In the US, if you don't have a bank account, the government will just send you a debit card that they will load a balance on for your benefits/welfare. For example, here's a description of the Social Security debit card program.
Most of these people do have access to a bank account - most of them are free - if they wanted one, but they choose not to get one for various reasons.
I think in terms of American politics, there would be some resistance in requiring people to have a bank account.
> I think in terms of American politics, there would be some resistance in requiring people to have a bank account.
I think it's fair from the government (and employers) to stick to the most effective way to deliver payments, and not enable third party check-cashing business (which doesn't exist here anyway) and/or companies issuing high-fees prepaid cards.
Since we are specifically talking about checks, I'm not sure you were ever able to cash one out without having your own bank account anyway. And even assuming the scenario where you want to walk in the issuing bank, what if they have zero or limited physical presence?
These cards are essentially issued by the government. There are no fees associated with purchases, only fees associated with multiple cash withdrawals in a month (which some banks also have) and with bank transfers.
There's really not much downside to that alternative - it's basically the government creating a limited-use bank account for you and tying it to a card.
> I'm not sure you were ever able to cash one out without having your own bank account anyway.
Why would that be? The only reason other banks want you to have an account is because they can't know whether it's a good check, i.e., whether or not the payer actually has the funds to pay the check, so they need a way of clawing back the money (by drafting your account) if it's bad.
> And even assuming the scenario where you want to walk in the issuing bank, what if they have zero or limited physical presence?
Well, until recently, they would be a pretty uncommon scenario.
I do generally believe that being "unbanked" is a poor decision, but at the same time, I'm a little uneasy at the idea that we should all be effectively forced into participating in the banking system, which, while it is beneficial in many ways, also serves as a key way to redistribute wealth to the wealthy. I'm not a huge fan of check cashing businesses - which does include large companies like WalMart - but if people are really making the free and conscious choice to not have a bank account and they prefer to pay $5 to get a check cashed, well, I would have a problem with someone telling them they have to get a bank account to participate in society, if what they're doing works for them.
BTW - if you have some links on the cash transaction limits, I'd be interested in reading them. It seems kind of crazy that a country could tell its citizens they can't pay in cash above certain amounts.
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10073.pdf
Most of these people do have access to a bank account - most of them are free - if they wanted one, but they choose not to get one for various reasons.
I think in terms of American politics, there would be some resistance in requiring people to have a bank account.