Visa Considers Extending 'War on Cash' Business Incentives Outside US (cnbc.com)

Visa is hoping to extend its "war on cash" agenda to businesses in the U.K. after announcing new incentives for U.S. businesses to go cashless. From a report: The payment technology company revealed on Wednesday that it was launching a "cashless challenge" which would see 50 U.S. businesses receive $10,000 each to help them convert to a cashless payment model. It is now aiming to roll the model out to the U.K., though is yet to set a timeframe for the launch, a Visa spokesperson confirmed to CNBC Friday. Under the scheme, businesses in the U.S. are invited to submit plans outlining what going cashless might mean for them, their employees and their customers. Recipients of the award will then be required to use the lump sum to upgrade their point-of-sale systems so they are completely cashless. Any remaining money can be put towards marketing, the company said. "We're declaring a war on cash," Andy Gerlt, a spokesman for Visa, said in the announcement Wednesday.

Comments

or

[Anonymous Coward]

Making sure we get a cut of everything you spend, and know what you spent it on.

Lovely

Re:or

[Gr8Apes]

Yes, they get a cut of everything. However, all they know is where you spend it. Retailers, so far, have been extremely reluctant to share what's actually sold and more importantly, for what price, whether it's with the CC company or vendors.

Re:or

[Penguinisto]

Even better - holding businesses captive to it, so that the big boys in this realm can slowly raise the transaction fees (not too quickly, lest their business customers not renew contracts, etc.)

Re:or

[rogoshen1]

Drug dealers and terrorists use cash, surely you're not one of them, right? Says the friendly Visa man.

Re:or

[Anonymous Coward]

In some countries you can't get a credit card if you have payment problems or no job

Re:or

[Darinbob]

This includes the US. While it may seem super easy to get a credit card, especially if one shows up pre-approved in your dog's name, it's still somewhat difficult to get poorer people. If you get bad credit temporarily then that can disqualify you for years until the credit score goes back up. And the fees may be so high on some cards that they're unaffordable (and some cards are very predatory). Finally there are people who literally have no bank account, and every transaction they make is with cash, which is why there's actually a big business in check cashing services (also highly predatory).

It's no surprise why Visa is doing this. It is not for the betterment of society, it's so that they can get more of that 2% cut.

Re: or

[Darinbob]

And who the hell uses those other than hipsters? if they're not getting a cut of fees then they're selling your purchasing data. NO ONE does this as a charity!

Re:or

[ravenshrike]

Fuck Visa. Fuck Visa up the ass sideways with a rusty camping spork.

Re:or

[hey!]

Retailers, so far, have been extremely reluctant to share what's actually sold and more importantly, for what price, whether it's with the CC company or vendors.

If they become totally dependent upon Visa, Visa may gain leverage that outweighs that reluctance.

Re:or

[cayenne8]

I can get pretty much any credit card I want.

I have a couple that I use for online or large purchases...which I pay off in 30 days.

That being said, I prefer my daily and routine spending in cash...nicely untraceable, and private.

If local stores go cashless....they will also go customer-less as far as my patronization of said establishment goes....

Re:or

[reboot246]

Local stores would be crazy to go the cashless route. If I'm going to have to use plastic and if I don't need the item right this minute, I may as well buy it online.

Right now Amazon collects 8% sales tax on all purchases from my home state. If I buy locally the rate is 10%, so I'm saving a little bit just by buying from Amazon anyway. And there are many places I buy from online that don't charge sales tax at all - some even offer free shipping over a certain amount.

What about those stores that have a minimum purchase to use plastic? Then you'd have to buy something you don't want just to be able to buy something you do want.

My cash says it is legal tender. Don't want to sell me something in exchange for it? Bye, bye, Mr. Retailer!

The war on freedom and privacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... I don't even try to fight it anymore. The enemy is infinitely more powerful and the so-called "resistance" pathetic, weak and disorganized. I haven't changed my mind or philosophy one bit, but I realize that nobody will ever listen to my "words of wisdom" and thus, it's no longer meaningful to try to win people over.

Re:The war on freedom and privacy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Except that all other problems don't flow from there, for most normal people. Most normal people see a trusted brand (with a few high profile stories about standing up to government surveillance not doing any harm to that reputation) and buy and use the product they want from that brand. Most normal people aren't particularly interested in hypothetical bogeymen, and privacy absolutists tend to rely on hypothetical bogeyman as the foundation of their argument.

Re:The war on freedom and privacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, YOU are a weak piece of shit, giving in to cowardice and giving up, accepting credit card company dick up your ass. PAY WITH CASH EVERYWHERE. Fuck the police, fuck the credit card companies sideways with a rusty chainsaw. Your privacy and freedom are worth fighting for!

Re:The war on freedom and privacy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sure, companies are selling data about you and sure, they know everything you purchase and where and when you purchase it.

Part of the problem with the debate is when people say things like that. Perhaps you don't realise it, but what you wrote there simply isn't true.

For example, I have businesses, and we receive payments from people via various banks or online services or whatever. None of those financial services has any information about what those people were paying us for, only the details of the payment itself.

In most cases, financial services we deal with wanted to know something about what line of business we were in before agreeing to work with us. That means there is some genuine risk if you're talking about people buying something from a vendor known for supplying potentially sensitive or controversial products or service.

However, there's no magic database that tells anyone, even the card companies, exactly what you buy. The most extensive analysis is probably done by the big stores with their loyalty card programmes, and they really are looking at everything you purchase and doing all kinds of predictions about what might incentivize you to spend more with them in the future. However, participation in those programmes is typically optional, and the benefits tend to be so small that most people wouldn't really lose out if they just said no when they were offered a chance to sign up.

Re:The war on freedom and privacy.

[gnick]

Luckily I still have cash to eat this week...

Only eat the bills. The change is terrible for your teeth.

war on cash

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Wish I could skim a couple percent off every transaction too.

I'd be all for an alternative to cash as long as it was managed without transaction fees by the local government backed issuer of the currency. Time to nationalize Visa/Mastercard?

Re:war on cash

[Highdude702]

Interestingly enough, nobody except banks have ever defrauded me out of money. I feel they are the wrong people to trust with all the monies...

Re:war on cash

[Penguinisto]

Same here, which is why I stick to Credit Unions exclusively nowadays. The chances for error still exist (which can be corrected easily), but at least I don't get raped with a monthly fee, a convenience fee, a 'your balance went too low' fee, a 'you spent too much money in one go' fee, a 'you withdrew too much in spite of having more than enough money in the account' fee, or whatever the hell else they use to screw you over these days.

As a bonus, my CU actually reimburses me for any ATM fees that I get charged (I'm required to have Direct Deposit and use my card x times per month, but that's a given anyway.)

Re:war on cash

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I suggest business implement a 2% cash discount (after raising prices 2%).

And the problem that would cause for the payment services is exactly why these days they often prohibit discriminatory pricing in their agreements with merchants.

In fact, you will rarely find a more one-sided set of legal agreements than those between the big financial services and the merchants. They get away with just about anything they want, because their customers are businesses so typically none of the normal consumer protection laws about contracts being fair and reasonable apply, and what are you going to do, not take the payment method all your customers expect you to accept?

Ultimately, you need them a lot more than they need you, unless you are literally operating on the scale of Amazon, Walmart, Tesco and the like. Your only viable "choice" is to play along and hope not to get accidentally squashed by the big players without them even noticing. Enjoy your no guarantee at all that the money you think you have won't be clawed back months later in response to an entirely false claim by a customer who forgot they paid you, and enjoy the fees the financial services will charge you for the privilege!

Re:war on cash

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Seconded. I've been with credit unions for 20 years, and never regretted it. Choose one with a branch that's convenient to you, and it will be great.

The one consideration is that the credit unions are not generally nationwide. You may pay a small fee to use an out-of-town ATM when you travel. So, if you travel a lot, this could be a consideration for you. Most credit unions are part of ATM networks anyway, and so it can still be a non-issue. If you don't travel much, then you don't need to worry about it.

cashless is a bad deal for small business

[OrangeTide]

Unless you like sending a cut of every sale to credit card processing firms.

Re:cashless is a bad deal for small business

[b0bby]

There are real costs to cash too, though. Just off the top of my head:
- Having to physically gather it up and take it to the bank
- Potential for theft, either during the transfer or just in the shop
- Higher insurance premiums to cover the potential cost of robberies
Really, for a small business, it probably comes down to who your customers are. If they are younger and/or more affluent, getting rid of cash may make sense.

Re:cashless is a bad deal for small business

[tlhIngan]

There are real costs to cash too, though. Just off the top of my head:
- Having to physically gather it up and take it to the bank
- Potential for theft, either during the transfer or just in the shop
- Higher insurance premiums to cover the potential cost of robberies
Really, for a small business, it probably comes down to who your customers are. If they are younger and/or more affluent, getting rid of cash may make sense.

Couple more.

- Increased training for cashiers. If you go to a store like Best Buy, note how everyone can check you out if you pay by credit, but only the cashiers at the front can check you out if you pay by cash. This is not a coincidence - the cashiers at the front have to account for every dollar in the till - the register monitors how much cash you start with (for making change), and how much cash goes in when you pay by cash. The receipt at the end of the day should match up (though there's a fudge factor to account for wrong change). But do it by credit or debit card and it's all tracked by the computer so the associate doesn't have to do anything with respect to receipt tracking.

- Sometimes, larger businesses don't walk the cash to the bank. Where I work, there are tons of armored cars everywhere from all sorts of companies. They're around simply to collect cash from all the businesses in their route to take it to the bank because it's often so much cash that there is too big a risk of robbery. (And the amounts can be around $20k-50K, so if an armored car costs $1k to hire (3 people, one truck, etc) that's 2-5% right there in cost).

Re:cashless is a bad deal for small business

[b0bby]

Well, there are a lot of companies which have always accepted cash, have cash drawers etc, yet may actually find they do very little cash business. This seems pretty much like a gimmick/contest, since they are only going to pay $10,000 to 50 businesses. It's basically a half million dollar ad buy, which for all the publicity they've had seems to have been effective.

Hm.

[buss_error]

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Never understood how apartment and rent can be required to be non-cash payment.

Another issue is how do I pay my neighbor kid to mow my lawn with a credit card?
Another issue is that I simply may not want Visa, and via third party records, the government, know exactly what I'm spending on and how frequently. The phrase "None of your business" comes to mind if for no other reason that it is, after all, none of their damned business.

Re:Hm.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My guess is that you are not paying past rent, a debt, but future rent as usually first months rent and security deposit is due before you move in. I believe that if you have past due rent and tried to pay in cash and they refuse it then that debt needs to be canceled as they refused payment. Then again IANAL so that was just my wild but seemingly reasonable guess on the subject.

Personally I like cash and still use it. Also the look on a kid's face when they get a bill that is bigger than they every have before is great. My little nieces, nephews, and cousins, get the universal gift cards every year and and they think it is great. When you are 3 a $5 bill is a big deal, when you are 12 a $50 bill is, and when your deadbeat illegal immigrant husband flees back to Mexico stealing your car and a bunch of other stuff while you are on a work trip a stack of 10 $100 bills helps a lot.

Re:Hm.

[peragrin]

PayPal, Apple Pay, etc all have person to person "wire" transfers

So you can pay your lawn boy (if you can find one).

As for apartments they are the landlord and can dictate apartment terms in your lease. Find a cash apartment and pay cash. Except any place that takes cash tends to be run down shitty places.

My company is a distributor. We have a couple of cash only customers. Every single one is cash only because they can't get credit cards, they routinely bounced checks, etc bad banking practices. Each of these customers takes an extra 2 man hours to process their cash payments every time. You need to accept it take it to accounting where they prices and count it twice before sending it to the bank where it gets counted a fifth time.

Cash only doesn't mean you are hiding it means you are fiscally irresponsible. Maybe you learned from your behaviour. But most likely not.

Credit card or on account means you just have verify numbers the computer spits out.

Accountant are the next job to be replaced by robots.

Re:Hm.

[Albanach]

To be honest, there's probably more chance of your kid neighbor figuring out how to take a credit card than one of the landscape firms around here taking anything other than a check.

While I see a role for cash, why are some many Americans still using checks? And why are your consumer rights groups unable to force the banks there to offer an equivalent of the Direct Debit Guarantee?

Why do interbank transfers in the US still take days? Why is exchanging your account number and routing code enough for a stranger to empty your bank account yet it's printed on every check you write? This stuff makes little sense.

Re:war on cash = private sales tax

[Highdude702]

Whats funny is they mention how fast it is to pay with your card, when in reality, especially since the chip readers... It takes almost twice as long for a transaction. and about 3-4x as long as a cash transaction.. At least from what I've seen at local stores and gas stations here in Las Vegas.

The government let them do this in the first place

[Solandri]

Good luck getting the government to try to fix this - they're the ones which made it possible. Visa/Mastercard lobbied for and got laws passed which made it illegal for merchants to add a surcharge if you pay with a credit card, to help them recoup the credit card processing fee. (That's why you see some places advertising a cash discount - it's a loophole in the law.)

There would've been a lot more downward pressure on the 2% processing fee if merchants had been allowed to directly pass the fee on to customers. People would've preferred to pay with cash until credit card companies were able to lower the cost to something more reasonable, like a half or quarter percent. Card networks which had higher fees (e.g. Amex) would've had a tougher time than card networks with lower fees (e.g. Discover). But thanks to (corrupt) government regulation, competition to lower processing prices was eliminated, and we're all saddled with what's effectively a 2% sales tax to a private company. Even if you're paying with cash, you're paying the tax as the cash purchases basically subsidize the merchants fees for credit card purchases (since you pay the same amount for cash or credit in most stores).

And no the fee is not for protection against fraud. The merchant pays for fraud, not the credit card company. When you spot an unauthorized charge on you bill and request a chargeback, the card processing company issues a notice to the merchant asking for proof the purchase was valid. Usually this is the signature on the credit card receipt, but for online or automated transactions this can be things like the billing address or phone number (that's why gas station pumps ask you for your zip code). If the signature or other information the merchant submits doesn't match, the transaction is determined to be fraudulent, and the processing company simply deducts the amount of the charge from the merchant's payment. The merchant is out the money and the merchandise. The only expenses the card companies have to pay for are infrastructure, equipment, and staff. With the modern Internet and computers, this is probably on the order of pennies per transaction.

Re:war on cash = private sales tax

[Rakarra]

Whats funny is they mention how fast it is to pay with your card, when in reality, especially since the chip readers... It takes almost twice as long for a transaction. and about 3-4x as long as a cash transaction.

It depends on the chip reader. My local Costco refused the chip reader push until they could get readers that were fast, and it's only about five seconds from card insert to done.

Good for the Corp and bad for the peasant

[what about]

Of course the corp and government are all in for cashless

For them it is:
- Constant stream of revenue
- Easy to destroy whatever opponent life they wish (try buy food / travel in a cashless society without cash...)
- Easy to trace you, peasant, wherever you go

For us, peasants, we trade all the above with...
- Not to have a few hundered euros in our wallet (quite useful if you get mugged, to simply let the robber get away without hitting you in anger)

What a rip off

Re:The government let them do this in the first pl

[HornWumpus]

Surcharges are illegal, but cash discounts are not. Some merchant agreements try to ban them. But even then, make it a freebee after X dollars cash deal.

Business just has to have the balls to raise their middle fingers to VISA. I've seen more than a few that are ATM and cash only. I bet that costs them less than 2% in sales.

The elephant in the room is Apple/Google pay. VISA _should_ be worried. After 40+ years of VISA/MC's 'we're the only game in town' attitude, everybody should be looking for alternatives.

In other words...

[unixcorn]

...Visa extends war on the poor.
In my opinion, not accepting legal tender in favor of utilizing non-government tender, in this case a Visa card, should be illegal. I have relatives who don't have a credit card or even a checking account because their credit is crap. It's their fault but shutting them out by not accepting cash is ridiculous.

Re:war on cash = private sales tax

[link-error]

    I must admit I'm a contributor to the problem. I don't carry any balances on cards, and I will periodically get a new card that offers mile bonuses. Between me and my wife we've earned/been given over 700K airline miles. We can booking flights for 20K or less miles/each way, so we've had over 35 free flights around the US. We frequently get flights for 12.5K miles, so it's probably a lot more than that (I don't actually keep track).

    Thanks to all you people that carry a balance to make this possible.

VisaLess Challenge. War on Visa.

[grumpy-cowboy]

I pay everything I can in cash. Almost all transactions on my bank account is cash withdrawal from an ATM machine. Except morgage, car, insurance... payments. And sometimes maybe a couple of rare online transactions. Now I spent a LOT less on stupid things like I did in the past. The less companies (credit cards, fidelity cards, banks, ...) knows about me, the better I feel. My cash. My Privacy.

Some already did

[rsilvergun]

when they can't make cards work. What makes cards work for a business is two things:

1. Tacking on added value products/services. e.g. getting somebody to buy a $20 hdmi cable with their new TV. Folks are more likely to buy these things when they're not handing over cash.

2. Leveraging the fact that you're essentially giving out a loan with little to no risk. Yeah, the customer can dispute the charge, but most don't. The majority of credit card losses happen when the whole economy craps the bed and folks go bankrupt. If you're a business it's nice not having to deal with that. Let Visa clean up that mess and try to collect the money.

Credit Cards are mostly a raw deal for necessities. It's why you can't usually pay for a Car Loan, Mortgage or Rent with a card. We've already got a 'cashless' alternative. It's called ACH. My Car Loan auto drafts every month.
Basically, if you're a retail or service business complaining about taking cards you're doing it wrong.

Have to get the Debt First

[Roger W Moore]

Never understood how apartment and rent can be required to be non-cash payment.

Legal tender only applies when you have a debt. A shop is perfectly free to decide not to sell something to you unless you pay in a form that they are willing to accept. However, a restaurant where you typically eat first and pay at the end, probably can't refuse (IANAL) to accept cash because at that point you have acquired a debt with them and they are required to accept legal tender in payment of debts.

Usually, rents are paid in advance so you are not paying off a debt but purchasing the right to live there in advance. Hence if the landlord does not want to accept your cash s/he is entitled to refuse to rent to you although I expect this could get more complicated when combined with tenants rights.

Keep the world weird

[darktwains]

So as a small business owner I should send 3 %ish (depending on various factors like card type cost per swipe etc) of my money to some large corporation probably headquartered in Ireland or the cayman islands. FYI I am not scared to carry cash. Best way to keep $ in my community. Declaring war on visa!

Re:war on cash = private sales tax

[sexconker]

Here's how it is at every single chip-enabled reader (many recently installed) I've seen in the US:

Items are scanned.
Total it displayed and told to me verbally by cashier.
Wait for the credit card reader to be ready to accept my card / display the same total.
Insert credit card (which isn't as fast as a swipe).
Wait with my hand still on the card to make sure the reader recognizes the card is in.
Wait while the reader says "do not remove card".
The reader may ask if I want to charge it as credit or debit, may ask me to confirm the amount, and may ask me to sign.
At some point I'm told I can remove my card and I remove it. It may be before or after any of the prompts above.
Remove my card and place it in my wallet.
Place my wallet in my pocket.
Grab my shit and go.

With the ol' swipe, it worked like this:

Items are scanned.
Total it displayed and told to me verbally by cashier.
Wait for the credit card reader to be ready to accept my card / display the same total.
Swipe my card and put it back in my wallet (the feedback as to whether or not the swipe was good is quicker than I can put it back in my wallet) and put my wallet back in my pocket.
The reader may ask if I want to charge it as credit or debit, may ask me to confirm the amount, and may ask me to sign.
Grab my shit and go.

I'd be fine with this in a chip+pin scenario. But as it is, the chips in the cards in the US do absolutely nothing for security. Cloners for chipped cards were available before the chipped cards.

Re:The government let them do this in the first pl

[TheCastro1689]

I see websites all the time charge a 3% credit fee. Don't see anything about it being illegal.

Re:The government let them do this in the first pl

[caseih]

Who told you surcharges are illegal (assuming in the US)? I certainly know of no federal law about that. Perhaps your state has a law concerning it?

In Canada, a law was passed expressly allowing retailers to charge extra for credit card transaction. A lot of people don't realize that those premium credit cards with high rewards charge the retailers a lot more, upwards of 3%, nearly double the rate for "normal" credit cards. If retailers are unable to add a surcharge, then those premium card holders' rewards are really being paid for by everyone else through overall higher prices. It's quite a racket.

Re:The government let them do this in the first pl

[marvinglenn]

I believe that you are absolutely incorrect about there being a _law_ about not surcharging CC usage.

This issue was very much on my radar a couple of decades ago. There was a class action lawsuit against the biggest CC player about this. There was a blog that followed it, and while they dumped the custom domain, it appears that the content from the blog is here: https://waytoohigh.wordpress.c...

What it actually was... there was a _contract_term_ from your credit card processing bank that stipulated that you could not surcharge for CC. Some got around it by the cash discount, but eventually enough did that that they caught on to it, and forbid it by contract. And this was essentially a contract of adhesion, and every processor carried through the same restrictive terms. Didn't like the terms? Don't accept any of the big [four] CCs.

I was working at a very small retail merchant during that period, not even 'mom and pop', just 'pop'; and was very attuned to what it cost us. I remember seeing cease and desist letters from the CC company over our policy of not allowing CC payments for transactions Since the conclusion of the law suit, I've observed many more merchants declaring either a minimum transaction for a CC, or a processing fee on transactions under a threshold amount.

I can see it now..

[intellitech]

..continue spreading anywhere and everywhere, bump up transaction fees, then offer to lower them slightly in exchange for itemized receipt information.

Re:The government let them do this in the first pl

[Trailer Trash]

This is the problem with /.'s moderation system - you write a long screed based on a bullshit premise and get modded to 5.

There is not law such as you've described. They don't need a law. It's part of the merchant agreement. But it gets better. In the US merchants may specifically add a surcharge to card transactions due to a settlement with the card industry:

https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/...

So, basically, you're not only wrong, you are the exact opposite of true.