Is there any downside snapping a picture (or scanning a copy) of every check one writes vs. using a duplicate check?
"For me, the main benefit of using duplicate checks is that the copy is created automatically.  If I had to take an extra step, whether taking a photo or writing on a stub, I would probably not always remember to do it.  There is also the issue that you might need to write a check when you don't have your smartphone with you, or it is broken or has a dead battery, etc. There are various pros and cons of having an electronic record versus a paper record.  A paper copy of a check is more vulnerable to physical loss or intrusion, but an electronic record is more vulnerable to hacking.  You also have to keep the images organized somehow, and take care of data security and backups for the images.  You'll have to evaluate which is the greater concern for you. A minor side point is that check duplicates often omit the account number and obscure your signature.  A photo of the original check would include both of these. As far as ""evidence"", it seems to me they're both equally good evidence that you wrote the check - but that's not really that useful.  In most sorts of disputes, what you would need to prove is that you actually delivered the check to the intended recipient, and neither the photo nor the paper copy is evidence of that.  You could have written the check, taken your photo / copy, and then torn it up." No, there is no downside. I personally don't use duplicate checks.  I simply make a record of the checks I write in the check register.  A copy of the check, whether a duplicate or a photo, isn't really proof of payment for anyone but yourself, as it is very easy to write a check after the fact and put a different date on it. "When banks would return the actual physical cheque, at least you had some printing / writing from the other bank on it, as some type of not-easily-Photoshopped proof. Now many (most?) banks don't return the actual cheques anyway, just an image of it - sometimes a low quality shrunken B&W photocopy-like image too.  You'd have to check with a lawyer or court in your area, but I suspect any photocopy or image, as well as a written or carbon-copy duplicate, would not be good enough proof for a law court, since they could all be easily re-written or Photoshopped. So I don't think there's a real upside anyway. Only an official bank statement saying that the name/people written actually cashed the cheque might be ""good evidence"" (I'm having doubts that the bank's own low quality ""image"" would even qualify, unless it's verified as coming directly from the bank somehow). I'd agree with Nate (+1) that a big downside could be identity theft, either online or alongside phone loss/theft."
Assuming neither one charges a fee and you are talking about automated non-cash, non-check transactions: Withdrawal is slightly better if you are 100% sure you have the money (or better yet, twice the money) to cover it.  It puts more incentive on the bank that is responsible for the act to do it correctly, because they will then be the bank holding the money.  It also creates an added check because there is no possibility of having an error in transfer information result in sending your money to the wrong account.  (This is unlikely anyway, but not impossible depending on the bank and interface). Deposit may be slightly better if you are not, or if you are concerned about technical foul-ups at the bank.  Depending on the bank, a deposit with insufficient funds may be cancelled rather than going through and then being cancelled, which could result in various banking fees (returned item fees, overdraft fees, etc...).   If there is a technical foul-up during a withdrawal, you run the risk of having banks get confused--I know of a case where it took a major bank months to fix a withdrawal transaction that was denied the second time when they activated it twice, but the account balance mistakenly showed an extra thousand dollars for the duration. I still use checks to pay rent and occasionally some bills/liabilities. That said, I did notice an (elderly) lady paying by check at the supermarket a while ago. So is it really common to get a paycheck in the sense that you get a piece of paper? Yes and no.  There are some people that opt for the physical paycheck.  Even if they do not, there is a pay stub which serves as a record of it.  My last employer went to online pay stubs and a bunch of us opted out, sticking with the good old paper in an envelope.  We sure were glad of that when there were technical issues and security concerns with the online service. Believe it or not, this is done as a service to you. The reason for this has to do with a fundamental difference between a credit card account and a checking account.  With a credit card account, there is no money in the account; every charge is borrowed money. When you get to your credit limit, your credit transactions will start getting declined, but if the bank does for some reason let one get approved, it's not a big deal for anyone; it just means that you owe a little more than your credit limit. Note that (almost) every credit card transaction today is an electronic transaction.  A checking account, however, has real money in it. When it is gone, it is gone. When a balance inquiry is done, the bank has no way of knowing how many checks you've written that have not been cashed yet. It is a customer's responsibility to know exactly how much money is available to spend.  If you write more checks than you have money for in your account, technically you have committed a crime. Unfortunately, there are too many people now that are not taking the responsibility of calculating their own checking account balance seriously, and bad checks are written all the time. When a bank allows these transactions to be paid even though you don't have enough money in your account, they are preventing a crime from being committed by you. The fee is a finance charge for loaning you the money, but it is also there to encourage you not to spend more than you have.  Even if you use a debit card, it is still tied to a checking account, and the bank doesn't know if you have written enough checks to overdraw your account or not. It is still your responsibility to keep track of your own available balance.  Every time this happens to you, thank the bank as you pay this fee, and then commit to keeping your own running balance and always knowing how much you have left in your account. "It's called a ""checkbook register"" -- learn what it is and how to use it properly (not only recording your transactions &amp; maintaining your own running balance, but also including ""reconciling"" it with your bank-issued statements or online transaction listings) and you will *not* overdraw.  It's [fairly basic stuff](http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/spanish/pdf/teachers/specialneeds/lev_3/lesson_06/6_3activity.pdf) but it never ceases to amaze me how many (supposedly ""smart"") people fail to do it properly (if at all)." I do this, and as you say the biggest downside is not having a separate account for your savings.  If you're the type of person who struggles with restraint this is not for you. On the other hand this type of account gives more interest than any other type of US Checking or Savings account I've seen, so you will benefit from the interest. "I'm no accounting expert, but I've never heard of anyone using a separate account to track outstanding checks.  Instead, the software I use (GnuCash) uses a ""reconciled"" flag on each transaction.  This has 3 states:  n: new transaction (the bank doesn't know about it yet), c: cleared transaction (the bank deducted the money), and y: reconciled transaction (the transaction has appeared on a bank statement). The account status line includes a Cleared balance (which should be how much is in your bank account right now), a Reconciled balance (which is how much your last bank statement said you had), and a Present balance (which is how much you'll have after your outstanding checks clear). I believe most accounting packages have a similar feature." "The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write ""pay to the order of "" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write ""FOR DEPOSIT ONLY"" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!" Try the following apps/services: Receipt Bank (paid service, gathers paper receipts, scans them and processes the data), I've tested it, and it recognizing receipts very well, taking picture is very quick and easy, then you can upload the expenses into your accounting software by a click or automatically (e.g. FreeAgent), however the service it's a bit expensive. They've apps for Android and iPhone. Expentory (app and cloud-based service for capturing expense receipts on the move), "As others have noted, in the U.S. a checking account gives you the ability to write a check, while a savings account does not. I think you know what a check is even if you don't use them, right? Let me know if you need an explanation. Personally, I rarely write paper checks any more. I have an account for a small side business, and I haven't bothered to get new checks printed since I moved 6 years ago even though the checks still have my old address, because I've only written I think 3 paper checks on that account in that time.  From the bank's point of view, there are all sorts of government regulations that are different for the two types of accounts. But that is probably of little concern to you unless you own a bank. If the software you have bought allows you to do the things you need to do regardless of whether you call the account ""savings"" or ""checking"", then ... who cares? I doubt that the banking software police will come to your house and beat you into unconsciousness and arrest you because you labeled an account ""checking"" that you were supposed to label ""savings"". If one account type does what you need to do and the other doesn't, then use the one that works." No, most check deposits are processed that way. Banks transmit the pictures of the checks between themselves, and allow business customers to deposit scans for quite some time now. I see no reason for you to be concerned of a check being in a dusty drawer, it's been deposited, cannot be deposited again. If you're concerned of forgery - well, nothing new there. "Firstly, it isn't so generous.  It is a win-win, but the bank doesn't have to mail me a free box of checks with my new account, or offer free printing to compete for my business.  They already have the infrastructure to send out checks, so the actual cost for my bank to mail a check on my behalf is pretty minimal.  It might even save them some cost and reduce exposure.  All the better if they don't actually mail a check at all. Per my bank Individuals and most companies you pay using Send Money will be mailed   a paper check. Your check is guaranteed to arrive by the delivery date   you choose when you create the payment. ... A select number of companies–very large corporations such as telecoms,   utilities, and cable companies–are part of our electronic biller   network and will be paid electronically. These payments arrive within   two business days... So the answer to your question depend on what kind of bill pay you used.  If it was an electronic payment, there isn't a realistic possibility the money isn't cashed. If your bank did mail a paper check, the same rules would apply as if you did it yourself.  (I suppose it would be up to the bank.  When I checked with my bank's support this was their answer.) Therefore per this answer: Do personal checks expire? [US] It is really up to your bank whether or not they allow the check to be cashed at a later date.  If you feel the check isn't cashed quickly enough, you would have to stop payment and contact whoever you were trying to pay and perhaps start again.  (Or ask them to hustle and cash the check before you stop it.) Finally, I would bet a dime that your bank doesn't ""pre-fund"" your checks.  They are just putting a hold on the equivalent money in your account so you don't overdraw.  That is the real favor they do for you.  If you stopped the check, your money would be unfrozen and available. EDIT Please read the comment about me losing a dime; seems credible." "It surely doesn't HURT to keep a receipt. I tend to pile up receipts in my desk drawer, never look at them, and then every few months throw them all out. If a vendor writes a receipt by hand or if the cash register is not tied in to the credit card system, keeping a receipt could give you evidence against mistakes or fraud. Like if the vendor gives you a receipt for $10 and then sends a transaction to the credit card company for $20, you could use the receipt as evidence of the problem. But if the vendor is trying to really cheat you, the most likely thing for him to do is run the legitimate transaction through, and then some time later run a fake transaction. So say today you go to vendor X, buy something for $20, and he bills your credit card $20. Then a few days later he bills you another $100 even though you never came back to the store. Sure, you have a receipt for $20. But you don't have a receipt for the $100 because you never authorized that transaction. Your receipt proves nothing -- presumably you're not disputing the $20. If you complain to the bank or go to the police or whatever, saying, ""Hey look, I don't have a receipt for the $100"" doesn't prove anything. How do they know you didn't just throw it away? It's difficult to prove that you never had such a receipt." DCU, Alliant Credit Union has completely scan only options (no need to mail in checks later). BofA, SchoolsFirstCU allow initial scan, but you need to mail in checks later. All these are no fee. checkers should be paid by item quantity/rate they scan.  Many o time have seen chatty checkers with a few in their line while the person next to them has moved 3 times the good quantity across the scanner.  I also loathe check writers, they wait till the last minute, then ask the price again a few times and I swear use calligraphy to fill out the check - taking more time. The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.