Baby Boomers May Balk at Direct Deposit

[Everlong204]

NEW YORK - A new survey suggests that baby boomers are more reluctant to embrace direct deposit than their parents, an attitude that could force the government to continue paying millions to mail checks.

 

 

The study, underwritten by the

Treasury Department and the

Federal Reserve banks, found that 59 percent of baby boomers ? those born between 1946 and 1964 ? take advantage of direct deposit of paychecks and government checks, compared with 72 percent of those 65 and older.

 

"If the trend with pre-retires continues, the sheer size of the 77 million baby boomer population, coupled with impending postage increases, will drive up the government's costs to issue paper checks exponentially," said Dick Gregg, commissioner of the Treasury's financial management service.

 

He added: "Taxpayers will bear the burden."

 

It now costs the government 83 cents to produce, mail and process a paper check, about 75 cents more than the 8.5 cents it costs to deal with a directly deposited sum.

 

The study found that the main reasons people avoid direct deposit are: they like to go to a financial institution to deposit their checks, they don't trust direct deposit or they like receiving a paper check.

 

The study was conducted as part of the government's "Go Direct" campaign, aimed at encouraging Americans who receive

Social Security and other government benefit checks to have their money deposited directly into their bank or credit union accounts. The campaign, launched in late 2004, emphasizes the security and convenience of direct deposits.

 

The telephone survey of 1,400 adults was conducted in early December by KRC Research and had a 2.6 percent margin of error.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051227/ap_on_...irect_boomers_6

 

 

I get Direct Deposit from my Job and it is very nice. Money is in the account weither I pick up my paycheck or not. I dont really understand why more people dont take advantage of it.

[Shaq-Man]

This is absolutely, mind-numbingly retarded.

 

72 percent of people in group A, who get monthly Social Security checks from Uncle Sam and are bombarded with direct deposit propaganda, use direct deposit, while only 59% of people in group B, who don't get monthly Social Security checks and who are employed by lord-knows-whom, use direct deposit.

 

"trend"!! :blink:

 

And this junk actually gets published.

[Guest Juanky]

Even if it wasn't completely dumb, this shouldn't be something that's up for debate. The world advances to where a much cheaper alternative is available. Tough.

[Das Texan]

ya either have direct deposit or dont get anything...

 

 

of course i guess they 'could' just take it out of their check in the form of a service charge for a buck or two.

[Guest Juanky]

That would be acceptable, IMO. You want the paper form, have the charge brought down to instead of incurred by others.

[Shaq-Man]

of course i guess they 'could' just take it out of their check in the form of a service charge for a buck or two.

 

that's a good idea.

 

however, what's total bulls*** is when banks now try to charge you if you want your cancelled checks back. that's not free checking.

[PBMarlin]

I cannot imagine not having direct deposit. What a pain it would be to deposit checks directly. Plus the funds are not credited to their accounts as soon either.

[Das Texan]

of course i guess they 'could' just take it out of their check in the form of a service charge for a buck or two.

 

that's a good idea.

 

however, what's total bulls*** is when banks now try to charge you if you want your cancelled checks back. that's not free checking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

i write one maybe two checks a month so thats hardly ever an issue for me..

[yenta]

ya either have direct deposit or dont get anything...

 

 

of course i guess they 'could' just take it out of their check in the form of a service charge for a buck or two.

 

 

 

It costs the employer to offer direct deposit. I work for two places- one offers direct deposit and one doesn't- because it would cost the boss of the 2nd place a fee each month.

 

Personally, I love it. I do all my banking on line and most of my purchases.

[Das Texan]

ya either have direct deposit or dont get anything...

 

 

of course i guess they 'could' just take it out of their check in the form of a service charge for a buck or two.

 

 

 

It costs the employer to offer direct deposit. I work for two places- one offers direct deposit and one doesn't- because it would cost the boss of the 2nd place a fee each month.

 

Personally, I love it. I do all my banking on line and most of my purchases.

but in the long run its cheaper to do direct deposit for the employer than to not do it.

[Lefty]

I don't use direct deposit, but it's because I'm lazy.

[Guest Juanky]

ya either have direct deposit or dont get anything...

 

 

of course i guess they 'could' just take it out of their check in the form of a service charge for a buck or two.

It costs the employer to offer direct deposit. I work for two places- one offers direct deposit and one doesn't- because it would cost the boss of the 2nd place a fee each month.

 

Personally, I love it. I do all my banking on line and most of my purchases.Well, I'm sure it does cost a fee for direct deposit. But I think if you look at the overall costs those fees should be lower than those of producing paper checks.

[Hugg]

I don't use direct deposit, but it's because I'm lazy.

 

 

Wouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, it seems to me it's more work to get checks.

[yenta]

[CapeFish]

Alive and kicking!

 

Excellent :mischief