Slashdot Mirror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_States

"There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[28]"

[28] "Legal Tender Status". Resource Center. U.S. Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 2011-08-03.

Try driving through most parts of the US with a large quantity (10 or more) of twenty dollar bills on your person or in the vehicle. The police will seize it under civil forfeiture laws on the grounds it is "drug money" either from the sale or purchase thereof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_States

"There is, however, no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.[28]"

[28] "Legal Tender Status". Resource Center. U.S. Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 2011-08-03.

Legal Tender Status

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

In this case, that would be the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration who answers to the Secretary of the Treasury who is a part of the President's Cabinet and thus answers to the President who answers to Congress and we pretend that Congress answers to the people.

No, it is not allowed, not mandatory.

From the treasury:

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...

"This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. "

this is to prevent things like a Brainless Git paying a US$25.00 bill in pennies or somebody stripping a businesses safe by using large bills to pay for small transactions.

in short if it would be a problem to handle cash (or some subset thereof) its all fair game. (but its common to post a sign to warn clients)

The US Treasury says otherwise. China, for the last several years, has typically been the largest holder of US debt.

> "The" IRS, or as they'd be more likely to identify themselves, the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America" doesn't call like this

The IRS also has the ability and willpower to go after scammers like this no matter what country they're in. Fucking with Uncle Sam's income (or any other countries tax system) by impersonating their revenue agencies is a guaranteed way of getting their complete and undivided attention.

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/...

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/...

The tax department in most countries has more powers of investigation, search and prosecution than even the spy agencies. You do not want to cross them unless you have a deathwish.

> "The" IRS, or as they'd be more likely to identify themselves, the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America" doesn't call like this

The IRS also has the ability and willpower to go after scammers like this no matter what country they're in. Fucking with Uncle Sam's income (or any other countries tax system) by impersonating their revenue agencies is a guaranteed way of getting their complete and undivided attention.

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/...

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/...

The tax department in most countries has more powers of investigation, search and prosecution than even the spy agencies. You do not want to cross them unless you have a deathwish.

The banks paid back all their TARP loans years ago, along with $30BN in interest.

The car companies did not.

There's nothing secret about the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list (actually lists).

There's also non-SDN lists, which are included in this consolidated list:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx

Here are the OFAC lists:
http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

Actually there is no legal requirement to take cash, debt or no debt. You can refuse to accept cash if you want.

Actually, there is, sort of. You can refuse to accept cash: however, they are valid legal payment for the debt, so if you refuse the payment, you are either de facto implying the debt no longer exists (because you're not accepting repayment for it), or you're breaking the law by refusing legal payment. You cannot refuse repayment in cash and then claim the debt still exists. IANAL, so I'm sure there are subtleties involved with, for e.g., contracts (i.e. you agree to give them 10 widgets later in exchange for 5 doohickeys now, offering cash instead would be a violation of the contract), but generally, creditors must accept cash in repayment of debts.

=

Per the web site you referenced:

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

So absent a state law failure to accept cash in no way eliminates a debt.

Actually there is no legal requirement to take cash, debt or no debt. You can refuse to accept cash if you want.

Actually, there is, sort of. You can refuse to accept cash: however, they are valid legal payment for the debt, so if you refuse the payment, you are either de facto implying the debt no longer exists (because you're not accepting repayment for it), or you're breaking the law by refusing legal payment. You cannot refuse repayment in cash and then claim the debt still exists. IANAL, so I'm sure there are subtleties involved with, for e.g., contracts (i.e. you agree to give them 10 widgets later in exchange for 5 doohickeys now, offering cash instead would be a violation of the contract), but generally, creditors must accept cash in repayment of debts.

Indeed, the parts of the sanctions that are required by law remain in effect. Congress did give the executive pretty broad discretion over parts of them, though, which is what Obama is using to modify the sanction regime (something previous presidents have also done, in both directions). Specifically the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) authorizes exports to Cuba in certain areas, such as agriculture and medicine. The law directs the Treasury Department to come up with regulations governing such exports, such as procedures for receiving a permit, and/or annual quotas, but doesn't specify these procedures in any detail. The president therefore has quite a bit of leeway regarding whether he wants the export-licensing process to be easier or harder. A president who wanted to maximally restrict exports could institute a very onerous licensing process with low limits (effectively the current process), while a president who wanted to loosen the restrictions could institute a more streamlined licensing process.

Boy, that didn't come across clearly or nicely. Americans and US government agencies actually own most of US federal debt. The breakdown for the debt that's held by foreigners is here. Looks like China is the biggest holder of about 7% of our total debt and about 20% of our total foreign debt. Japan is a very close second, but for some reason they stopped being a major bogeyman sometime in the 90s.

Bullshit. It's not illegal to not accept it. You can also barter.

It depends. In the USA, anyone can refuse to accept US currency for the exchange of goods. However, in the USA, it is illegal to refuse to accept US currency for the payment of a debt. It can get complicated. If goods are delivered with expectation of payment at some later date, then that is a debt and legal tender must be accepted. If payment is expected to be delivered at the same time as the transaction for goods is made, then that is not a debt and payment can be required in any form, for example, barter or foreign currency. But in that case the purchaser can just walk away. http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

authorizing targeted sanctions that would deny designated persons access to the U.S. financial system and prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in transactions or dealings with it.

So we have a list of "bad guys" who aren't allowed to do business with US companies. That doesn't seem particularly useful, as they were likely prohibited from doing that before by virtue of the fact that we don't have relations with the DPRK anyways.

Although being as the allegations against DPRK are flimsy at best, making a public statement of existing sanctions and calling them "new" might not be a bad move.

theres a story, an old one, about a lass who incurred a debt from a disreputable firm. law firm maybe. it changes
she couldnt afford to pay. so tries to escape it through various means.
after months of wrangling, she finally had no choice but to pay.
she finally saved up enough to pay it off.
being as ticked as she was, she put it all in pennies.
bags and bag and bags of pennies.
and when she tried to drop it off, they refused to acept it.
shes says "are you refusing to accept payment?"
they says "yes."
she says ok, walks out, and takes the pennies with her, keeping the money.
(im not a good story teller)
its a fun story.

sadly, while you cant get in trouble for paying with all pennies, nor is the debt wiped away and ignored if they refuse payment.

http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

OMG, self-deprecation on the web. Seriously, kudos. (I am not being sarcastic.)

You're very right that the way the law uses certain words and expressions—"terms of art"—can be very different from expected. "Weapons of mass destruction" for example. :)

Good link provided in above comment: http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

Its probably part of the lease contract. I know it was in mine.

And there's this:

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

The only thing they are not allowed to do is to decline to accept legal tender. I.e. they legally aren't allowed to reject a $100 if it is a genuine bill, regardless of what store policy is.

You should probably let the US Treasury know that as they disagree with you.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

>The only thing they are not allowed to do is to decline to accept legal tender.

It's amazing in this day and age that that myth hasn't died out yet. The US Treasury Department itself says that's false.

Oh man, I hope I'm there when you call the police, so when the police and the store laugh at you, I can join in.

http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Hilarious indeed.

Technically Americans are allowed to go to Cuba; they're just not allowed to engage in financial transactions. That can be waived with a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

I agree that it's pretty ridiculous at this point though.

See http://www.treasury.gov/resour... .

Short version:
* Yes for " debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
* Not necessarily for goods or services.

In short, if you go into a store to buy something, they can say "no cash accepted, check or credit card only." But if they extend you store credit, you can pay off that debt later with cash, at least in theory.

Emotion based outrage, increase in crime rates, riots, and eventually violent revolution are the -predictable- effects of growing relative income inequality and loss of social mobility. And, as in the past, the powerful and elite are digging in their heels -which actually makes the situation worse.

The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade. And I would point out that that report does discus Bradbury and Katz' original claim of widening inequality, and the noise-in-the-data level of significance of their findings regarding decreasing mobility.

The idea of "decreasing mobility" counts as nothing more than Progressive FUD - Spurring those at the bottom end of the spectrum (and a bottom end will always exists, just a fact of basic statistics) toward acrimony and, I would dare say, exactly the sort of hatred and bitching you would deny exist.

OWS. SF-vs-Google. The 99% vs the 1%. Deny it all you want, but the poor don't just hate the rich, they hate everyone above them, whether by silver spoon or bootstraps or just a sore back. And as for whether or not anyone "teaches" this behavior - Did you bring enough to share with everyone?

Indoctrination works best when started young.

The shadow banking system is rich. What is their currency? IOUs, backstopped with public money in a crisis, because the Fed buys their IOUs when the market devalues them.

So a few people are living very well off of "leaves" that are just promises to pay, and are often (in the case of CDS, etc.) lies. But the government steps in to make good the promises backing up those lies.

So one way is to simply substitute what the huge cash pools really want, which is T-bills. But there aren't enough T-bills so they create "quasi T-Bills" which end up tanking, and the Fed backstops them.

Instead, just let the government create more T-bills.

The government/Fed is going to end up paying for the privately-created IOUs anyway, when the next crisis comes. Why not simply create the government debt now, which is what the huge cash pools are looking for anyway, and use the T-bills to spend on social services? Backstop individuals now instead of corporations later.

References:
http://www.treasury.gov/initia...

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/201...

Dude, when has it ever been used?

Can be is not is and not does.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/3725654....

Cuban-Americans can trade, send money, etc., and trading food is permitted (although with heavy regulation by the US govt.): http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba.txt. The article says nothing about how many current businesses there are, though.

http://www.thecanadianencyclop...

Maclean's January 15, 1996

Rrrright... Did you even read my previous post?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/29/...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

http://www.tradecommissioner.g...

These do not even talk about current businesses, which says a lot about your knowledge of Cuba... Tell me, how many businesses are trading with Cuba? Do they also trade with the US? If so, how are they permitted by the US govt.?

Furthermore:

Cuba is still designated a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" by the US, which complicates financial transactions with the island, and raising capital.

Do you know what this means?

The problem if any exists in Cuba lacking anything regarding trade is in their own corruption and government.

You do not know what you are talking about. A simple google search found those in the first two pages.

You, OTOH, seem to know a lot about Cuba... I guess you get your info from Fox News or CNN.

> Nice BS AC. Try again. The IRS Inspector General's office stated in a letter that only 6 groups with “progress” or “progressive” in their names were given any scrutiny at all for potential political activity

No it did not. See for yourself The IG report does not even contain those words, I just did a full-text search myself. What the report does say is, "We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate." In other words the IG did not concern itself with the question of what other groups were scrutinized.

> So you go for a biased site rather than the Inspector General's report?

You mean the inspector general report that said, "We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate." (page 6) That report?

Don't confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

But the report did say: "All of these officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS. ... Specifically, only first-line management approved references to the Tea Party in the BOLO listing criteria before it was implemented." (page 7)

Here's what I think, I think that you haven't read the report yourself and are instead relying on people with an axe to grind to interpret it for you.
So, here' s my gift, a link to the report itself.

Looks to be on average about every other day (PDF warning) but there are often multiple auctions on the same day for T-Bills. As far as $100 bills I think you need to be a member bank of the Federal Reserve.

Government savings bonds are about as safe as the money they're denominated in, while their interest rate helps with reducing the effect of inflation.

Weellll, it gets amusing when TIPS get sold at a negative interest rate. Yes, the story is nuanced (there is a floor in that original principal will be returned if the yield would result in an overall loss), but it's still shocking to see US sovereign debt instrument with a negative interest rate.

BTW, the 5-year fixed rate yield on TIPS is still negative.

This is primarily the result of the market's flight to perceived stability after the 2008 crash. Supply & demand.

I was also surprised by that, but looks like it's mechanically computed based on T-bill rates. The full opinion is here (pdf).

The opinion cites (on p. 47) 28 U.S. 1961, which says:

interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment

And the 1-year T-bill rate is indeed somewhere around that.

Here is your citation As i pointed out risk free rates and inflation are independent. US treasuries are generally considered "risk free" since they are denominated in USD they can always print money to avoid default. Anyhow, you can find the yields here: http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

Hey, look at that! Okay, I see what you're saying. But to AK Mark's point, the current inflation rate is estimated at 1.5% while the yield on a 1-year treasury bill is .11%. So these will not keep you ahead of current inflation unless you tie up your money for 5 years or so. Or am I doing this wrong?

Here is your citation

As i pointed out risk free rates and inflation are independent. US treasuries are generally considered "risk free" since they are denominated in USD they can always print money to avoid default. Anyhow, you can find the yields here: http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

No, he is just as clueless as you are.

"risk free" rarely equals inflation and therefore they do not "cancel out".

What is the current yield on US T-bills (considered risk free)?

http://www.treasury.gov/resour...

Would you look at that, the "Risk free" rates are MUCH lower then the current inflation rates are (CPI).

A one year T-bill yield is around 0.13% while the one year CPI is 1.5%

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued. Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.... For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied.

treasury.gov

The treasury disagrees.
We know that it wasn't just "management practicing CYA" because of later testimony revealing that the applications matching keywords were required to be sent to the main IRS headquarters, where they were delayed.

It's a story that has been unveiled (is still being unveiled?) in multiple layers, so it's easy to get 'story fatigue' and stop paying attention to it after a while.

Except that's an older article that was parroting RWEC stories. I counter with this July article from USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/12/irs-occupy-groups/2511541/ [usatoday.com]

It's not clear you are anything but a blind follower of partisanship, but if you really investigated, you would have come to this official report by the department of the treasury. There was bad stuff going on in the IRS.

1. Fast and Furious was made up.

Your link doesn't talk about Fast and Furious. Maybe you mis-linked? Not only is it real, Obama seems to have tried to cover up parts of it.

2. Ditto for the IRS scandal, which was also made up.

The Department of Treasury disagrees.

I don't care about Solyndra, but saying, "The Fed is not printing money, they are buying bonds" is about the same as saying a paypal transfer is not giving someone money. The Fed is buying bonds with money they create, their explicit goal is to increase the money supply. Of course, it's not exactly a scandal, and it's not Obama's fault.

It isn't required for the president to enforce all laws (which is a good thing), so I don't care about that either. It is rather amusing that the president's own law was so poorly designed that he has to avoid enforcing it, though.

> If I order a meal in a restaurant, and I owe $20, that's a debt, and they have to accept a twenty-dollar bill as payment.

No, they don't, actually. They can refuse payment in cash - but since cash is legal tender, they can't then claim that you refused to pay. You have made a "legal and valid" offer of payment.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

2008 deficit: $458 billion
2013 deficit: $680 billion
2014 deficit: $744 billion

> Maybe you should make it a personal mission to learn about this stuff instead of just repeat dumbass headlines?

Perhaps you should. Rather than venturing to comedycentral.com on that mission, may I suggest you start with http://www.treasury.gov/ and http://www.cbo.gov/

... it is the UK/City of London that actually holds the majority of US debt

citation needed. Pretty sure it is china and then japan.
yup
Hell, even belgium seems to hold more US treasuries than UK. Unless you mean that somehow City of London has high volume and Japan is buying those treasuries through London banks, which is possible but completely unrelated to who owns them.

The sale of treasury debt is a risk in a few ways. It gives the holder of that debt power to call the debt (rather than rolling it over) which could bring you up short. It is also a sign that you are living beyond your means and your creditors are in a better position to buy your assets than you may be to hold on to them.

You do know TARP made a profit, right?

Treasury has already recovered an amount that is greater than what was invested in banks under TARP. Taxpayers began to see a positive return on their bank investments in March 2011. Every additional dollar that is recovered from TARP's bank investments represents an additional return for the taxpayers. ââ

I'm not saying it was a good situation, but all this talk of massive bailouts is complete nonsense. The plan did what was intended and made some money for the taxpayer at the same time (the investment in AIG alone made over $20B). If you want to be mad at someone - look at the car companies - they still owe $$$$.

It already is happening. The amount of interest we pay as a % of total tax revenue collected has been steadily rising and is at a a 10 year high even though the interest rate on treasury bonds is at relatively low levels. In other words the money we're borrowing is really cheap, yet we're borrowing so much of it that we're still paying more in interest relative to total revenues collected than we have in the past decade and there's no reason to believe that we will be able to continue to borrow money cheaply especially if we increase our public debt too much.

It is whatever the goverment says it is. In the UK is apparently 'required' that you accept it. It the US, it is not.

"This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

What you are claiming is not dissimilar to saying the greenback with never hyperinflate because of the intrinsic value of the paper it is printed on.

It's cloth, actually.

Currency isn't printed on paper, it's roughly 75% cotton, 25% linen.

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

So if you owe someone in the US money, they have to accept its value in US dollars to settle the debt.

This only applies to debts owe to one of the levels of the US Government. Private parties can reject US currency for any reason, else signs like will not except dollar bills larger than $20 would be illegal.