc, CHOOSE to allow payments like this, BECAUSE they are assured they are going to get paid by the financial institution. It prevents them from having issues. Only a gift card will not cost you more money than you put in, BUT I know of several institutions, that too many non-payment periods can cause them to cease doing business with you in the future. TL:DR/IMO If you don't want to pay more than you have, gift cards are the way to go. You can re-charge them whenever you choose, and should you run into a problem, simply buy a new card and start over.
According to https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise, If you didn't order the merchandise, then you don't have to pay for it. I would talk to your doctor about this order and clear it up. I would only suggest paying for the product if you feel it will hurt your relationship with your doctor if you don't pay for it.
You're putting the cart before the horse. I'm perfectly willing to not use government funded services as soon as they're willing to give back the money that was stolen to pay for those things. You can't use ownership as a justification for payment when the payment secured the ownership in the first place and said payment was theft.
&gt;I tell people all the time, if you're out — you're going to take a yoga class and they want to charge you $30, say: 'Look, I've got 20 [dollars].' You know what, they're going to take it.  Uh, no they won't.  Not based on my experience.
You aren't paying for your internet buddy. You are paying for a portion of the services that your internet provider charges you for. However you are not paying for the infrastructure, electricity, utilities, security, and all the other things that are required in order for that ISP to be able to bring internet to your house.
Similar to @SoulsOpenSource's answer, I would suggest Venmo, which works like PayPal but is free for debit-card-to-debit-card transactions. More information here.
The implication is we don't even have to build houses or make cars to get 6%, you just take it out of their wallet directly. For a business subreddit this whole thread is nothing but butthurt debtor faggotry.
"In 2010, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act was passed, which prohibited certain activities, most of which had to do with online sites sharing your CC info with third parties.  However, the final part of the act deals with ""negative option"" marketing, which is basically what you're describing - ""We will charge you unless you say no"". It requires three components to allow a negative option: If you did not explicitly enroll in automatic payment, and made the initial purchase online (or made your most recent purchase online, I suspect) then it sounds like this was a violation of this act.  On the other hand, the act isn't terribly careful about defining terms, and is really quite vague in a lot of places, so it's possible they would argue they are not using a 'negative option' scheme but instead simply charging your bill similar to how your phone company might use autopay. If it was not online, then this probably doesn't apply.  Instead, the FTC's rule on Negative Option with regard to sale of goods applies.  Title 16 Part 425 covers this; this law is much less limiting as to what the marketer can do."
Not web-based, but both Moneydance and You Need A Budget allow this.
There are certain companies that will let you pay a flat fee per month instead of billing you for consumption.  You should call your providers and ask them if they have such an option available; this way budgeting will be easy. :)
"&gt; You can't claim this is government retribution  I didn't.  &gt; just because it's a big company or a ""government-sized"" action.  I'm saying I don't think non-government should be in the position to be able to do government-sized actions, at least not negative and targeted ones.  &gt; PayPal is not a utility.  The Internet is not yet a utility everywhere. Are petrol stations? Non-emergency medical care? (that last one may fall under some other must-serve definition).  Let's say the two ISPs in the US decide that since there's no net neutrality they'll throttle your business to 1 bit per week. Maybe because of your views. Maybe because you compete with them, it's their business and they don't have to justify it.  &gt; You're making incorrect comparisons.  I don't think that I am. OK, let's say all non-utilities are allowed to deny access based on political views of customers or other arbitrary things. What if all the paint stores decided that you are a horrible person, so you are not allowed to buy paint. Eventually your house rots because you need to repaint it every now and then, and now you're homeless. Seems unlikely that they all would do this, right? Oh, but when you look at PayPal and VISA/MasterCard, there's like one. Or two.  What if the quorum of bitcoin transactory things do it? It's not that many, as I understand it.  Denying legal use of money in a de facto monopoly is to me not morally better than denying legal use of money in a public utility monopoly."
"For what it's worth, several of the big ones don't charge for reservations (although they may offer a ""pay in advance"" option with a discount). This gives you the benefit of canceling for free, but unfortunately it also gives them the benefit of cancelling for free."
No, the IRS doesn't care about your transfers.
This is basically a form of credit card kiting, it's not necessarily illegal but it can be. It is, however, against the TOS in pretty much every merchant agreement (including Paypal and Square), so you'd most likely have your account suspended, and the merchant could pursue legal action if they felt they could prove intent to deceive. It's not practical given actual fee structures, but even if it were, most merchants are quite good at detecting this sort of thing and quick to shut down accounts.
There is a funny story about that.  If you were visiting Apple and Jobs was taking you to lunch in the cafe - he would insist on paying.  Employees, get to checkout and have their badge scanned and the cost of the food is deducted from their paycheck.  So why did Steve always insist on treating for lunch?  He was enjoying all he (and guests) could eat for $1 a year.
"It sounds like what you are looking for are sites that offer pre-paid debit cards as rewards. A number of survey/get-paid-to sites do offer these as a potential reward; they are more irritating than having the money in a bank account or paypal balance, as they expire if not used within some amount of time, and generally come with restrictions on what you can use them on (they work like credit cards, but the site providing the card can reject your request if it doesn't like the site you're trying to pay.). Plus, you can only use a single debit card per purchase, so if you have two $20 prepaid cards, you can't use them both to make a $40 dollar purchase. Still, this does satisfy your requirements, assuming the game you want to transfer to and the provider of the prepaid card you're being rewarded with are willing to work together. You can use SurveyPolice to search for sites that offer the type of reward you want - filtering by offered reward type is an option under their ""pick-a-perk"" page.  Though it's likely many of those sites also require you to be at least 18 as well, as that's a pretty common restriction - you'll have to verify that part yourself. For that matter, you would want to check age restrictions on the sites those sites partner with to offer prepaid cards, as well."
__________ _________ ____________ Therefore, I get the outcome I want.   The human brain must think: it can't stop.  If you don't believe me, try meditating.    The mental process of putting stuff in those blanks is called rationalization.  This is a bored mind who wants something.  If that mind is not particularly well disciplined, those things will get pretty unrealistic.   That is what has happened to your friend.  Landlords do not like drama.  They do like money.  Generally a landlord will be happy to take your money any reasonable way that they can achieve.  It sounds like either your landlord lost the ability to do credit cards, or he got sick of paying the 3% overhead, or some other overhead costs that may be higher because he does not have the right credit card merchant service.  For instance PayPal Here charges 2.70% flat, but a traditional swiper can cost up to $2000 a year in trumped up fees and charges.   As soon as the landlord calls the rent a debt, he has to take cash.  But in most places, rental is at-will, and the landlord can evict for any reason or no reason at all (except race, creed, color, national origin, family, running a daycare center and a few other protected reasons)...  and there's not a whole lot you can do about it.  Even for a lease he can trump up a reason.  Your friend would be wise to have a meeting of the minds with the landlord about how he'd like to pay.  Business is done by mutual consent, not non-consensual legal tricks.  I agree, I wouldn't do ACH either.   One problem with ACH (or credit) is the landlord can charge anything he pleases, and that's when they start sneaking in devious surcharges for things.  Once he's pulled the money out, you're really at a disadvantage to argue, since he already has the money. And it's really difficult to do a chargeback on part of a payment, so you end up having to chargeback the entire rent check, and now he can evict you.
there is no tax for receiving money from outside of india paypal just take their charges only
There are numerous reasons that go beyond the immediate requirement for access to credit.  Many people just plain don't like carrying cash. Before electronic debit cards became mainstream about the only way to pay for online services was with a credit card.  This has now changed just about everywhere except a large number of airlines which still only sell online tickets via a credit card payment. And then there are all those countries where governments (and some banks) have decided to charge merchants more when customers use debit cards.  If you don't like carrying cash then you may find that the only card you can use is a credit card. These concerns are gradually disappearing and at some stage someone is likely to offer a combined debit-credit card. At which point you'll probably get credit whether you like it or not.
You can insist on it with your employer, and if you don't have an employment contract that forbids it they can fire you or possibly even deduct it from your pay anyway (and this reason might not be one that allows you to collect unemployment insurance benefits - but you'd need to check with an expert on that). You can refuse to pay AT&T directly, and they can cancel the internet service - and your employer can then do the same as in the previous condition. Or you can choose to pay it - or ask your employer to split the cost over a few checks if it is rather high - and that's about it. Like the cost of anything else you have to pay - from your own food to your computer, clothes, etc - it's best to just consider it your own ""cost of doing business"" and decide if it's still in your interest to keep working there, and for something to consider in future pay negotiations! You may also qualify for an itemized Employee Business Expense deduction from the IRS, but you'll need to read the requirements carefully and get/keep a receipt for such expenses."
The person I was responding to didn't say they aren't making a profit, and he didn't say they aren't generating any revenue. He said they don't make money, which is ambiguous.  Saying a company isn't making any profit has a clear meaning. Saying a company isn't generating revenue has a clear meaning.  Saying a company isn't making any money does not. It could imply the company is not generating any revenue at all, or that it's not realizing a profit from the revenue that it is generating.  I'm not sure how you read my original comment and come away with the idea that I don't understand the difference between profit and revenue when that was specifically the point I was making.
"Speaking from personal experience: I have had a credit card canceled for exactly this reason. It's happened to me three times, with two different providers (NatWest and Nationwide). After the third instance I stopped bothering to even carry a credit card. It's worth noting that all three were ""free"" cards in the sense that I paid no flat fee or subscription to get the cards. The only way the issuer could make a profit on them was through interest. I was also not a frequent user, carrying the card for convenience more than anything else, although I did make purchases on all three. So it's certainly a possibility. But I live in the UK and I'm guessing most of your other respondents do not. It may be a practice that's more common here than in the US. That might even explain the origin of the rumour."
What on earth are you talking about.    In the real world, money for programs such as universities and schools isn't something you pay up front and then stop paying for when it gets inconvenient; unless you want to abolish them.
so you and your friend are trying to make a federal case over the fact that he's going to have to pay $1-3 in a month's time?   [they had this rather popular series of self-help books a while back.](http://www.amazon.com/Sweat-Small-Stuff---small-Series/dp/0786881852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1339809567&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=don%27t+sweat+the+small+stuff) perhaps the two of you should explore it.
I don't at all agree that it violates Square terms of service.  But having said that, it's a bloody expensive way to do things.  Square charges beaucoup fees, that more than obliterate any kind of points you might earn. Only for emergencies, should one do this.
It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant.  As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch.    If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples.
"but simple economics also proves that if you have no savings (most millennials do not these days at least in Canada) and you have no income, then you have no entertainment or more importantly no shelter and food. I would understand taking a cashier job instead of store manager job because of the fewer hours and responsibility, but does ""no income"" not mean you go hungry? If that is true, where are they getting their food from?"
A lot of dating sites work on a subscription model. So do websites like O'Reilly's Safari Bookshelf with technical documentation. A lot of sites which do not force you to pay also allow donations of some kind, e.g. reddit's gold system or all those webcomics using Patreon or something similar.
"Well, I answered a very similar question ""Credit card payment date"" where I showed that for a normal cycle, the average charge isn't due for 40 days. The range is 35-55, so if you want to feel good about the float just charge everything the day after the cycle closes, and nothing else the rest of the month. Why is this so interesting? It's no trick, and no secret.  By the way, this isn't likely to be of any use when you're buying gas, groceries, or normal purchases. But, I suppose if you have a large purchase, say a big TV, $3000, this will buy you extra time to pay. It would be remiss of me to not clearly state that anyone who needs to take advantage of this ""trick"" is the same person who probably shouldn't use credit cards at all. Those who use cards are best served by charging what they can afford to pay at that moment and not base today's charges on what paychecks will come in by the due date of the credit card bill."
In some case the customer wants the name to be cryptic or misleading. They don't want to advertise the true nature of the business they visited. In other cases the transaction may be reported through another business. A few years ago the local PTA was having a silent auction as a fundraiser. A local business allowed the PTA to use their credit card reader to process transactions over a certain amount. Of course when the credit card statement arrived it looked like you spent $500 at the florist. I have seen PayPal listed when donating to some small charities.  I have noted another case where confusion can occur. I used a debit card to buy a soda from a vending machine: the name and location were the name of the vending machine company and the location of their main office. It didn't say  soda machine city A. It said Joe's vending company city B. In most cases the business and the credit card company want to make it easy to identify the transactions to keep the cost of research and charge backs to a minimum.
Avoiding a cost (interest) isn't quite the same as income. There is no entry, nothing for you to consider for this avoided interest.  What you do have is an expense that's no longer there, and you can decide to use that money elsewhere each month.
Sure: right after you pay for all things that one NEEDS.  What is left over should be for WANTS.    Not the other way around.    You are essentially telling people that do useful things that they should get paid very little...not a good message.  It shouldn't be the outlier medical care, scientists, and engineers that are actually making the world a better place to get paid extremely well.
"&gt;""I have decided that your legal enterprise should not be allowed to make money"" is terrible!  That's not what's happening. They're simply saying that their private company service won't be the one to enable that money making.  You can't claim this is government retribution just because it's a big company or a ""government-sized"" action.   &gt;If you are in favour of this then you should be in favour of the phone company, the electricity company, and gas company to deny service to anyone who's ever been accused of being a paedophile.  PayPal is not a utility. You're making incorrect comparisons."
I have no choice but to write a few checks a month. That's the only way the recipient will allow me to pay them. It's annoying af but I have no alternative. I suspect that's the same for many people. It's not us who wants to retain checks, it's stupid corporations and government agencies who will only accept checks or who charge extra for paying with a debit or credit card.
I don't have much to add other than your signature is not required to process a charge.  Signatures are kept on file for validity in the event you dispute a charge.  Your signature isn't held in some magical database with signature recognition software.  If you draw an shark in the signature section of a receipt that won't stop the charge from processing.  In fact, many merchants don't even bother requiring the signature below a certain threshold. There are loads of behind the scenes processing improvements offered by the EMV chip; namely prevention of card number skimming and duplication via encrypted transaction signing.  While requiring a PIN adds an additional layer of security, simply processing via chip dramatically improves the network fraud prevention tools in a manner that is almost completely transparent to the user. To your point, if your wallet is lost and an imposer holds your physical card there is no anti-fraud improvement.  At any rate, you have zero fraud liability in the US.
They clearly learned that this was a bad move **and then backtracked**. If you reward them now, you positively reinforce their backtracking, and their thinking of consumers' needs. If you punish them now, you negatively reinforce these behaviours, making them less likely in the future.  Also, just because you didn't see a line item on your bill doesn't mean that you were not paying for this service. In fact, the people who use the service are being subsidized by other people who use cheaper-to-provide services, like paying via their bank. Should Verizon force some customers to give money to others because they won't use a cheaper method? This status quo is what is being reverted to.
Not asking for any societal benefits. Just to pay for the services I need and want and not a penny more. If you can't offer a service I want I reserve the right to shop around without leaving my home. Just asking to pay the exact same price as everyone else without the special pricing for some. I already opted out of most of the services your claiming I use by leaving the cities where those things are offered. But you keep arguing to steal from me for things I don't want and that can be provided by other providers.
Let me opt out of the parts I don't want to pay for, then. I'll gladly not pay for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, etc. and not receive the benefits, for starters!  I'm not costing the government anything by existing here and doing business with people. In fact, I'm paying taxes indirectly for services I'm not receiving.
If I remember correctly, the Netflix settlement was rejected under similar circumstances.  The court ended up agreeing that offering free advertising was not a /punishment/ to Netflix.  The same should hold here, too.  Sooo...  Now we just need a convenient way to object...