Cash Might Be King, but They Don't Care (nytimes.com)

In Midtown and some other neighborhoods across New York City, cashless is fast on its way to becoming normal, The New York Times reports, sharing anecdotes where merchants have refused to accept bills from customers (the link may be paywalled). From the report: Cashless businesses were once an isolated phenomenon, but now, similarly jarring experiences can be had across the street at Sweetgreen, or two blocks up at Two Forks, or next door to Two Forks at Dos Toros, or over on 41st Street at Bluestone Lane coffee. In the future, when dollar bills are found only in museum display cases, we will look back on this moment of transition and confusion with the same head-shaking smile with which we regard customs on the Isle of Yap in Micronesia, where giant stone discs are still accepted as payment for particularly big-ticket items. Some people already live in this cashless future. They find nothing strange about paying for a pack of gum with a swipe of a card. If you are one of these people and you are still somehow reading this article, you may be thinking, "What on earth is the big deal?" At Two Forks on 40th Street, where the lunch offerings have cheery names like Squash Goals, Kristin Junco, a 34-year-old auditor for the state Education Department, said she had not used cash for about a week and much prefers a cashless establishment to its opposite. "We travel a lot for work," she said, gesturing to a colleague, "and if they don't take credit cards that makes things difficult." [...] Not surprisingly, the credit card companies, who make a commission on every credit card purchase, applaud the trend. Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice. A Visa executive described this practice to CNN as offering shoppers "freedom from carrying cash."

Comments

Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in here is new or novel. What am I missing?

Re:Where's the story here?

[jfdavis668]

I have been carrying more cash lately since is seems to speed transactions over credit cards with the embedded chip.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not accepting cash at all? That's pretty novel for a brick and mortar business. I rarely use cash, but I've never been to a business that wouldn't accept it. What about when the power goes out? Are we just supposed to stop being able to make purchases?

Re: Where's the story here?

[reanjr]

Many places wouldn't even have the capability to ring you up or keep transaction records during a power outage. If the power grid in your area is pretty stable, it might not be worth setting up contingencies.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the power goes out, the criminals come out, You're better off staying inside with your gun.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

It is also illegal. The person offering the cash can tell them their options are to accept the cash or consider the bill paid in full without accepting the cash. It is illegal to insist on payment with a card of any sort.

Re:Where's the story here?

[PrimaryConsult]

Android pay became faster than credit card due to the introduction of the chip; ranked by speed it seems to be:
1. Tapping a card (e.g. PayPass)
2. Swiping a card (such as a gift card, or if terminal or card is not yet chip enabled)
3. Cash with no change, or automatic change dispenser
4. Android/Apple pay
5. Cash with hand counted change
6. Chip card (no pin or signature)
6a. Chip card with pin
6b. Chip card with signing
7. Personal Check

Re:Where's the story here?

[zifn4b]

Has you seen the posts my msmash? Very hit or miss. I'm sure Slashdot has received numerous complaints but it falls on deaf ears. I find myself spending more time on reddit than slashdot because the quality of this site is not what it used to be.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Lunix Nutcase]

It is also illegal.

Nope, it's 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.

Re:Where's the story here?

[toonces33]

For me Android pay is now unusable. For some reason the Marshmallow update causes the phone to hound me for the administrative password before it will let the transaction go through. All kinds of people complain about it, and as far as I know nobody has ever gotten any kind of a straight answer as to why or what it takes to fix this.

For the most part I just use cash for small transactions.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Puerto Rico....

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You might not be aware, but the treasury isn't part of the judicial branch of the U.S. Government.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about places that had a functioning economy before a power outage occurred. Of course a place without a functioning econony still won't have one after a power outage.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have pencil and paper? That's all that's needed to tally and track a transaction.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be, but the card represents dollar hegemony which is built on a theoretical free market but technically depends on oil and in turn, trade. So really, it is part of the same machination.

Re:Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

Beat Up /. all you want. But don't talk like Reddit isn't a festering septic pond.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This - Android Pay was dead to me the first time it held me up like that at POS.

Re: Where's the story here?

[jellomizer]

So I can sue the vending machine makers for not handling $100 bills for a $1.50 bottle of Soda Pop?
Or the stores that say we do not accept bills over $20.00
In College where I needed quarters only to use the Washing Machines?

While Cash is good for all debts private and public. We don't have to accept the notes, or coins. The guy who tries to pay for his car with pennies, can be denied.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we just supposed to stop being able to make purchases?

Not yet. Wait until all cash transaction are outlawed THEN you'll just purchase whatever they want, whenever they want.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be unaware that the legislative branch of the US writes the laws.

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

They don't have pencil and paper? That's all that's needed to tally and track a transaction.

Pencil, paper, and training on how to use them. A lot of places don't "waste time" on that last item. Not to mention that a lot of registers will refuse to let the clerk make change if they're powered down. And even that assumes that the clerk can do things like add up tax and calculate change.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are, as always, a moron. Those are not cases of not accepting cash, they are cases of requiring the amount of cash tendered to approximate the amount of cash owed.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in here is new or novel. What am I missing?

I didn't read the paywalled story, so forgive me if I'm restating it.
It's mostly restaurants that are leading the charge to go cashless because they noticed some time ago that people paying with credit cards leave bigger tips than people paying with cash.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Applehu Akbar]

3. Cash with ... automatic change dispenser

This option 3 rapidly turns into option 8 after you have to keep reinserting a bill into the flaky bill acceptor multiple times.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might not be aware, but the treasury isn't part of the judicial branch of the U.S. Government.

I believe you meant to write "Oh. I guess I was mistaken" but it actually came out as you doubling down on your error. It's a common typo. The keys are like right next to each other.

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

Are you suggesting that the judicial branch would ignore rules set by the treasury? Maybe you have a link that contradicts Lunix's treasury statement?

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no.

They don't have to do business with you, but if they don't take payment until after the service is rendered then they do have to take cash.
When you buy groceries, the goods don't change hands until after you've paid. When you sit down at a diner and the bill comes after you've eaten, then you're in debt and cash has to be accepted (or the debt forgiven.)

The caveat most people aren't aware of is that they don't have to make change immediately. They have one full business day (excluding banking holidays, etc.)

Re: Where's the story here?

[mark-t]

As you said..

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts...

So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists? What if the card is declined for some reason, but they still have cash as a backup?

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I am stating that refusing to do business with people who don't have credit cards is blatantly discriminatory, and it doesn't matter what the treasury says, because there are many, many other *laws* that matter more than the treasuries *rules*. This is a matter of law, not rules.

Re:Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit. Tips, as reported to the IRS, are higher when CCs were used (and there is a paper trail). What a surprise.

Even when paying with a CC, I tip in cash. Assuming it's value is stretched by the servers marginal tax rate.

It's everybody's job to 'starve the beast'. Cash is king.

Re:Where's the story here?

[mark-t]

While this is anecdotal evidence, I have quite consistently seen chip card with pin be measurably faster than cash with hand-counted change. About 10 to 30 seconds per transaction faster.

Re:Where's the story here?

[jellomizer]

However having cash is dangerous to the merchants. Especially in City areas where they can get robbed. Knowing they don't accept cash means they will not have cash on their person, so robbing them for cash would be fruitless. Also by not accepting cash, the robbers cannot buy things with their dirty money directly, causing the merchant being under investigation of being part of money laundering.

Re:Where's the story here?

[PrimaryConsult]

I didn't mean self-checkout... rather, the cash registers that instantly dispense the change into a cup on the customer side while the cashier handles the bills.

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

I am stating that refusing to do business with people who don't have credit cards is blatantly discriminatory...

So? Who said vendors can't discriminate?

...and it doesn't matter what the treasury says, because there are many, many other *laws* that matter more than the treasuries *rules*. This is a matter of law, not rules.

And yet, you don't seem able to share a reference to the laws you keep referring to. You do seem to be suggesting that the judiciary is willing to contradict the treasury. That seems unlikely unless you have something to back it up. Lunix shared info from the treasury supporting his assertion. All you've offered is a "nuh-uh".

Re:Where's the story here?

[AvitarX]

When I lived in Philadelphia, we had under 45 minutes/year of power outages, with the longest one lasting 30 minutes (then two very short ones).

In cities the grid is often very redundant and power outages are a rarity. Sure, you may lose a single lunch or dinner rush at a sandwich place over the course of a year, but it could still be worth it.

Re: Where's the story here?

[jellomizer]

Because I am such a moron, and you Mr. Internet Poster must be so smart. then explain where the cutoff line is?
Can I still say no bills over $20.00 if I am selling $100.00 worth of items?
Should I be required as a merchant to carry enough change to cover peoples cash purchases?
If I am not required to cover cash for change (for safety sake), then how can I accept cash to purchase something if I do not have a way to fairly pay the person back their balance?
So if I can reject any sets of notes and coinage, why can't I reject all of them?

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the business makes them pay up front, they can force them to use card only.

If the bill for the food or service isn't given until after the service is rendered, then they would have to accept cash.

Re: Where's the story here?

[AvitarX]

This is more likely the test case.

Is the point of cash only to exclude the unbanked?

Do the unbanked in the area skew by race?

If those two things are determined to be true, this would likely be an example of racial exclusion (which legally doesn't need to be the intention, only the outcome of policy).

The flip side is that if safety of employees and speed of transactions can be demonstrated to be the reasons, it likely would stand as legal.

Re:Where's the story here?

[j-beda]

Bullshit. Tips, as reported to the IRS, are higher when CCs were used (and there is a paper trail). What a surprise.

Even when paying with a CC, I tip in cash. Assuming it's value is stretched by the servers marginal tax rate.

It's everybody's job to 'starve the beast'. Cash is king.

I don't know, facilitating tax fraud isn't something I am particularly comfortable with. I would prefer that the tax base be as large as possible, so making it more difficult for people to avoid their legal tax burden (or making it easier for people to track their legal tax burden if that framing is more pleasant) is a good thing in my opinion.

I am sympathetic to the reality that restaurant staff are not particularly well paid, and that making it harder for the wealthy to avoid taxes is probably a better thing to focus my attention on, but paying everything with plastic is also more convenient for me personally, so I have little inclination to deal with cash for a portion of the transaction.

Re: Where's the story here?

[davecb]

The statement on the bill was so that no-one could refuse it during the "Great Rebellion", as the American Revolution was called at the time. A citation from 1869 is typical: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...

At that time, the government did not wish to give person the option of refusing the (new) U.S. Dollar and demanding gold or silver before completing a transaction with the government or private individuals.

The Department of the Treasure has stated a legal opinion that the law does not apply to a large class of private transactions, on the grounds that a "debt" does not exist until the transaction is complete.

There is case law on paying the debt in cash as opposed to gold and silver, but Google Scholar doesn't report anything on refusal to accept cash for a non-debt.

An arguement can be made that the intention of the US founding fathers was to give "debt" its broadest possible reading, and that the position of the Treasury is pilpul, and requires authorizing legislation, such as (Canada's) "Currency Act"

This, of course, does not speak to other parts of the criminal code. For example, it may well be illegal to refuse to sell a necessity to a minor if they only have cash.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask payment up front you can demand whatever you want. If you don't then the customer owes you, and if you refuse to accept their legal tender they will continue to owe you, but you can make no claim they refused to pay.

Re:Where's the story here?

[The Cynical Critic]

Maybe this is the infamously out-of-date payment infrastructure in the U.S, but over here in Europe both NFC and Chip+PIN solutions are faster (considerably in the case of NFC-based payment methods) than paying cash even in the case you have exact change. Even with the slower Chip+PIN it's just a case of sticking the card in the machine, inputting your PIN and then waiting for 1-3 seconds for the transaction to go trough. At fast food places this happens as they're getting your food.

Re:Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

Goddamn law abider!

Government is like a teanager. The last thing they should have is a credit card or unlimited funds. They just get into trouble, doing things they shouldn't.

It is immoral to _not_ avoid AND evade your taxes as much as possible!

Re: Where's the story here?

[ArchieBunker]

Plenty of places don't take cash. Like the DMV for example. Check or card only.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

it doesn't matter what the treasury says

Come on man, it's not a fucking "rule". The treasury post is simply referring to the law. They didn't decide it, congress did.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It is not that corporations are out to take freedoms away. It just happens to sometimes be the consequence of seeking profits. I hope that regulators and law makers encourage competition and freedom, someday.

Re: Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

If that were true (only outcome matters) banking would be illegal.

You don't get to _make_things_up_. Just because credit rating clearly skews by race, doesn't make it illegal to give credit.

Re: Where's the story here?

[bad-badtz-maru]

And knowledge of the item prices, which is typically no longer tagged onto each item. I've been through your "pencil and paper" transaction, post-Irma, and it took 15 minutes to an hour to process each transaction.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you go out of your way to facilitate tax fraud. Fantastic.

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists?

Simple. If you don't have a card, you have to wait tables or cut hair until you're square with the house. Problem solved. Things get even more interesting when you can't pay your orthodontist.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful there Bucko. You'll likely cause his smug unctuous head to explode from you having performed a virtual wedgie on him in public.
 

Re: Where's the story here?

[EndlessNameless]

refusing to do business with people who don't have credit cards is blatantly discriminatory

In the US, there are a handful of things you can't discriminate against. "Not having a credit card" isn't on that list.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Type44Q]

Like trying to force "self-driving" cars down our throats (quotes becauses the tech's a fucking joke), this is what seems to be happening when those with profoundly unimpressive intellects are allowed to make decisions that affect the rest of us.

On a related note, if you place an order and food is prepared for you, would that not constitute a "debt?" 'Cause if so... these dumbasses are breaking the fucking law by refusing cash.

Re: Where's the story here?

[fustakrakich]

They don't have pencil and paper?

Very sharp objects. Too dangerous.

Re: Where's the story here?

[fustakrakich]

Tell it to the FCC

Re: Where's the story here?

[AvitarX]

Various services have been in trouble over the years because their criteria that weren't race based skewed too heavily on race (for example car insurance with too granular an address based rate, or in the criminal system sentencing variation between crack and powder coke).

Even in my post I point out that criteria not involving the potential customers would likely pass muster.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMV takes cash just fine, when was the last time you were There? It's a government office, they have to take government money.

Re: Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

Every chance I get! You should too. You'll sleep better.

Re: Where's the story here?

[mark-t]

Try and mentally play that out for a second... getting someone who doesn't work for you to cut hair with no prior training, or waiting tables.

Uh... no.

It's about as likely today as getting them to go in the back and wash dishes to pay off the meal.

And again, remember... we are talking about a person who has offered a completely legally recognized means of squaring the debt owed.

While it's certainly possible that the restaurant *could* call the police, I can't imagine any exchange they could possibly deliver to the cops that would get them to come without also leaving out the fact that the customer did offer to pay in cash, and if they got there and found out that was the deal, they'd probably be more pissed off at the restaurant than anything else.

Re: Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

Double down on 'wrong'...

Crack is _still_ punished harder than powder cocaine, but exactly the same as meth. People bitch about it, but they are rightly ignored.

Car insurance rates often go up in fancy zip codes. Because your neighbors are paying crazy money on cars trying to impress each other. But 'race pimps' never go there.

Your main point remains wrong: Racially skewed outcomes legally prove _nothing_, or every lender would be in deep deep shit. The credit reporting agencies in particular would be out of business.

Re: Where's the story here?

[BlueStrat]

This is more likely the test case.

Is the point of cash only to exclude the unbanked?

Do the unbanked in the area skew by race?

Possibly, but it certainly skews by demographic. How will the illegal drug dealer sell his drugs on the street? How will streetwalkers do business? Hell, how do you give a grandkid $5 when they aren't even old enough for a phone/bank account/card?

I'm "Not Sure" (wait, that's not..OW!) I want the answer.

I'm sure we'll be better off without the ability to spend money without government tracking, analysis, taxation, and prosecution.

After all, what do you have to hide from Big Brother, Citizen? All personal, social, and financial interactions are tracked and analyzed...for your protection, of course.

Strat

Re: Where's the story here?

[Ramze]

There is no law requiring businesses to take payments in cash. Even businesses that choose to take cash can refuse to take certain coins or bills. Ever seen a sign that says "exact change only" or a "No bills larger than a $10 accepted?"

Governments must accept cash, but businesses can do what they like. They could charge you in jelly beans if they wish. If you take their goods or services without paying them in the agreed/posted amount of jelly beans, then you'd be guilty of theft or theft of services. That could land you in civil court if it were a contract payment -- say you were to pay 5,000 jellybeans per month and suddenly stopped shipments. In that case, they'd sue, and then a judge would either compel you to produce the required jellybeans or a cash equivalent. If you simply took an item without payment in jellybeans, you'd likely be arrested and taken to criminal court then have to return the stolen items or make restitution for stolen services in either jellybeans or cash.... plus additional fines, jail time, etc.

This isn't some undefined area of law that hasn't been explored. Physical US bills and coins are legal tender for state and federal governments. There is zero legislation compelling businesses to use them. There are businesses in the USA that do business using strips of precious metals -- because they have lost faith in US currency. There are businesses that exclusively use tokens -- like casinos in Vegas that use them for gambling. There are some businesses that exclusively barter for items and have no cash involved whatsoever!

Credit cards, Debit cards, pre-loaded cards, and gift cards aren't radically different than tokens. Anyone can go to WalMart and buy a pre-loaded VISA or Mastercard without having to have a bank account, much less good credit. You can argue that they're discriminatory all you like, but not only is it a poor argument to make, there's no legal standing for disallowing such discrimination. One can't discriminate based on race, sex, religion, and many other factors for most for-profit entities, but there's no law against discriminating against poor people. There's no law against discriminating based upon credit rating either.

Frankly, most online businesses already require a credit card of some sort & the few that don't require a checking account instead. (A few rare businesses will take a cashier's check or a moneygram, but hey... may as well get a pre-loaded card if you're going to go through that trouble!) No online business takes cash through the mail, and most don't have a physical presence where you could take cash if you wanted to.

So, yeah, I personally think it sucks that fewer places are taking cash, but it's not illegal. Never was -- won't be no matter how much you hold your breath, turn blue, and act like Donald Trump by doubling down on something when you're wrong.

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

Try and mentally play that out for a second... getting someone who doesn't work for you to cut hair with no prior training, or waiting tables.

I didn't think I needed a </sarc>. Sorry. I wasn't really suggesting that unqualified people should wait tables, cut hair, or perform orthodontia.

Re:Where's the story here?

[RhettLivingston]

More importantly, this allows the server the possibility of keeping the tips when the new administration rules allowing the business to keep the tips kick in.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If after eating at a restaurant I was told that they don't take cash, I would just leave. If it went to court, I would tell the judge that I offered federal legal tender as payment and they refused.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a blatant way to keep *lameness filtered* and *lameness filtered* out of our store. Poor people carry cash.

More pernicious of, it forces poor people into much more expensive means of payment, such as pre-paid cards. That has a blatantly disproportionate impact on protected minorities, and will be very easy to win in court.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

All you're doing is redistributing wealth to those who cheat -- exactly the kind of people who don't deserve extra money.

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

That has a blatantly disproportionate impact on protected minorities, and will be very easy to win in court.

Are you sure?

It is a widely held belief that, in the United States, a business must accept cash payments from a consumer. Some people take the argument a step further, arguing that if a business refuses to accept cash from a customer, the business loses its ability to charge the customer. Neither belief is true.

Some exceptions by state:

Although as a general rule a private business may restrict or refuse to accept cash payments, at times states will mandate that a business accept cash or limit any restrictions a business may impose on cash payments. For example, some states require that a landlord accept rent payments in cash. Many states require that a private impound lot accept cash payments by an owner seeking the release of a motor vehicle.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Europe we have chipped credit/debit cards with RFID chips too. Itâ(TM)s possible to make paynents up to 25 EUR by just holding the card against the reader. Very easy and fast.

Donâ(TM)t you have anything like that there? Most payments are quite small anyway so itâ(TM)s always a lot faster than using cash.

Re:Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

Versus government tit suckers and 'workers'?

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

This is a matter of law, not rules.

Fine. Here's some law.

Paper currency in the United States is printed with the provision that it is "legal tender for all debts, public and private", language that flows from the provisions of a federal law, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5103,

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. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

The principal purpose of that statute is to ensure the nationwide acceptance of U.S. currency, consistent with constitutional language that reserves to Congress the power to create a uniform currency that holds the same value throughout the United States. While the statute provides that U.S. money is legal tender that may be accepted for the payment of debts, it does not require acceptance of cash payments, nor does it provide that restrictions cannot be imposed upon the acceptance of cash.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Oligonicella]

I am sympathetic to the reality that restaurant staff are not particularly well paid, ... but paying everything with plastic is also more convenient for me personally , so I have little inclination to deal with cash for a portion of the transaction.

That held together well. (emphasis mine)

Re: Where's the story here?

[rastos1]

So ... they can say that they accept payments only in beans, pebbles or pine cones and nothing else? And that would be legal? The more I learn about US the harder it is to believe.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cash attracts strong arm robberies. I was amazed to hear that there were at least six cellular phone stores robbed at gunpoint in nearby towns in the last year or so. Turns out that people pay cash for the phone service and you have to go there in person with cash to do that. They end up with thousands in small bills each week. That's a lot worse than a liquor store or gas station even. The cell phone reps shouldn't have to worry about getting shot or beaten for a bunch of cash.
I've never heard of a cash robbery from an Apple store. There, they smash and grab the phones and ipads, but not cash.

Re: Where's the story here?

[slashname3]

Real story: At a McDonalds. The cashier rings up the wrong amount tendered. Not knowing what to do he calls over a second cashier. They stand there trying to figure out how to make the change. Manager comes over and looks at amounts and gives me the correct change. And the first cashier looks in disbelief and says "You can do math in your head!!"

Really happened.

They press pictures of the food you order on the register. Idiocracy is coming true!

Re:Where's the story here?

[EndlessNameless]

What about when the power goes out? Are we just supposed to stop being able to make purchases?

I've experienced a power outage while shopping maybe 3-4 times in my life, but the response has always been the same. After about 5-10 minutes, they usher everybody out.

I don't know if they're more worried about liability or theft, but most businesses are willing to shut down during an outage.

Re: Where's the story here?

[nasch]

Physical US bills and coins are legal tender for state and federal governments.

"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." So you can pay your taxes with cash. I'm not sure exactly what public charges and dues refers to. That also means you can pay your mortgage with cash and the bank cannot refuse the payment (though it wouldn't surprise me if they tried).

Re: Where's the story here?

[nasch]

So ... they can say that they accept payments only in beans, pebbles or pine cones and nothing else? And that would be legal?

The organizing principle of US law is (supposed to be) that anything not specifically prohibited is allowed. So in the absence of any law requiring businesses to accept a particular form of payment, they can demand payment in any medium they choose. And there is no such law.

Re:Where's the story here?

[j-beda]

Goddamn law abider!

Government is like a teanager. The last thing they should have is a credit card or unlimited funds. They just get into trouble, doing things they shouldn't.

It is immoral to _not_ avoid AND evade your taxes as much as possible!

So you are ok with tax fraud at any level? It is people's duty to try to evade taxes through illegal means? How's that supposed to work?

I want people to be nervous about committing tax fraud. Our tax system only works because the vast majority of payers are honestly trying to follow the rules. If almost everyone tried to cheat, most would get away with it. I want people to be ashamed of breaking the law and worried about flouting their illegal activities. Do you really want everyone to "lie, cheat, and steal"? Yeah, I understand the idea that governmental over-reach is a problem, but if the answer is every-gang-for-themselves, I don't know that is the best solution.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am stating that refusing to do business with people who don't have credit cards is blatantly discriminatory, and it doesn't matter what the treasury says, because there are many, many other *laws* that matter more than the treasuries *rules*. This is a matter of law, not rules.

Who in the FUCK modded this Insightful??? Zero obviously has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

Re:Where's the story here?

[DigiShaman]

Personally, I hate cash because of the pocket change that often results from it. Later, futzing around said coinage to pay for food at a drive-through or whatnot is a major PITA.

Re:Where's the story here?

[DigiShaman]

Taxation is theft!

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

is also illegal. The person offering the cash can tell them their options are to accept the cash or consider the bill paid in full without accepting the cash. It is illegal to insist on payment with a card of any sort.

100% incorrect. Cash is only valid to settle debts, public and private, if it has been agreed to in advance.

Go Google it... You'll see the FedRes, BEP, US Treasury, dozens of over agencies explain why you are wrong.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. They don't have to take cash. Some govt offices do, as a convenience to the customer, but most in fact don't. Try getting a building permit with cash sometime.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I lived in Philadelphia, we had under 45 minutes/year of power outages, with the longest one lasting 30 minutes (then two very short ones).

Fuck. That sounds like a shit hole.

Why do Americans put up with such bad utilities?

If I had a 30 min outage (hasn't happened in the last 5 years), then I'd not just expect, but actually get offered a refund.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cash or something equally anonymous (possibly bitcoin) is *the only* acceptable tender for illegal (at some level) transactions, such as for street drugs or pot, or large quantities of obviously stolen merchandise. Neither side of those transactions wants to be identifiable. Otherwise, for legal transactions, it's legal tender but doesn't have to be accepted as long as there's some other way to pay the bill. Credit/debit card, check, money order are commonly accepted forms in places that want less exposure to robbery and internal accounting/security issues because they're less negotiable for somebody who randomly picks it up.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you euros have no problem with big brot her doesn't mean we Americans dont.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you need to go get a job as a pizza delivery driver. You'll change your tune in about a week, 2 at tops.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Scarletdown]

It's not so much power outages that are the big issue, but network outages in general, which does not have power outage as a prerequisite.

Around here, there have been more than a few occasions where I go to Dollar Tree, or Safeway, or Salvation Army, and their card swiper network is down (and typically any places that use the same service are affected). When that happens, it is cash only. At least it is not yet cash, grass, or ass (where ass can just mean physical labor and not, you know...giggity).

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also by not accepting cash, the robbers cannot buy things with their dirty money directly, causing the merchant being under investigation of being part of money laundering.

Since when do we expect stores to be able to tell the difference between "stolen" cash and "legitimetely earned" cash? How would such a thing even be remotely possible? It's not money laundering if they have no possible way of knowing that the money was procured illegally. I declare shenanigans on your bullshit scare tactics, jelllomizer.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Wycliffe]

I went to walmart customer service to get a 100 dollar bill for a Christmas present. The cashier pulled out a stack of probably 100 of them. I was amazed that they had that much money in a single register in a fairly insecure location.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bad to allow tip sharing! You're not one of those buffoons who thinks the waiter is solely responsible for the quality of the food are you? What in a corporate job, this is exactly the same as the sales people being paid much more than the development staff.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another thing where Americans take it up the arse from business. In Australia, if you refuse cash to settle a debt, the debt is considered payed.
Must be awful living in such a backwards shithole.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are preaching to idiots. There is no question that a bill can be paid in cash. IF you try to pay a $1 bill with $1000 bill they can refuse to provide $999.00 change, but a $1000 bill is legal tender for a $1000 debt, and to refuse to accept said payment is to forgive the debt. Period.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

They can say exact amount only. It is about providing change. What they cannot say is "Even exact amount is unacceptable."

Re:Where's the story here?

[mikael]

Paypal become unusable for me when it now requires a mobile telephone number to register an account.

Re:Where's the story here?

[mikael]

I guess they will just start mugging customers for their credit and debit cards and demand the PIN for each card.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't just tip sharing. It is a gift to restaurant owners disguised as tip sharing, because it allows the restaurant to keep everything past minimum wage if they so desire.

Re:Where's the story here?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Taxation is theft!

Just like copyright infringement, right?

Re: Where's the story here?

[chmod a x mojo]

Actually it depends.

Situation 1: You walk into a gas station to buy a candy bar with a $100 bill. Gas station says no, we don't handle bills above $20. Same goes for filling up your fuel tank if it is posted prominently that large bills are refused

LEGAL - you have not incurred a debt yet on the candy bar since the store still owns it, and you were warned by prominent signs that company policy states that the large bill would not be accepted.

Situation 2: you order food at a restaurant and eat it. No signs or other indications are present.

ILLEGAL You have a debt owed to the restaurant now, they have accepted and entered into a situation where they are your creditor, and they MUST accept the legal tender offer.

Unless the restaurant here has signs and / or makes it abundantly clear that cash will not be an accepted form of payment before the food is consumed they have to accept cash. If they make it clear that cash cannot be used before the food is consumed they can legally refuse to accept cash, unless state law comes into play wherein the state says they have to accept cash.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Cash with ... automatic change dispenser

This option 3 rapidly turns into option 8 after you have to keep reinserting a bill into the flaky bill acceptor multiple times.

I assume my bill won't work, especially if it is larger than a $1 bill.

This is by far the slowest possible method of paying for something.

Re: Where's the story here?

[nasch]

to refuse to accept said payment is to forgive the debt. Period.

How do you know? Is there a statute that says so? Is there a court judgment that says so? Because the Treasury Department doesn't say that, so we would need a higher authority than that to contradict them.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Because I'm not an idiot, I know that if someone says I owe them $1000 dollars and I offer to pay them $1000 dollars, they cannot refuse my payment and say they want payment in cashcows, and will refuse to accept my *legal tender* dollars. They can refuse to provide change if the bill is $999 and I give them a $1000 bill, but they cannot say I didn't offer to pay.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this is the infamously out-of-date payment infrastructure in the U.S

It's not out of date, it's just a free for all. The U.S. is not one place where everything is the same (the name is plural after all). Just because some guy running a shop in one city in one state only accepts credit cards or only takes cash doesn't mean anything.
I typically pay for everything with whatever card I feel like using, and I live in the middle of nowhere.
Cash has been optional here for at least 20 years, but people don't want to let it go because they lose the anonymity.
Everything else you said is also true here.

Re: Where's the story here?

[nasch]

they cannot refuse my payment and say they want payment in cashcows, and will refuse to accept my *legal tender* dollars.

I don't know where you're getting this idea (I suspect thin air / your ass). Businesses can and do refuse cash, every single day. I have never heard of any business getting in trouble for this practice - have you? If so, what business, and what happened?

They can refuse to provide change if the bill is $999 and I give them a $1000 bill, but they cannot say I didn't offer to pay.

And if you try to leave with merchandise, they can also detain you and call the police and tell them you tried to leave the store without paying. Until the transaction is complete, you haven't paid. Secondly, the merchant is under no obligation to provide change. If you offer to pay with a $1000 bill and they tell you they can take the bill but can't give change, your options are 1) pay $1000 for it, or 2) don't buy it. 3) leave with the item without paying for is not a (legal) option.

Re: Where's the story here?

[nitehawk214]

Now that Verifone has started fixing their shit software, chip can be faster. At least until it gives the customer a bunch of confusing messages.

Re: Where's the story here?

[peragrin]

Cash also goes missing. The average register is short by a couple of bucks a day. In a major place that is couple if weeks pay for the employees.

The more people who use one register the greater the amount that it will be off.

Credit card receipts are almost never off.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you fill up your fuel tank you should incur a debt (unless they want to take the exact amount back).

They could refuse service the next time to you though.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also try that with a 50 cent peice. I had a McDonalds cashier try to give me 49 dollars worth of change. When she pulled the first $20 out of the register I asked her what she was doing. She said, Making change. I told her that I had given her exact change and that large coin was 50 cents, not $50.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes and yes

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

they should keep everything then. and buy their own fire department and police station!

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If ordered to pay, the judge could not compel you to pay in other than federal legal tender. Since you had already offered that in settlement, there's no way they'd get you to pay court costs and legal fees. Do this.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. So you take dollars, just not actual dollars. Well, fuck off, then.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

... Unless you're living in a student area and either they don't know what's in their account, or they hope the system doesn't know. It takes way longer to work through one declined card, followed by three tries at a half remembered pin, than to give them cash and get change. But the trick with giving cash is to give cash that gets the minimum number of coins.

Re: Where's the story here?

[mark-t]

If I enter a wrong pin or choose the wrong account, that adds perhaps about 10 or 15 seconds to total the time it takes, which can still in some cases be faster than cash only.

But yeah.... that will slow things down a lot. In general, I don't have any difficulty with my pin, or choose the wrong account to pay from.

Notwithstanding, Ive seen some people take 2 or 3 minutes just counting out money from their own purse or wallet, compared to the 20 seconds or so it would take for me to handle such a transaction electronically via chip and pin.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of those examples are fine. It may not be feasible or (think of giving change for the $100) practical to build support for more than $20 bills into a vending machine. When I bought a train ticket for a short trip from a machine with a $20, the change (in $1 coins) sounded like a slot machine going off and resulted in a very heavy pocket (and strange looks at the coffee shops and lunch place downtown where I passed them before heading home). Stores generally don't want big bills because a significant proportion of them are fake (need training and gadgets to check them if taking them; large grocery stores have that, while the corner store probably doesn't). Quarters are still legal currency, and the machine accepts them for good and practical mechanical reasons - there's probably a change machine nearby (that only accepts bills up to $20, again for practical reasons). None of those examples involve refusing to accept cash; they involve limitations on particular forms of cash that can be exchanged elsewhere for what's needed. And last I heard and saw, ATMs still primarily dispense $20s (a few will do $10s now).

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends.

In Canada, chip and pin is slower than debit(pin) only by virtue of debit checking for insufficient funds.

In the US chip and sign is even slower than straight debit.

However in both the US and Canada Apple Pay is as fast as the NFC, but there is a catch. The NFC will reject the payment method every so often, even if done by Apple Pay or with the physical card, which means you either pick another card( if the POS doesnâ(TM)t take it) or you have to insert the chip anyway.

However cash is the hands down slowest, because cashiers canâ(TM)t count any more. Some stores have coin hoppers that do change automatically which is faster, but Mom and pop type of stores often donâ(TM)t.

But more to the point, conventions and food trucks donâ(TM)t like dealing in cash anymore due to high risk theft.

Re:Where's the story here?

[j-beda]

Sounds like you need to go get a job as a pizza delivery driver. You'll change your tune in about a week, 2 at tops.

I don't know. I have been underpaid in the past, and I don't feel I was particularly open to tax fraud then. I will admit that I have never been in particularly high risk of not having enough money to pay my expenses, with solid family support available if necessary, so I might feel different if I was just scraping by.

Is it so strange to think that income should be reported as required? It seems like at least 84% of people agree with in that "they thought it was not acceptable to cheat at all on taxes" according to https://www.livescience.com/81...

It looks like I am in the majority on this one.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Reverend Green]

Sounds like a problem with that company's cash management procedures, more than a problem with cash itself.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Reverend Green]

Bankers rob the poor and give sweetheart deals to the rich. Bought & paid-for government not only allows but facilitates their mass robbery. News at 11!

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love having spare change. It comes in really handy for parking meters and paying for small items.

Re: Where's the story here?

[demonlapin]

They don't let you fill up first if you're a cash customer, or if your card is declined for the preauthorization amount. Haven't for years.

Re: Where's the story here?

[geekmux]

It is also illegal.

Nope, it's 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.

I see you've read Coinage Act of 1965. Now the question is have you actually read what is printed on the front of ALL US currency?

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

It's practically a contract written directly on the damn money we're debating about. Tends to make you wonder who's actually in the wrong here.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. These cashless cretins enable identity theft, tracking and surveillance, and destruction of anonymity and freedom.

Businesses like this should be avoided as traitors to our society.

Re:Where's the story here?

[thegarbz]

Your country implemented chip and pin poorly of that is the case.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been at least ten years since I encountered a parking meter that accepted cash.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a manned petrol station (i.e., one where you can actually pay cash at all), the cashier won't know how you will pay until after you've filled up.

Re:Where's the story here?

[zifn4b]

Beat Up /. all you want. But don't talk like Reddit isn't a festering septic pond.

They both are that by virtue of being composed of largely ignorant human beings. At least on reddit I can subscribe to topics selectively and if I find an idiot that keeps posting shit I can block them and not see it anymore. I can essentially customize my experience whereas on slashdot I have to deal with what is effectively a top down dictatorship.

Re: Where's the story here?

[stoatwblr]

There is a difference between a debt and a contract or transaction.

Under the laws of most countries, if you incur a debt then cash money (legal tender in that country) must be accepted by the creditor. (There is usually a limit on the numbers of any one denomination or coinage in most countries, in order to avoid someone paying with $500 of 1c pieces)

In a normal transaction, no debt has been incurred (It's a contract involving an offer, a consideration and acceptance), therefore there is no obligation to accept cash, or particular denominations of cash (Eg, "we refuse to accept £20 notes due to the high degree of counterfeits being passed")

A merchant would be silly to refuse 100% to accept cash (especially given the percentages that payment processors take on small transactions), but it's entirely within their right to do so if they either set a blanket policy or refuse based on a suspicion that the proffered money is counterfeit (US money might be very bland visually but it's a different story under UV lights. The same applies to most currencies)

Refusing because of a customer's colour, religion or gender is covered by a different bunch of discrimination laws and is a hot-button issue in most countries. On the other hand refusing because the customer is an asshole is usually perfectly legal.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s been 38 years and 9ish months since Iâ(TM)ve come across one that didnâ(TM)t.

Re: Where's the story here?

[unicornzvi]

They can say exact amount only. It is about providing change. What they cannot say is "Even exact amount is unacceptable."

Actually they can, it's a basic part of contract law - unless specifically forbidden by law, the contract aka agreement between two or more parties can state pretty much anything the parties agree on in advance. If a restraunt put up a sign that they'll only accept payment in bottlecaps, that's perfectly legal. What would not be legal is the restaurant refusing to accept cash for your bill if they DIDN'T inform you in advance that they would not be accepting cash.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

If the menu lists costs in bottlecaps then you are correct, but if it lists costs in US dollars they must accept dollars, i.e. cash. I'm sorry if this is hard for you to understand.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strikes me that cashless business would heavily advertise the fact so that you couldn't claim you were unaware and a judge could smack down smart-asses like you two

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Perhaps because I'm in Europe and we've long since had chip cards but cash is invariably slower in my experience, searching for the correct coinage, waiting for the checkout staff to gather change and the time taken exchanging the two.

Even if it weren't I'd take a few more seconds to escape having to carry cash, it is a physical inconvenience to have it distending my wallet which in turn pulls on my jeans or jacket. Not to mention it's an incredibly easy target for theft whereas I can cancel my card in an instant from my phone

Re: Where's the story here?

[unicornzvi]

Nope. While most places have laws requiring that prices be posted in a clear, easy to understand fashion (meaning that in my analogy hey'd have to list menu prices in bottle caps as well as dollars), posting prices in USD doesn't mean you need to accept payment in a certain form, that comes down to your contract(i.e agreement) with the store - if the restaurant informs you in advance they only accept payment in X form, and you sit down to eat you have agreed to pay in X form.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Zero__Kelvin]

If you really knew anything about contract law you would know that certain things cannot be valid in a contract. You are a clueless bafoon who has literally no clue what you are talking about. Kindly FOAD. Thanks.

Re: Where's the story here?

[david_thornley]

I like it when the economy is sufficiently good that people like those cashiers can find work.

Re: Where's the story here?

[david_thornley]

If it's service, then payment, I believe a debt is created, and they must accept cash. If the meal or hair styling requires payment up front, they can set any terms they wish.

Re:Where's the story here?

[david_thornley]

I am sympathetic to the reality that restaurant staff are not particularly well paid,

Sure. That's why I tip well. If the server isn't making much money, helping the server commit tax fraud isn't going to be as helpful as leaving a larger tip.

Re: Where's the story here?

[mark-t]

Most stylists or hairdressers I've seen require payment afterwards, and the only restaurants I know of that require payment up front are fast food places that do not offer full service.

Basically, any occupation where one might reasonably expect to make a fair amount of money on tips based on quality of services received.

Re:Where's the story here?

[HornWumpus]

That's exactly as helpful as leaving a tip that's scaled by his/her marginal tax rate.

Do both.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What no option for paying in gold/silver/Bitcoin?!?

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter what they advertise federal laws as cash is payable for all debts of 100 bucks. In other words if your total is less than a 100 bucks and they refused to take cash they had said that you owe them nothing

Re:Where's the story here?

[kaatochacha]

You have obviously never paid with check.

Re: Where's the story here?

[demonlapin]

The pump won't turn on without a card or a prepay. Twenty years ago, your method might have worked, because most people filled up first and paid cash after. Today, not so much. You want to pay cash, fine, but you have to do it before the pump will start.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"

That kills your argument right there.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not live in a major city. Here in Los Angeles all of them take cash.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Amsterdam and parking meters here haven't accepted cash since the early 2000s and they seem to be dying out elsewhere too. It's all pay-by-phone or debit card nowadays. I do see them occasionally abroad, especially in Germany. Germans love cash for some reason.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

But how will the cashier know you want to pay cash? You don't normally enter the shop until after you have finished filling up.

Re: Where's the story here?

[demonlapin]

Not in the US, you don't. Reread what I said. The pump will not turn on until you have either put in a valid card or prepaid the cashier.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

It is also illegal.

Nope, it's 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.

If the goods or services were already provided such that the customer owes a debt, then cash must be accepted or the bill considered paid. That does not help a customer at the supermarket but if the meal has already been eaten or the service provided, then the customer owes a debt and may always pay with cash.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

Plenty of places don't take cash. Like the DMV for example. Check or card only.

How does that work with a fine? Are fines somehow not considered debts?

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

As you said..

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts...

So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists? What if the card is declined for some reason, but they still have cash as a backup?

How well would it work? It would not work.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists?

Simple. If you don't have a card, you have to wait tables or cut hair until you're square with the house. Problem solved. Things get even more interesting when you can't pay your orthodontist.

That would be fun in jurisdictions where table waiting and cutting hair are licensed professions.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

So I can sue the vending machine makers for not handling $100 bills for a $1.50 bottle of Soda Pop?
Or the stores that say we do not accept bills over $20.00
In College where I needed quarters only to use the Washing Machines?

While Cash is good for all debts private and public. We don't have to accept the notes, or coins. The guy who tries to pay for his car with pennies, can be denied.

If the vending machine, store, college, or car lot presented me with a debt, then yes, they must accept cash. If they just denied service, then no.

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

So you go out of your way to facilitate tax fraud. Fantastic.

When enforcing compliance costs as much if not more than the taxes raised? Absolutely.

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

That would be fun in jurisdictions where table waiting and cutting hair are licensed professions.

Or practicing orthodontia? I thought that surely once I included that I could get past the need for a </sarc>. I guess I was wrong. I wasn't really suggesting that somebody who couldn't pay their orthodontist should start tightening braces to pay it off.

Re: Where's the story here?

[jeffb (2.718)]

The statement on the bill was so that no-one could refuse it during the "Great Rebellion", as the American Revolution was called at the time.

You meant, of course, the Civil War.

Thanks for this link -- fascinating reading!

Re:Where's the story here?

[jeffb (2.718)]

It is immoral to _not_ avoid AND evade your taxes as much as possible!

Spoken like a true corporation.

Say, shouldn't you be out fighting a fire, or repairing a road, or arresting an armed robber, or doing one of those other things that taxation is apparently an immoral way to fund?

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

That would be fun in jurisdictions where table waiting and cutting hair are licensed professions.

Or practicing orthodontia? I thought that surely once I included that I could get past the need for a </sarc>. I guess I was wrong. I wasn't really suggesting that somebody who couldn't pay their orthodontist should start tightening braces to pay it off.

Cutting hair is state licensed more often than not. So is table waiting when federal and state requirements are taken into account.

Re: Where's the story here?

[kaatochacha]

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

Re: Where's the story here?

[gnick]

I thought that surely... I could get past the need for a </sarc>.

Cutting hair is state licensed more often than not. So is table waiting when federal and state requirements are taken into account.

That's super. Orthodontics, I'm assuming, is licensed all over. I don't get where you're going with this.

Re: Where's the story here?

[kaatochacha]

There are no manned petrol stations here anymore, unless you're really rich or handicapped.

Re: Where's the story here?

[kaatochacha]

Don't be an ass. Power goes out. trees fall on lines. Heavy snow snaps things. cars crash into things. It happens.

Re:Where's the story here?

[kaatochacha]

I always tip cash at my local restaurants. It's not my job to report someone's tip earnings, it's up to them at that point. If they choose not to report it....well, not my problem.
Plus, I have a moral problem with taxes on a voluntary ( tip) payment to justify wage shenanigans with wait staff.

Re: Where's the story here?

[davecb]

Righto, thanks!

Re: Where's the story here?

[Agripa]

My point is that all professions are licensed one way or another. Some are more obviously licensed than others.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the UK I always pay for the meal on card and tip in cash. Not to facilitate tax fraud (although you know it happens), but to avoid the restaurant skimming off the top. A bunch of chain restaurants (Bella Italia, Strada, Giraffe, Pizza Express and ASK Italia for those interested) were found to be retaining 8-10% of the tip amount as an "admin charge", when they were only paying 2.5% to process the card.

Re:Where's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Amsterdam

Exactly as I said, you live out in the sticks in a minor city. Try living in a big city and you'll see the difference.

Germans love cash for some reason.

Maybe because they value their privacy and don't want their banks and government tracking everywhere they go?

What

[Anonymous Coward]

NYC is not the entire world. When all your examples are in NYC cashless is still an isolated phenomenon.

Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[mysidia]

Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.

Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender.

I know it seems that way, but it's actually quite legal. The Fed said basically there's no law compelling businesses to accept cash, so refusing to do so is not illegal. A lawyer said that as long as the business states up front you have to pay by credit card to get service and they don't take cash at all, that's also not illegal.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[pr0fessor]

I'm not seeing a future where only bank transactions or credit cards are excepted, it would require faith in these financial institutions to be private, secure, and accurate in their accounting. The three places where they fail.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Zero__Kelvin]

That is not correct. Cash is legal tender in the US. Businesses do not have to accept it, but they have to consider the bill paid in full if they refuse it once offered, regardless of any signs they may post. Signs don't change the law, and refusal to accept cash is a clearly discriminatory practice.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[zifn4b]

Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.

Clearly they are wielding monopoly power now against GOVERNMENT-BACKED legal tender. If bribing vendors to reject Bills and accept only Visa fake money that only those with good credit or a bank account can get isn't a threat to freedom, democracy, and capitalism, then I dunno what would be.

Why would this not sort itself out naturally? If many of the merchant's customers want to pay with cash and are alienated, the merchant loses valuable business. Merchants are in business to make profit and if cash customers are vital to that profit, they would never take such an incentive. However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it. What's the problem here? It's a free market. No one is being forcefully coerced to do anything here unless you didn't explain adequately. That also includes you're not being forced to shop at the merchant. Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Lunix Nutcase]

No matter how many times you repeat that it's still wrong.

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.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[FatdogHaiku]

Then they should recall all the money and change the printing to update this inconvenient phrase:
This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.

Maybe make it:
This note is legal tender for SOME debts, public and private, if the debtee feels like it.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, they are pretty unreliable. I was paying for an online game (not gambling, just a game) with visa/mastercard, and twice in the last three years payments have failed for unexplained reasons. No credit issues on my side (related account at the bank issuing the card holds a significant amount; no debt of any kind anywhere), payments are no suspicious one-of-a-kind payments either (recurring monthly, for the last 10+ years). I tried to reach someone to authorize the payment, but there was no-one available with such powers. There even was no-one who could give any definitive reason. Some vague explanation that there might have been too many cards wrongly used on the receiver side. Some weeks later it worked again.

How can such card be used for anything serious? No live-threatening situation (just a weekend without my favorite game), but in other cases, it might get more ugly. Sitting there in a restaurant, having payments fail? No-one to reach to resolve issues, then doing the dishes?

I've switched to Amex, hoping for better service in such cases. No such situation has occurred yet, so I cannot compare. I would prefer cash (for everything), but obviously that's inconvenient for this specific case of paying a company on the other side of the world.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[mysidia]

However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it.

Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests, and ELIMINATED government-backed cash as a competitor: Without the bribe, the markets would likely succeed and the merchants would still take cash --- because It is in their best interests to trade with everyone they can make a profitable trade with, but WITH the bribe, the free markets will fail perhaps, because in many venues there might not be quite $10k a year spent in CASH FORM, AND establishments that take in $20k or $30k in cash might go negotiate their own private deals with Visa to get a % point taken off their fees or something in addition to the $10k.

Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.

That's not an adequate answer to address the corruption of the marketplace.
Point 1. being "Shop somewhere else" is not an acceptable resolution -- this places far too much burden on the consumer and threatens the viability of these government-backed notes, which the public has not affirmatively agreed to.

Point 2 is.... the people who are cardless through no real fault of their own OR don't want to pay Visa an extra free for a prepaid cashcard of some sort don't even have a choice.

Maybe I like unique food this restaurant has for sale. When the Civil Rights act passed; we as a society decided that places of public accommodation are important enough that some groups cannot be discriminatorily denied access "Cardless not welcome in our restaurant" simply should not fly.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Purchasing a good or service does not create a debt unless paid on credit.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[zifn4b]

Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests

Did you not read the other person's post? The government investigated this claim and determined that it doesn't hold up in COURT. If you really give a shit about this problem, go get a legal degree and try to fight it in court. Until then, shut up and take your liberal shit elsewhere. The government doesn't need to be invoked for every single fucking thing that you personally disagree with. No one fucking gives a shit about your opinion.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[tinkerton]

That's a strange reasoning. The whole push is towards a system where you don't have the option to pay cash. Some players like it because it offers control: you can see all transaction, you can sanction approved/disapproved transactions. Other players like the idea that they can impose negative interests on your money.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

At no point there's a debt that can be paid by cash. First the transfer the money using the card. Then after that they hand over the product. Which debt is being paid?

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

...they have to consider the bill paid in full if they refuse it once offered, regardless of any signs they may post.

You've said that more than once now. Maybe you'd like to share a source for this information that seems to be contradicted several times over?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it seems that way, but it's actually quite legal.
The GP is arguing against Visa/Mastercard monopolies, not that refusing cash is illegal. I don't know if what they're doing constitutes abusing monopoly power, but I certainly agree that requiring everyone to have a card to pay for things is a threat to democracy, and an attack on people with low incomes.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Zero__Kelvin]

Nobody has contradicted it. Someone posted a link to a webpage that talks about a *rule*, as the treasury cannot make laws. I assure you that if I receive a bill for $100.00 and I offer a $100.00 bill as payment, and the creditor goes to court and says I refused to pay because they wanted AmEx the Judge will inform them that I offered to pay and they refused payment.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron.

The United States Dollar is legal tender for all debts, public and private.

If you buy something and someone refuses cash payment, that's their problem, not yours.

If you want to buy something and someone won't sell it to you until you agree to pay with something they accept, then your cash is no good. You can't force someone to sell for cash, but you absolutely can force them to accept cash for a debt (e.g., something you've already purchased).

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore zero_kelvin.

Dude is arrogant and autistic as fuck. He's a fucking code monkey who think he is an engineer.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[HornWumpus]

Visa/MC _doesn't_ negotiate.

Only costco got a lower rate, they did it by buying a bank and issuing their own visa cards, only Costco pays lower fees on that card. You can bet that mostly comes out of the bank, not the CC network.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a debt for anything you consume that is not paid up front, such as a meal.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess - the problematic card was Chase. Maybe Bank of America. Oops, I mean Banc of America, with a c, not a k. Totally separate company, honest.

Chase and Banc of America are trash, trash, trash companies and have the worst fucking service imaginable. Get Amex or Discover. Getting a human on the phone in a few seconds, that speaks English and is based in the US, is fucking amazing.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a form of credit purchase. If the payment is at or before exchange the vendor can refuse cash.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

So you walk into a bar, order a drink, sip it down, and hand them a $20 for payment... and they say ``oh, sorry, we only accept VISA''... (which you claim you don't have). Or how how about a barber. After your new hair style, you hand them a $20 as payment, and they'll say ``oh, sorry, we only accept VISA'' ?

Both of the above have created a debt, that you're legally discharging using currency created for said purpose. The article is mostly about such transactions.

Yes, if you walk upto a counter and say ``I'll buy this can of beans for this $20 bill'' they're free to deny you that purchase (as it didn't create debt).

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

The saying, "legal tender for all debts, public and private," was put there because paper money was not legal tender at one time, only coins could be used to pay debts. However, there has never been a federal statue mandating coins or paper money for debts. You may need to pay in chickens if the creditor so demands.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[AvitarX]

I'd be willing to bet the judge would actually give a $100 judgement to them and force them to accept cash then.

Probably stick them with fees for a bullshit case too.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[j-beda]

Nobody has contradicted it. Someone posted a link to a webpage that talks about a *rule*, as the treasury cannot make laws. I assure you that if I receive a bill for $100.00 and I offer a $100.00 bill as payment, and the creditor goes to court and says I refused to pay because they wanted AmEx the Judge will inform them that I offered to pay and they refused payment.

That seems fairly clear, but can you come up with a legal decision in a court that actually follows that, in a situation such as one of these businesses that are currently operating? If my restaurant has a clear sign stating "no cash", has anyone successfully got away without paying after being sued? Absent such court decisions, we don't REALLY know what the courts think the laws and rules mean and which ones, and parts of ones, are enforceable.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal shit? Lol. The post reads like the ramblings of a hard right wingnut.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[liquid_schwartz]

A couple of points. First off the government doesn't really like us using cash as they want to monitor every single thing we do. Thus they prefer us using credit cards with all records being available to them. Second, banksters run the country and make ~2.5% per transaction this way so of course it will be preferred over cash.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[gnick]

He's a fucking code monkey who think he is an engineer.

Hey! I'm a fucking code monkey who thinks he's an engineer! I refuse to be lumped into a category with that idiot Zero__Kelvin!

(MSEE by education, working as a C++ programmer for a little over a year. Dedicated Zero__Kelvin combatant.)

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your need your text boldfaced like the OP had so it's more clear that you're referring to payment of a debt

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

it's no different than the business not accepting credit cards. in the 70s and 80s that would have been fine, in the 90s that trend started to change. now, if a business doesn't accept credit/debit cards, they will lose much more business than if they don't accept cash. being cashless for a business means your employees can't steal from the til. having ran a small retail store, the vast majority of all my revenue was ran through credit/debit transactions. easily 95% of every day's transactions were electronic and on most days the other 5% was made up by cash with an occasional check tossed in.

look at what has happened with checks. in the 80s you could have easily written a check at 7-11 or any other store in the US, today, few businesses accept them. for some absolutely bizarre reason, grocery stores are the ones that still tend to accept them more widely than any other type of business. checks are a complete pain in the ass for every single person involved, check writer included, but also the store and the people in line behind the old blue hair slowly writing out their check. they cost more to handle (time is money and all transactions involving a check take longer without exception). they also carry many times more risk than any other type of currency. across 100,000s of transactions, never once did I have a bad credit/debit card transaction, once I had a fake $20 and about 10 times I had bad checks written out to me.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

"specie is the only constitutional money in this country", bouviers, "specie"

i don't know why people think a "Treasury" doing martial law for 150+ years is worth listening to.

the real story is:

1) new yorkers run up 20+ trillion (just current amount) from "dragooning" everyone into "federal citizen" status without telling them
2) DOD loses the 20 trillion "national credit" that is owed (see "maxim", bouviers, www.dict.org
3) "new yorkers" continue being asshats and hypocrites

just more bankers being satanic psychopaths, nothing new. "cash" means "specie" by the way. if you dont know that, you are not qualified to have this discussion.

"martial law" is whatever they say it is.

bankers try to purposely promote revolution by purposely being arrogant asshats. news at 3. sky still blue. satan still "god of this world".

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has contradicted it.

I'm not going to bother posting links to all of the replies to your comments. You have been contradicted quite a few times now. If you don't understand that, try re-reading some of your responses.

Someone posted a link to a webpage that talks about a *rule*, as the treasury cannot make laws.

Great. Show us the law. Because right now, that *rule* from the treasury certainly trumps your *nothing*.

I assure you that if I receive a bill for $100.00 and I offer a $100.00 bill as payment, and the creditor goes to court and says I refused to pay because they wanted AmEx the Judge will inform them that I offered to pay and they refused payment.

TFA asserts otherwise.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus they prefer us using credit cards with all records being available to them.

Prepaid debit cards. Anonymous.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

If I saw a sign that said âoeno cashâ Iâ(TM)d just think it meant the shop was dead broke and couldnâ(TM)t make change.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Sniper98G]

I was curious about this and tried looking it up. I couldn't find anything about them buying a bank.

Their cards are issued by Citigroup and everything I found said that Citigroup was just massively aggressive in getting Costco to switch an gave them nearly fee processing as an incentive.

Do you have anymore info about what you are talking about?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[HornWumpus]

Kid, it's obvious, if you were alive in the 80's, you were still shitting green.

7-11 etc never took checks.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[HornWumpus]

I'm likely wrong on the details. My larger point stands. Unless you are costco, Visa will say: 'Get the fuck out...'

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[gnick]

If I saw a sign that said âoeno cashâ Iâ(TM)d just think it meant the shop was dead broke and couldnâ(TM)t make change.

The DMV?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

well of course if they could only get rid of cash...

then they could make a bank run impossible, which would allow them to go negative with the interest rates

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[reboot246]

Yes, and it's almost like that ~2.5% fee is the bank "taxing" us for their benefit. And we thought only governments could levy a tax!

I shop at a lot of smaller stores where they won't take a card for purchases of less than five or ten bucks (it varies by store). It makes sense because the store will lose money on small transactions. How do the "cashless" proponents handle situations like that?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[rogoshen1]

for a retail shop...

cash lets a rogue employee steal a little money slowly; going electronic only lets them steal a lot of money, quickly.

Basically taking cash from the till is stealing from their employer, versus stealing directly from the customer -- but hey, who cares about them after they've purchased their item, right?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[pr0fessor]

I don't understand how it's strange to reason that a bank or credit card company cannot operate with out the trust of the consumer that use it.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Better hope that's not true Linux Nutcase, or all of the US currencies just became worthless overnight.

Pretty sure actual economists and REAL lawyers dealing with REAL cases and REAL currency law would laugh at you... and laugh and laugh and laugh.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[starblazer]

If you walk into the bar/store/restaurant with signs that says "CREDIT/DEBIT CARD ONLY, NO CASH ACCEPTED", knowing you only have 20 bucks in your pocket and no cards in your wallet, the business owner has a de-facto case for "THEFT OF SERVICES". You knew that you didn't have payment to pay for services and you received them anyway.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[starblazer]

Unless you are a large market player, then Visa will tell you to GTFO. I doubt McDonalds/Taco Bell/Walmart pays anywhere near what Small Biz Owner #3934820348 on the street pays.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing illegal about walking into a building.

You've deliberately omitted the exact events that would unravel you.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you conspiracy loons have your own web sites? Is it really necessary to spread this rubbish all over the entire internet?

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Except I do have payment. That 20 dollars cash. They can claim all they want that cash is not accepted, but unless they take payment up front, my cash is valid tender.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes 7-11 did but it was the 70's and not at all locations.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMV here accepts cash. It also did in the last few states I lived in. In fact one of those states refused to accept plastic, cause they didnt want to pay a fee for the transaction.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why would this not sort itself out naturally?

Why on earth would it? I mean, processing rates haven't been subject to competitive pricing... ever.

What's the problem here?

The problems are several. First, it's exercising coercive power on customers. Second, people are bad at future costs. While it may be voluntary now, it may not be .later And if Visa/MC/Amex have a chokehold on commerce, they can jack up the rates and exercise huge control.

It's a frog in boiling water situation. You speak up now while we have the freedom to choose another merchant, cause soon we may not be able to. See also, people who complained about Facebook before it became mandatory in some social groups.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

yup. and we're also free to take our cash elsewhere.

if i had the extra money, i'd setup a shop right next door to those scumbags, selling the same type of stuff, cash only, and below their prices.

lower price? check
no cc processing fees? check
I still make more money than them? check

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you conspiracy loons have your own web sites? Is it really necessary to spread this rubbish all over the entire internet?

im sorry this is "Your" website. you come across as just another satanic banker trying to grab something that doesnt belong to them.

"anonymous coward" is void for ambiguity. did all the people with usernames vote that you get to own this website?

your reasoning skills appear lacking. if there is a set of satanic bankers siphoning off the wealth...enslaving everyone under bogus debt...then everyone gets a mansion and car and free website and ISP and food and house and shelter and wife and kids? i don't see your reasoning here. they are going to try to buy me off? they don't seem to be in any rush here.

what makes you think "federal citizens" can "own" anything? they are naturalized "creations of congress". "congress" owns them. again, your reasoning seems to be lacking.

if you "own" a website, but you "owe" 20 trillion...then what and who do you think is the collateral if you miss a payment? if you have a mortgage, you dont "own" anything until it is payed off.

you have a mere equitable/usufruct implied interest to reside temporarily on the property, as you make payments, a "right to reside while your payments come in" at best, not "ownership"

so satan takes over ...and you ask me "dont you have a set of penthouse models you can snuggle with"? your logic does not add up.

if you are trying to bribe me, you seem to be making no effort. that is evidence in my favour, not yours.

dont you have some coke to do?

is a 0/-1 post really bothering your view of things? wait until you see goatse and natalie portmann tell you all about the GNAA.

YAAT. you are a troll.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck proving scienter. Plus, that suit isn't entitled to interest as they rejected payment in the form of legal tender.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[tinkerton]

Did I overstate? You can only act on that distrust if you have an alternative. If cash is deprecated is becomes unavailable as an option, or at least very difficult. You can change to another credit card company , that is, if that makes any difference. Once you're using credit cards you're fully monitored and under control,
I read that China has created an alternative to SWIFT because they felt imprisoned by it, and now other countries are following. That's because they want to get rid of that external control. At the same time they strongly push you to use credit cards, because that can be controlled.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[mysidia]

Not necessarily. If the store wants to restrict you to paying with VISA only, then the onus is on the store to collect your VISA card and charge you before giving you goods and services, so that it is not a debt ---- there is no legal requirement for restaurants to provide you food before you pay the bill; that is just a custom of certain kinds of restaurants.

Posting a sign somewhere visible in the premises doesn't automatically mean that everyone who enters has read the sign and agrees to it.

I believe if for some reason they should let you run up a bill --- after the debt is accumulated, then the shop has to either accept your payment in a lawful form if you have the cash available, Or allow you to leave and a reasonable number of days to acquire the special form of cash they are wanting, then come back later to settle the outstanding debt:
There's no basis for accusing a customer for "THEFT OF SERVICES" for having cash and not a desired special payment instrument.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[DigiShaman]

Except I do have payment. That 20 dollars cash. They can claim all they want that cash is not accepted, but unless they take payment up front, my cash is valid tender.

The GOVERNMENT will accept cash, for it's legal tender. But there is NO LAW that requires a cash transaction even though it's the defacto standard of a private entity. Hence the disclaimer "CREDIT/DEBIT CARD ONLY, NO CASH ACCEPTED". That right there is an "out" to not do business with cash.

If I want to render services with BTC, and only BTC, do my knowledge, there isn't a law against it. However, (and here's the best part), I still must pay taxes on it's valuation and/or earned income is....***drum roll*** US Currency back to the IRS!!!

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cashless" enables the banks - and other actors - to control whether you even eat. They just turn your cards off and you can't even buy a small hamburger. Cash, which I often deliberately use, provides that somewhat anonymous buffer between me and the banks etc. (the banks and and other riff raff).

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[pr0fessor]

That is the issue if trust is low for the consumers it will have a negative effect on businesses that don't except cash. Unless at some point we move from cash to a treasury card there will always be small businesses and larger businesses that will accept cash. I couldn't imagine walmart suddenly letting money slip from their grasp because they would decide no more cash and to take only debit and credit cards.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has contradicted it. Someone posted a link to a webpage that talks about a *rule*, as the treasury cannot make laws. I assure you that if I receive a bill for $100.00 and I offer a $100.00 bill as payment, and the creditor goes to court and says I refused to pay because they wanted AmEx the Judge will inform them that I offered to pay and they refused payment.

And I can assure you that you are wrong.

Your bus driver will not accept $100. You will receive a citation, lose the case, and pay costs.

Fucking idiot. Tell my why I am wrong. I bet you don't have no balls to do that. Payment in $20s or less please.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Signs don't change the law, and refusal to accept cash is a clearly discriminatory practice.

So it would seem easy for you to tell us the section of the US Code that makes this illegal. Tell us. Waiting...

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Attila Dimedici]

I mean, processing rates haven't been subject to competitive pricing... ever.

That is not true. I worked for at least two retail businesses which changed their credit card processor for a better rate.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[MerlTurkin]

I can see it happening (America can be really "F'd" up) but I won't participate in it.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd assume they were idiots — on several levels — who had no idea how to run a business and not give them any money at all in any form.

It's a very bad idea to not take cash. It'll do the population serious harm in the long run.

So I assume that's the way it's gonna go, sigh.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Any service that is consumed first, automatically creates a debt.

Going to a restaurant, ordering a meal without paying up front, creates a debt.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[YukariHirai]

In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests, and ELIMINATED government-backed cash as a competitor: Without the bribe, the markets would likely succeed and the merchants would still take cash --- because It is in their best interests to trade with everyone they can make a profitable trade with, but WITH the bribe, the free markets will fail perhaps, because in many venues there might not be quite $10k a year spent in CASH FORM, AND establishments that take in $20k or $30k in cash might go negotiate their own private deals with Visa to get a % point taken off their fees or something in addition to the $10k.

Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.

That's not an adequate answer to address the corruption of the marketplace.

Corrupted? That is the free market, through and through: people/corporations coming to an agreement via money without any regulatory interference. That it results in a net negative outcome for the end consumer is not a sign of the free market being "corrupted", it's a sign that the free market magically being fair and beneficial to everyone is and always was a load of horse shit.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[jrumney]

the Judge will inform them that I offered to pay and they refused payment.

If its a bill for services already rendered and nothing in the pre-purchase agreement specifically states how payment may be made. If a shop refuses to accept the cash payment before you walk out the door with an item you want to buy though, then it would be shoplifting to walk out with it regardless of whether you left your unwanted $100 bill on the counter or not.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Sorry, the processors compete on price. The networks (Visa/Mastercard) and the banks do not.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely getting a Poe's Law feeling off this one...

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Zero__Kelvin]

That is not correct. If I pay $100 for a $100 item, they *cannot* say I didn't pay. The "rule" is that they don't have to provide change.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

in my country we can pay by cards most anything. i pay with cash and withdraw in stores, to support the more robust option, but the masses want to abolish cash because the banks tell them so. it boggles the mind how greedy some are.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[damnbunni]

Getting next to no business because so many people don't carry cash at all any more? Check.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

this will be shocking but cards can fail.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So let me get this straight.
There are (for good reason) laws mandating that private business cannot refuse custom based on race, religion, sexual preference, credit ratings, cake design, etc, but the moment some technocrat decides to sell us up the river of his financialised i-dystopia and smiles upon businesses refusing customers who use cash, neither law nor reason provides respite for the debt-indentured citizenry?

Because, "rednecks" or something?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook. Mandatory. Hahahaha!
ROTFLMAO!

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[jrumney]

I think you'll find that until you have a receipt in your hand, you will have trouble convincing the court that you have paid.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Just pointing out, the USA is only just catching up to where the rest of the world was 15 years ago. I mean, you even still use the magnetic strip and are only just now phasing in chip and pin, which has started getting phased out here (AU) in favour of NFC about 5 years ago. For the last 3 years, you haven't been able to sign for CC purchases here anymore - it's chip and pin or NFC only. Big parts of Europe were already fully contactless when we were midway through chip and pin.

There's been a couple of anti-competitive/abuse of monopoly court cases and whatnot but we're still here, still using cards. Australia's competition/consumer watchdogs are considerably stronger than those in the USA as well.

Furthermore, the market for payment processing is even more restricted outside of the USA. You have ~5 major cards I can think of, we only have Visa and MasterCard. AMEX has extremely limited acceptance, if you have one you'll need a backup card. Diners Club, Discover, etc are completely non-existent.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

This raises the question, if a business performs a service, and sends you a bill, are you now indebted to them, thus allowing you to pay in cash?

Likewise, if you eat at a restaurant, and they give you the cheque after, are you in debt?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Actually, just chip, no pin

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[mysidia]

Corrupted? That is the free market, through and through: people/corporations coming to an agreement via money without any regulatory interference.

Nope.... the second a collusive arrangement was constructed involving a cartel or large monopoly player bribing or inducing merchants to refuse payments through a competing method: it is no longer a free market ------ the fact that Visa is Not a governmental entity does NOT mean that what they do could never be regulatory interference -- for example: If they make their customers sign a contract that their customers won't accept cash payments, then Visa is now a regulator, and the markets are no longer free. It's the same deal offering their customers a bribe or cash incentive to change their behavior..... there is NOW an input coercing merchants to refuse cash that has nothing to do with whether or not their customers desire an ability to pay in cash AND the merchant desires to accept cash.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[YukariHirai]

If that all means that Visa is a regulator and therefore this is not actually a free market, then the free market is outright impossible.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

The same would be true if you only carried cards and went into a store that would only take cash. And people who don't carry cash are a lot more common these days than people who don't carry at least one credit or debit card at all times.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

There's a lot of reasons to not take cash.. security being the primary one. If you have no cash on premises, then your cash can't be stolen (either by robbers or by unscrupulous staff.)

But there are also smaller benefits like not having to have a cash drawer (saving counter space if you're in a small building,) not having to count and reconcile the cash against the sales (which can be time consuming if you've made a lot of sales, meaning you're having to pay your staff for additional hours.) Not having to maintain floats for change, not having to count and roll change to deposit at the bank, etc.

Basically, they're paying Visa 3% or whatever the rate is these days to save a lot of hassle and headaches (and getting a $10k payout doesn't tend to turn people away either.) At the cost of not being able to serve the (small, and shrinking) number of people who don't carry any form of credit or debit.. especially if you're trying to pass yourself off as even remotely high-end and specifically targeting people of moderate affluence and above.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

Visa cares about them, since they're usually the one who picks up the tab when their cards are used fraudulently. Which is why card security shot went from "just sign the slip" to chips and PINs and whatever else in short order once ecommerce took off and nabbing CC numbers was easy money. (Some places will still take just a signature of course but they're getting fewer and fewer by the year, at least up here in Canada.. I've heard the US is behind us on that front but I don't have first hand knowledge so I can't say for sure where it stands down there these days.)

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

Walmart isn't likely to do something like that no. But those trendy LA fashion shops where you can go to buy a shirt for $1500? Those kind of places are where these trends start. I mean if you walked in with a half mill stack and offered to buy out their entire store they likely wouldn't say no but for your average person coming in and just purchasing things normally.. those kind of semi-affluent folk are far more likely to be cashless than cardless anyway.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests

WTF are you talking about? I don't believe any of the "players" are forced to take the deal, nor are they even forced to work with Visa if they'd prefer to deal with Mastercard or Amex or Discovery or whoever.

And who are you to say whether its in my own best interests? If my store does basically no cash sales anyway then taking a free $10k most certainly is within my best interests. If I do 100k in cash and very little card sales, then it probably isn't. I still get to decide. There's nothing restricting my freedom to choose.

government-backed cash as a competitor

Wait, aren't you zealots supposed to want the government to butt out of your free markets? By typical zealot logic (such as applied to the municipal broadband debate,) you should be thrilled that the government is getting kicked out of the market!

the markets would likely succeed and the merchants would still take cash

What markets? No market theory I've ever heard of made any significant distinction between paper dollars vs electronic dollars (or vs coin dollars or vs yen or well basically anything else.. your intro to economics textbook might use dollars in the examples but the theory is agnostic to the actual form of currency -- as long as it is a currency and not a barter trade.)

might go negotiate their own private deals with Visa

Well one of the other replies to your rant says Visa doesn't do that, and since I don't have knowledge of Visa's practices I'm just going to believe them.. but even if they did do that.. since when has negotiating deals not been part of a free market?

"Shop somewhere else"

Yes it is. There is zero onus on my shop to serve you. I can refuse service for any reason I damned well please.

far too much burden on the consumer

Not my problem. Is it too much burden on the consumer if I refuse them service when they try to pay with Indian rupees? Those are perfectly fine government-backed notes (albeit a different country's government but you weren't specific.) Of course not you'd say its their problem to go to a money changer. Same deal. Go get yourself a prepaid card if you really really want my products but refuse to get an actual credit or debit card.

threatens the viability of these government-backed notes

Again, not my problem. If the government doesn't like it its up to them to do something about it. But again I'm wondering why you're so interested in the government getting involved this time around.

the public has not affirmatively agreed to.

If the public doesn't agree to it, then companies choosing to take Visa's deal with soon find themselves out of business. You not agreeing to it is not the same as "the public" not agreeing to it.

don't even have a choice.

Yes they do. They can go somewhere else. Or live without my product. Or, as I noted above, go buy a prepaid card. They're sold in kiosks at practically every shopping mall.

"Cardless not welcome in our restaurant" simply should not fly.

There's a very big difference between "I was born with dark skin, boobs, or other historically discriminated against feature" and "I'm too lazy to go down the street and get a prepaid card." And if you're legitimately too broke to get a bank card or a prepaid credit card, you probably can't afford anything being sold at a place that's decided cash isn't worth their effort anymore.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

And they really have no incentive to compete on price. Adoption rates in whatever jurisdiction are far, far, far more important in most cases. Paying 2.5% instead of 3% isn't great if you have to gut 20-30% of your potential client base to save that extra half point.

Which is why Visa dominates, Mastercard is more than a few steps behind in most places and Discovery/Amex are really only useful in the US -- Visa went balls out a couple decades ago pushing their services into countries all around the world and now you can use your Visa -- at least at bank ATMs to withdraw some local currency -- pretty much anywhere on the planet.

So consumers will almost certainly have a Visa (they might have others as well and maybe even prefer the others, but they almost certainly have a Visa as well.) Meaning as a merchant, if I have to choose just one CC company to partner with, Visa is probably going to be my first choice. (Luckily there's rarely any reason merchants can't accept any number of competing cards so they rarely have to make that choice.. at least in North America..)

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

Nah that 2.5% is a service fee. You could argue that its too high perhaps, but they are providing a service for it.

The closer thing to a "tax" is bank fees, where you're literally paying them to keep your money.. and they're generally loaning and/or investing your money as well, and of course you don't get any return on that. So you get a quarter percent interest.. and then charged $13.00 just to have the account open. Meaning just to break even you need to have $5200 in your account at all times (or whatever rate your bank uses of course.)

Banks and credit card companies do a lot of other shady shit too. I discovered the hard way that if you have even one cent of balance on your account at the end of the month, they will charge you interest based on the maximum amount you ever had on the card during the entire month. So if you buy something for $1000.01 on December 1, then put $1000 on the card that same day thinking the 1 cent won't matter.. well it does. I ended up getting charged effectively something like 400% interest relative to the actual overdue balance in my case. And somehow that's legal.

Also, if you buy something on a Saturday and put in a payment same day.. the purchase gets applied immediately but the payment doesn't get applied until the following Monday. Which normally is fine, but if Saturday happens to be the 30th of the month.. well lets just say I found that out the hard way too. Somehow that's also legal.

Both of those instances were Visa by the way, though from all I hear that's standard industry practice and has been for a long time.. but nobody thinks to mention it until they get bit in the ass and have zero recourse beyond just ranting as I'm doing now. (Well that's not true. I'm sure its buried somewhere in their 300 pages of illegible usage agreement.. most of those things could be replaced with a single page that just said "FUCK YOU" in giant bold letters and be just as meaningful and accurate to anyone who isn't a lawyer.)

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[MrL0G1C]

Except you're wrong because you haven't been billed, no bill, no debt, they might decide to let you have the meal for free for example if you kick up a fuss because your soup had a dead rat in it and cockroaches were scuttling about.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[MrL0G1C]

Not in the UK, the retailer is usually the one who foots the bill. I don't feel sorry for the retailer, my card was defrauded and it was astonishing how many shops and restaurants would allow someone to just read off my cc number without any proof of ID and purchase hundreds worth of goods and meals, no pin, no signature nothing. What the fuck is the point of chip and pin when this can happen?

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Cederic]

Amex have little traction in the UK because their fees are too high. Merchants chose to eliminate Amex-only customers rather than raise prices for everybody.

Makes it fun when US colleagues come over and expect their cards to work. They're left scrabbling for another card or using that weird cash thing.

Except one guy that uses Apple pay.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the UK. American Express is practically non-existant outside North America.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[david_thornley]

Close. There's no law that requires a private entity to accept cash in a transaction. Once a debt has been created, the law does say the entity has to accept cash. If I want to buy a widget off you, and you want BTC or Euros or Zimbabwe dollars or bushels of wheat, I can either supply your desired form of payment or find another widget seller.

If I walk into a restaurant and order food, when the bill comes it's a debt. It's money I owe the restaurant. The restaurant must accept my cash or waive the debt. It can accept other forms of payment (most happily accept my credit card), but that's not required. Obviously, this doesn't apply to a counter-type restaurant where you and over your money and get your food, but, in the US, sit-down restaurants operate on debt.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how many times you repeat that it's still wrong.

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.

Actually, no matter how many times you repeat it, you are wrong!

It clearly says for payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. That means, if you have a debt on your credit card, or owe money for your mortgage, they can't refuse US money, but if it's to purchase something and they state it upfront, they have every right to refuse cash.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Zero__Kelvin]

You'd be wrong. Eyewitnesses and video cameras work just fine.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

The distinction, IIRC, is that if they extend you credit, they have to accept any cash payments made to pay down that debt. They don't have to extend you credit though, and so don't have to accept cash if they don't want to.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

ooooh i like your argument (sincerely)! i like where this goes...

credit cards can be DENIED to people without enough money/job/collateral/etc. in other words, a credit card is sometimes an advantage which is more easily enjoyed by the rich.

so to deny cash is discrimination, plain and simple.

that argument carries more weight than "i have a right to use my government-issued cash".

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

...and nothing in the pre-purchase agreement specifically states how payment may be made. If a shop refuses to accept the cash payment ...... then it would be shoplifting to walk out with it regardless of whether you left your unwanted $100 bill on the counter or not.

They *must* accept all legal tender unless they *specifically* stated that before any transaction is made.. otherwise we'd be back in 1940s deep south territory again, for example where they would refuse your money cause of being "colored". . Just plain BS

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust companies that only take cash.. I assume they are tax cheats or launder money for illegal purposes.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen a place that took Visa but not MasterCard. Also, almost every bank issues MasterCards, but few offer Visa and when they do, it's usually in addition to MasterCard. The number of people with a MasterCard is probably at least an odrder of magnitude larger than those with Visa.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[JohnFen]

Where do people come up with these crazy notions?

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[JohnFen]

I assure you that if I receive a bill for $100.00 and I offer a $100.00 bill as payment, and the creditor goes to court and says I refused to pay because they wanted AmEx the Judge will inform them that I offered to pay and they refused payment.

A judge would not rule that way if there was an agreement beforehand that AmEx was the only acceptable form of payment. That agreement can even be in the form of a prominent sign in the establishment that you see before you begin a transaction.

There's nothing magical about dollars that requires them to be accepted. This is a basic contract law issue.

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[JohnFen]

That can say that you didn't pay in the form that you agreed to.

jrumney's shoplifting example is correct. Shoplifting is simple theft, and theft is when you take someone else's property without their consent. It doesn't matter if you drop a $100 before you leave, unless the store accepts cash (and arguably, even if it does, depending on the circumstances).

Re: Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Zero__Kelvin]

Because the believe whatever they are told, and don't understand how the law works. They have no concept of the idea that not all laws are legal, or why we have a judiciary branch.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[Altrag]

That's why I was specific to state "in whatever jurisdiction." Yes, in some places Mastercard dominates (and the others probably have their places as well.) In most places around the world though, Visa is the default with Mastercard being the followup.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[JoeDuncan]

...I know it seems that way, but it's actually quite legal.

You're either an idiot, or Canadian.

Refusing to accept legal tender for an agreed purchase is 100% illegal in the US. If you sell someone a coffee and all they have is pennies - well, you gotta count 'em. You can refuse the transaction outright in the first place, but not after it has been agreed upon and not because you just don't want to count pennies.

Now, if you're Canadian, the laws are different: transaction debts can only be settled with a "mutually agreed upon" medium of payment, so merchants are free to say "cash only" or "credit only" or "barter only" if they so choose.

Re:Visa and Mastercard needs to be broken up

[mysidia]

"I'm too lazy to go down the street and get a prepaid card." And if you're legitimately too broke to get a bank card or a prepaid credit card,

There's no such thing as a "prepaid credit card", And "Loadable cards" incur EXTRA charges on top of merchant fees which effectively means customers paying with them are discriminatively charged MORE than the normal cash price for goods and services (due to the extra transaction tax/penalty that comes from using a prepaid instrument)

Again, not my problem. If the government doesn't like it its up to them to do something about it.

Exactly, the government should do SOMETHING about it, which is to break up Visa as a result of these monopoly/du-opoly abuses.

Yes it is. There is zero onus on my shop to serve you. I can refuse service for any reason I damned well please.

This is false. 42 U.S.C. 12181 of federal law and Title III of the ADA, and the Civil Rights act respectively ensure that you do not have the right to refuse service for "any reason you damned well please"

No market theory I've ever heard of made any significant distinction between paper dollars vs electronic dollars

They are vastly different, because Visa collects a 3% "tax" every time an electronic dollar is processed in a purchase,
but it's essentially free to deposit customers' paper dollars. 8 to 9% of the US population has no access to banking or credit,
they are overwhelmingly members of minority groups, the poor, and/or disabled, so if you refuse cash, there are some 25 million people
you are saying can never have access to buy from you, AND these people merit protection from abusive monopolies just
as much as any other groups of consumers do.

WTF are you talking about? I don't believe any of the "players" are forced to take the deal

Yes, they are.. Basically it's fining merchants who accept cash by disqualifying them from a benefit they would have otherwise --- This is what governments and regulators do, they Tax behavior they want to discourage OR subsidize behavior they want to encourage... this is no different from Microsoft providing OEMs a discount off their Windows licensing cost, But Only if they agreed to preload all systems with Windows and may not offer OS/2 or Linux as an option to customers.

Essentially $10,000 in cash per year as basically a discount from Visa fees is an offer that merchants won't or can't refuse
if they have less than $10k in cash transactions/year, and even right now if SOME can refuse: Visa's intent will be clear, and
they can make it less and less an attractive option for merchants to accept cash over time, until finally it might just be a clause in their merchant agreements that merchants may not accept cash at all.

And who are you to say whether its in my own best interests? If my store does basically no cash sales anyway then taking a free $10k most certainly is within my best interests.

The elimination of the cash option is NOT in any retailer's best interests, because it's restricting your freedom.
The fact that cash is a choice is pretty much the only thing stopping Visa and Mastercard from significantly increasing their percentage take on every transaction.

Even if it IS in some retailer's SHORT-TERM interest; the government's job is to protect the overall public's interests --- the vast majority of whom are shoppers and employees, AND having Banking institutions incentivize merchants to refuse cash is overwhelmingly anti-consumer, and overwhelmingly class-discriminatory, so these actions by Visa are abusive to the highest of severity.

Cash only

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. My next business is cash only because transaction fees have become usurious for small purchases.

Re:Cash only

[Neuroelectronic]

A lot of the businesses I frequent are the same. I guess the difference is the kind of businesses I frequent are built upon offering a service, not turning a fast profit. I really don't understand why anyone is patronizing a business who's main product is profit for itself. It must be a NYC thing...

Re:Cash only

[guruevi]

How so? It's only a few cents to get a transaction through. On Bitcoin these days a transaction costs $20+

Re:Cash only

[printman]

Back when I had a business taking credit cards, it was a percentage (up to 3.5% at the time, it has gone up since) of the total *plus* a flat per-transaction fee ($0.30 IIRC since I wasn't a high-volume vendor). So if somebody pays for a $1 pack of gum with their card you've potentially just lost 1/3 of the purchase price to transaction fees...

Re:Cash only

[Opportunist]

Pretty much this. Offer to pay in cash and, especially with sizable sums, you'll see them being a lot more approachable for discounts.

Re:Cash only

[HornWumpus]

Push hard and you can see discounts of near their marginal tax rates on income.

Which is a rip. You know they are keeping the cost of what they sold you on the books, just forgetting they got paid.

Protip: Only works when dealing with the owner, or at least someone who understands.

Re:Cash only

[j-beda]

Push hard and you can see discounts of near their marginal tax rates on income.

Which is a rip. You know they are keeping the cost of what they sold you on the books, just forgetting they got paid.

Protip: Only works when dealing with the owner, or at least someone who understands.

Then you take great the "cash discount" for your product, and report them to the IRS or local tax authority for investigation (great if they also offered to "fogive the sales tax" too) and maybe you can get a "snitch reward" on top o the great purchase deal! And a criminal gets some payback! Win-win-win!

IRS links for reporting fraud - https://www.irs.gov/individual...

Probably this type of "they offered me a great deal" evidence isn't enough to actually get the reward payout, but hey, worth a try, no?

story on how to get paid for reporting - https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Re:Cash only

[HornWumpus]

Only if you're a dirtbag. Good you know yourself though.

It is a good idea to report the goddamn law abiders that refuse you a cash discount to the IRS.

Re:Cash only

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay 10 cents plus 2.4% for card present transactions on Visa and Mastercard, while Discover is at 2.6%. Only Amex has a 3.5%, which I don't accept. I cannot see how you were paying 3.5% unless you were a high risk for fraud.

Re:Cash only

[gnick]

I really don't understand why anyone is patronizing a business who's main product is profit for itself.

Every business I can think of is motivated by either profit or expansion. Where are you shopping where customer satisfaction comes before the bottom line?

Re:Cash only

[guruevi]

Wow, get a new transaction broker. I think I pay a flat 10c for any card because I'm very low volume up to a certain amount, then it's like 2% + 10c. You add the cost into your gum or set a minimum transaction, business 101

Re:Cash only

[j-beda]

So, the person cheating on the taxes is OK, but the person who reports them is a dirtbag?

How about shoplifters? Spouse beaters? Muggers? People planting bombs? Which crimes that you might observe would you report? Where is the line that you pay attention to? Corporate malfeasance? Littering? Industrial pollution? Voter fraud? Government corruption? Cheating at poker? Checkers? Go-Fish?

I am genuinely curious.

I haven't actually reported anyone in this type of case, but the "snitches get stitches" type of philosophy doesn't really seem like the best way of running a society. That's how a gang/tribal/warlord type of society might be structured, and frankly isn't the type of rule-of-law society I would prefer to live in.

Re:Cash only

[TemporalBeing]

I really don't understand why anyone is patronizing a business who's main product is profit for itself.

Every business I can think of is motivated by either profit or expansion. Where are you shopping where customer satisfaction comes before the bottom line?

Customer Satisfaction will bring about repeat customers. Repeat customers tend to not only spend more, but also tend to provide free marketing and thereby bring in more customers (work of mouth, friends & family, etc). Thereby growing the profits more. Of course, customer satisfaction has to be done in a profitable manner; but a high customer satisfaction will also mean that folks can typically charge more.

For instance, Chik-fil-a has a higher cost than the vast majority of their competition. However, customer satisfaction is a high priority so customers are more than happy to pay the higher cost.

If you don't have good customer satisfaction then the first that that it impacts is your profit margins as your customers will not be willing to pay the higher cost (bigger margins) you want to charge.

Re:Cash only

[Neuroelectronic]

>Where are you shopping where customer satisfaction comes before the bottom line?

Not NYC, obviously. Since we're stating obvious facts. My point is that the only product a lot of these inner city businesses offer is a product that you can get anywhere but here it costs a lot, and for some reason that brings in customers. I just can't understand why anyone goes there. Examples of these businesses are Einstein Bagels and Starbucks. I hessitate to mention Apple as they're still the only cell phone that isn't absolute garbage but they're getting closer and closer to "as long as it's better than Android" and farther away from "it just works"

Re:Cash only

[HornWumpus]

If they're stealing from thieves, I don't care.

eyeroll

[jbmartin6]

Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.

This just sounds hysterical. What if the customer wants to pay with the mentioned stone discs? Is the business depriving them of yet another non-existent "right"?

Re:eyeroll

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I agree. The "right" rests on a misunderstanding of "legal tender". It means it's valid for exchange, accepting it is not compulsory for a private business. The US Treasury has a page on the topic:

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

"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."

This ignorance leads people to assume they can pay in buckets of pennies and they think they can legally force the receiver to accept it as payment.

I'm not a fan of going cashless, I just don't think faulty arguments should be used to stop businesses.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Except all US notes state "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

So if a service or good was rendered and cash was not accepted, I would think the provider/supplier would have no legal recourse.

The customer offered "LEGAL TENDER"

Re:eyeroll

[Baron_Yam]

I believe they must accept it as payment against a debt. The issue is that a debt doesn't exist unless the vendor hands over the product or delivers the service and invoices you.

At a 'pay first' business, there is no debt at any point in the process.

Re: eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they tell you up front they do not accept cash. No law requires a private citizen or business to accept cash for payment. No law requires a business to accept credit cards as well.

Re:eyeroll

[Khyber]

No, the misunderstanding is 'debt.' If you walk up to a register with an item, they can refuse the cash as no debt has incurred. At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt. If they do not accept the tender, their recourse would be to take it to court, where a judge most likely will wipe the debt and go "Why didn't you take the cash when presented?"

Re:eyeroll

[Lunix Nutcase]

Except you don't know how the law works.

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.

Re:eyeroll

[Lunix Nutcase]

At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt.

It doesn't actually work that way. Restaurants are providing a service and as such are free to choose whether to accept cash or not as payment.

Re: eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

You're splitting hairs here. US currency must be ultimately be accepted. A cheque is a note that promises US currency.

Re: eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why restaurants will probably always accept cash in the US, but supermarkets, street food and the like will be able to go cashless if they prefer.

Re:eyeroll

[jbmartin6]

It is possible the Uniform Commercial Code might mandate acceptance of cash. While not a federal statute it is adopted by all the US states. IANAL though. There is a lot of stuff in there about payments and contracts, such as clarifying that an advertisement is not a contract.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's irrelevant. The parent is correct. A debt is a debt.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron.

Buy something. Offer cash. Seller refuses to accept cash. Walk away with thing you bought. Seller sues you. Agree to pay in full. Court decides in plaintiff's favor the price of the item. You make payment in cash. Court tells plaintiff to STFU and take it.

Re:eyeroll

[Khyber]

It actually does work that way. I've worked the restaurant industry starting at 15 years old. I've seen it happen plenty of times. McDonalds, no matter how you try to spin it, is not a sit-down restaurant.

Re:eyeroll

[DaMattster]

You're a moron.

Buy something. Offer cash. Seller refuses to accept cash. Walk away with thing you bought. Seller sues you. Agree to pay in full. Court decides in plaintiff's favor the price of the item. You make payment in cash. Court tells plaintiff to STFU and take it.

Then you have committed something called theft. Who's the moron now?

Re:eyeroll

[DaMattster]

Except you don't know how the law works.

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.

You're quite correct. A merchant could allow payment in Bitcoin or some other cyber currency.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone is free to enter into such an agreement, but when I walk into a restaurant as a customer I don't agree to such a thing.
Once I owe someone a sum measured in USD, I can pay it in USD. If they refuse to accept, they can fuck right on off to court. There, I'll state that I offered to pay the full debt in cash on the spot, and the judge will tell the plaintiff to fucking suck it and take the cash.

Re:eyeroll

[Kjella]

It doesn't actually work that way. Restaurants are providing a service and as such are free to choose whether to accept cash or not as payment.

How can it not work that way, if the service is already given? If I sit down at a restaurant, eat a meal, try to pay in cash and they refuse and I say "Well, I didn't see the sign and I have no credit or debit cards" they'll say either say that I owe them money or not. To owe money is a debt. Debts can be paid in cash. Not that it's really hard to avoid, simply do what most hotels do and force you to register a card up front they'll bill the minibar etc. on, even if someone else paid for the room. Basically you have to open a tab on your credit/debit card before you get service and at the end of the meal you'll simply be asked to confirm the charges.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely the moron who thinks that theft is anything but the taking of goods with the intent of depriving the owner of it's use or value.

Re:eyeroll

[Hadlock]

The guy you're responding to has laid out pretty solid logic and you're basically saying "no it doesn't work that way" without providing any explanation, which is why people are jumping all over you, what you're doing looks like a typical 10 year old's response to an argument they don't understand or like. Maybe try fleshing out your responses better in the future.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

>Restaurants are providing a service
Provided.

Accept cash as a payment on what? A good/service in negotiation or an existing debt?

It does akshually work that way on existing debts. They are free to compel the payment method before. They aren't free to compel after.

If you're holding someone to a debt they owe you, it can be paid in cash. A judge will declare your hold expired, whether or not you find the cash ideal for the hold's termination.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

well, your three years working at your parent's lunch counter don't make you a lawyer.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

the law is different for debt, once a debt is incurred then as long as valid tender is presented they are obligated to accept it or risk having the debt invalidated. restaurants could get around this by demanding you present a valid card for precharge in advance.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

if the goods were provided and the vendor refuses payment it isn't theft. It would only be theft if this happened as one exchange where the seller decides to cancel the sale before the goods are taken. Once goods are taken the buyer is under no obligation to do anything more than provide a valid form of payment and if that payment is refused the seller may actually have the debt cancelled by a court.

Re:eyeroll

[MerlTurkin]

And if they don't accept cash, I won't pay them. Simple really. Take my cash or FU.

Re:eyeroll

[TemporalBeing]

At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt.

It doesn't actually work that way. Restaurants are providing a service and as such are free to choose whether to accept cash or not as payment.

Parent is correct. Why? B/c the Judge would just accept the cash, take out the fees for the court proceedings, and send any potential remainder in cash the business - effectively paying them in cash minus administrative fees. So the business would be stupid *not* to accept cash or clear the debt b/c it's just going to cost them more to recover via other means.

Only take credit/debit/check? Too bad. You won't get the luxury of extracting the bill and court fees b/c the court won't accept that as an argument since they'll get paid in cash by the court any way. So yes, they'll get laughed out of court if they try that line.

Re:eyeroll

[TemporalBeing]

Except you don't know how the law works.

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.

Doesn't really matter. B/c if they intend to go to court over it, they'll get laughed at since it'll be essentially paid for in cash through the court via that route, and they won't be able to recover the court fees too, so they'll lose out there too.

Re:eyeroll

[Altrag]

What about the case where you didn't see the "cash only" sign and you don't have enough bills on you? You're kind of in the same situation.

But regardless, restaurants are still free to not accept cash as payment.. they just would have to accept the occasional loss like that, and would probably treat it as a dine-and-dash.. not worth the cost to pursue it but you won't be welcome back a second time.

Re:eyeroll

[Altrag]

If you're walking away with the thing, then it hasn't been "provided" yet, legally speaking. The only situation where the goods could be "provided" prior to payment is something like a restaurant or bar where you're actually consuming the good on-premises before paying.

If you're walking out with the item physically in your hand and you didn't pay for it, its a cut and dry case of theft regardless of what excuse you come up with. I can't go to Walmart, pick myself up a vacuum cleaner and expect to walk out of it when they refuse to take my Indian rupees. "Well I offered to pay for it! That's good enough right!?"

Re:eyeroll

[Cederic]

Could be interesting to test the situation where you state very clearly that you're leaving the premises with this item, and as its price is X, here's $X, but if the proprieter chooses not to accept $X in payment then that's very generous and thank you for the gift.

Ethically that's bankrupt but legally?

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. The "right" rests on a misunderstanding of "legal tender". It means it's valid for exchange, accepting it is not compulsory for a private business. The US Treasury has a page on the topic:

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

"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."

This ignorance leads people to assume they can pay in buckets of pennies and they think they can legally force the receiver to accept it as payment.

I'm not a fan of going cashless, I just don't think faulty arguments should be used to stop businesses.

In the US, you can pay for your debts with pennies if you wish to do so. You can't however force the seller of goods or services to refuse coins or US money.

Interesting fact: in Canada, the Currency Act limits the number of coins you are legally allowed to accept even for the payment of a debt. This is to avoid the "penny bucket" problem.

Here's a quote from the Canadian Currency Act:

Limitation

(2) A payment in coins referred to in subsection (1) is a legal tender for no more than the following amounts for the following denominations of coins:
(a) forty dollars if the denomination is two dollars or greater but does not exceed ten dollars;
(b) twenty-five dollars if the denomination is one dollar;
(c) ten dollars if the denomination is ten cents or greater but less than one dollar;
(d) five dollars if the denomination is five cents; and
(e) twenty-five cents if the denomination is one cent.

Re:eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that would meet the legal definition for a debt (since you pay during the same visit that you eat), so I don't think it applies in the situation you specified.

Re:eyeroll

[Altrag]

If you bring in a wheelbarrow full of unrolled pennies to buy that same item, the proprietor is also going to tell you to take a hike even if they accept cash. They're perfectly free to not sell to you for any reason they choose, and "more hassle than its worth" is definitely a good reason in most peoples' opinion.

Poor

[gurps_npc]

The poor still don't have free cards. They either have to pay for a credit card, usually via super high interest rates, or have to pay for a bank account.

This is in addition to the issue of privacy, though their are apps like privacy.com (basically unlimited burner visa cards that pay for themselves by taking the 1% that credit cards usually offer as cashback) that offer enhanced privacy for cashless transactions.

Re:Poor

[olsmeister]

You can get Visa prepaid cards for a small fee at Walmart, right next the checkout lanes. Good for what ails ya.

Re:Poor

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The poor still don't have free cards. They either have to pay for a credit card, usually via super high interest rates, or have to pay for a bank account.

The restaurants in the article are hipster restaurants in New York City, so the poor aren't going to be eating there any way. Now if this was something like McDonald's refusing to accept payment in anything but a credit card, that might be a problem for the poor.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

the issue here is "for a small fee" why do I have to pay someone to be able to spend my own damn money.

Re:Poor

[PrimaryConsult]

City of Philadelphia came up with a novel idea - their new transit pass (SEPTA Key) is also a Mastercard debit card.

Re:Poor

[mark-t]

The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Walmart does not accept cash either anymore. And that will happen the moment Walmart calculates that it is more profitable for them to do so.

And that fee ain't so small, percentage wise. That is especially a problem when you are already poor.

And why should privacy cost money? Once you think that is acceptable, the debate is not about the principle anymore, but about how much money you must have to enjoy privacy. Think about that. Do you really want that?

Re:Poor

[EndlessNameless]

The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.

I very much doubt that. I am by no means wealthy, and none of my credit cards carry an annual fee.

Obviously, I'd pay interest if I carried a balance from month to month, but that is true of any debt. As long as I pay my bill on time, I don't pay a penny more than what I would have paid in cash.

Re:Poor

[olsmeister]

Some merchants do offer a cash discount.

When there is no cash discount, the extra cost of the credit card purchase is 'baked in' to the price that everyone pays, including the people using cash. Which is a whole separate issue, since in that case why are the people who pay cash subsidizing those who are paying with credit?

I know for me, I pay my CC bill in full every month (often every week). Not only do I not pay any interest, but I get cash back on all the money I spend, which incentivizes me to put as much stuff on the card as I can. This is also being subsidized by the people who use cash to pay for purchases by higher cost for goods and services across the board.

Re:Poor

[smooth wombat]

Oh yes. How novel. Lose your transit pass AND your credit card.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Poor

[Dragonslicer]

The poor still don't have free cards. They either have to pay for a credit card, usually via super high interest rates

I can't remember offhand if it was made illegal to charge interest until after the next bill's due date. I know my credit cards have been that way for something like 15 years.

or have to pay for a bank account.

As far as I know, most credit unions don't charge any fees for regular savings and checking accounts, and the minimum balance is usually somewhere in the $5-25 range.

Re:Poor

[PrimaryConsult]

Well, it's a debit card, not a credit card. And can be activated online to protect your balance. So actually not much can go wrong. Once you realize it's lost, go online with your phone, deactivate it, and whatever cash remains is still there to be put onto a new card whenever you can get to a human agent. If it was stolen, whoever took it would have to (1) get the balance, and (2) buy just enough things to stay under that balance at a store before you get a chance to deactivate.

Re:Poor

[DaMattster]

You can get Visa prepaid cards for a small fee at Walmart, right next the checkout lanes. Good for what ails ya.

It's actually not that small. It's rather exorbitant when compared to traditional banking with debit cards.

Re:Poor

[DaMattster]

City of Philadelphia came up with a novel idea - their new transit pass (SEPTA Key) is also a Mastercard debit card.

It's actually a great system! I have one and the fees for using it compare favorably with traditional banking. It has saved me lots of money over using some Walmart or other prepaid debit card. You know Walmart is making a cut of the money off of every transaction.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor don't have bank accounts in the US? How can they receive their benefits, or pay their rents and medical bills? Oh, wait.. I remember that Visa offered everybody with the attainment of about 160-180 equivalent to US college credits in a technical university's masters level engineering program the possibility of gaining a credit card. It appears that the rules to are not so strict in the US. Maybe the mobile phone will gain the upper hand as a wallet replacement in other areas of the world for these reasons.

Re:Poor

[stinerman]

My credit union requires a $5 minimum balance to open an account. There are no account maintenance fees on that.

If you don't have a bank account, you're an idiot and have no leg to stand on. If you don't want to use a bank for privacy reasons or any others, so be it. But "I can't afford a bank account" is not a valid argument.

Re:Poor

[Oligonicella]

The restaurants in the article are hipster restaurants in New York City, so the poor aren't going to be eating there any way.

Little bit of a hipster ourselves, aren't we?

When I was younger and a single parent, my grandmother gave us $20. We dressed up and I took my daughter to a good restaurant. I paid with that cash.

How pompous does one have to be to exclude someone visiting a nice establishment appropriately dressed just because they have a low income?

Re:Poor

[EndlessNameless]

When there is no cash discount, the extra cost of the credit card purchase is 'baked in' to the price that everyone pays, including the people using cash

You're acting like there is only a cost associated with card payments and ignoring the other side of the equation. There are costs and risks associated with handling cash. Employee theft, cashier errors, robbery. Time spent making change, counting the till, and running deposits.

The idea that cash-payers are somehow getting screwed is likely a fairy tale---and irrelevant to boot. Businesses don't offer discounts for using the self-checkout lanes even though it lets them cover 10+ checkouts with a single employee.

I could just as easily justify a "self-checkout discount". There isn't one because it's not worth the hassle to implement, and not enough people care anyway. I.e., it's not a good business decision in spite of the difference in costs.

Re:Poor

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Sure, the rich probably have cards that are free, but they likely have a premium card or two (that include high minimums and an annual fee). The first example was the black Amex, but others have sprung up. They offer so many benefits that that is what you are buying (e.g. upgrades on airlines and access to their lounges) not the right to use it as a credit card.

Re:Poor

[Hodr]

Funny you phrase it that way. Believe it or not, the cards most favored by the wealthy have very hefty annual costs.

The most prestigious credit card in the world, the AMEX Centurion Card is $7500 to open an account, has a $2500 annual fee, and requires you to spend $250k on the card per year.

https://businesstech.co.za/new...

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and the local Wal-Marts in the semi-rural county where I live have separate self-checkouts that take ONLY cash because a significant number of their customers are not eligible, by most bankcard providers' standards, to get cards. The marginalized are still with us...

Re:Poor

[DigiShaman]

The poor still don't have free cards.

In fact, they do. It's called the EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer); and it's paid for by people like you and I, the tax payer.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that accepting cash does not incur cost?

Wouldn't be surprised that it's close to cost of Visa merchant fees.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also being subsidized by those who are paying interest on their credit cards.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

The restaurants in the article are hipster restaurants in New York City, so the poor aren't going to be eating there any way.

Little bit of a hipster ourselves, aren't we?

When I was younger and a single parent, my grandmother gave us $20. We dressed up and I took my daughter to a good restaurant. I paid with that cash.

How pompous does one have to be to exclude someone visiting a nice establishment appropriately dressed just because they have a low income?

His point is valid, yours is not.
If you're so poor that you don't have any sort of card (that means no bank card even) then you're not eating at a fancy restaurant in New York city.
If you're concerned that they might be excluding some poor people, well that's kind of the point of this whole article.

Re:Poor

[Bert64]

The high interest rates are not relevant if you pay off the balance in full every month...
If you're paying with cash then you pay off the balance in full immediately, so assuming you spend the same amount you should just be able to hold that cash until the end of the month and then pay off the card without incurring any interest or penalties. As an added bonus, you don't end up with a pot of useless small coins.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Close on all counts, but a few quibbles:

AFAIK you are correct about interest on purchases: they can't charge you (or at least no card I know of does) until you don't pay the entire balance before the due date. However, the interest is always, then, backdated to the purchase date so they do get their interest in the initial period. But yes, only after you run a balance. Note that they *can* (and do) insist that they RECEIVE the money by the due data, not just that it's postmarked.

There are other things that go on a CC bill, primarily cash advances. Many CC companies have been creative about what they call a "cash advance" - be careful about balance transfers, for instance. Cash advances carry interest (usually at a much higher rate than on purchases) from the moment of issuance - there's no grace period to pay it back. If you need cash, make a ATM w/d using your debit card; even if away from home paying bank fees, it's almost always a better deal than paying for a cash advance on a CC.

The interest rates, though, are much higher for poor people. If you don't have an account at the bank, or they don't have financial info on you that demonstrates amply repayment capacity, the rates go up to manage the "risk" and the maximum balance is smaller. If you aren't clearly a moneybags, the bank figures that you're going to skip, and prices the loan like Benny the Mobster (it's illegal for Benny to charge usurious rates, but it's fine for banks and CC companies as long as they operate in a state without a usury law - look sometime at how many CC operators are in South Dakota for instance).

As for paying for the bank account, credit unions in general are better than banks. Most CUs require at least $100-500 before they pay interest on savings, though you may be able to open and maintain the account with as little as $25. But once you're in, everything is more reasonable than a bank. Most banks will open an account with a few hundred$, and the threshold to avoid "maintenance fees" is generally somewhere in the $1-2.5K range.

Pro tip: under present circumstances, nobody gets useful interest on bank deposits, so it makes no sense whether at a bank or a credit union to try to get a checking account (the kind with unlimited, more or less, transactions per month - read the fine print, especially for business accounts) that pays interest. The minimum balances and fees for them are just too much. You can usually find a bank that will let you have a no-fees checking account for a $2500 minimum balance, or some combination of checking and savings that adds up to that. Credit unions often have basic checking with no fees and no minimum balance. Big difference for those who don't deal much in paychecks with many zeros after the significant digits. Even the basic checking comes with a debit card, and after a few months of playing by the rules you can usually qualify (with some income - credit unions are not in the business of giving away money any more than banks are, they just have lower profit targets) for at least a low-balance CC, and the potential if your income improves to jack up the balance. Unlike banks, CU's low-end CCs often carry fairly reasonable rates too.

Re:Poor

[DNS-and-BIND]

Because nice people don't want to eat with you deplorables. They are officially THROUGH with you. They don't want to talk to you, don't want to see you, don't want to eat the same food as you. Total disgust reaction.

Re:Poor

[Cyberax]

I got my card (with lots of perks) for free, for holding 401k with a hefty balance with my bank.

Re:Poor

[Cyberax]

I first came to the US on a business visa so I had to get one of the prepaid VISA cards just to be able to use stuff like iTunes (they check the billing address) or pay at the pumps (amazing number of gas pumps don't work with European cards). I can tell that the fees for these cards were way higher than on my regular European cards and some of the prepaid cards were not reloadable, so it was difficult to get the last couple of dollars out of it.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

> How pompous does one have to be to exclude someone visiting a nice establishment appropriately dressed just because they have a low income?

It's pretty common. As is excluding unattractive and average men from nightclubs unless they are very rich, as is excluding fat and/or otherwise unattractive women from similar establishments. There's plenty of this sort of thing that goes on, and some of it is legal.

Re:Poor

[Altrag]

Quite pompous. Luckily for the story (and unluckily for you and your daughter,) there is no shortage of pompous people in the world.

Re:Poor

[Altrag]

You definitely don't have to be rich to get a zero annual fee card. Its actually the rich who do tend to pay the annual fees since those cards usually have lower interest rates, tie in with things like airport VIP lounge access and other such benefits that us peasants will mostly never get to see.

The bank account is a totally different story though. Those do get cheaper and cheaper the more you have in them. Someone who typically runs $1000 balance is going to be losing a LOT of money just for having it open. Unfortunately its hard to do much of anything without a bank account these days between ubiquitous debit cards and direct deposit paychecks so as usual, the poor get screwed while the rich get to slide.

Re:Poor

[Cederic]

We dressed up and I took my daughter to a good restaurant.

So not one of the restaurants referenced anyway.

Re:Poor

[Cederic]

Not sure I'd describe that as 'prestigious'. Expensive, maybe even good value for some people, but not prestigious.

I can spend $10k on an exclusive hand-crafted wooden model of a dog turd, it's still not prestigious.

Re:Poor

[sabbede]

What about prepaid debit cards?

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

> the extra cost of the credit card purchase is 'baked in'
I wonder why nobody sees the cost of cash for businesses. Cash has to be counted and transported to/from the bank, secured (from robbers, customers and employees), change has to be held ready and usually paid for at the bank, etc.

Re:Poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Never in my experience. Depending on the bank if you maintain at anywhere above $5000 to $10,000 balance, then typically all your fees are waived... although they might do a bit of a dirty trick where they will withdraw the monthly fee for a few minutes then deposit it back... tis greatly annoying to see on your statement.

cash costs money

[known_coward_69]

accepting cash isn't free. Employees steal. You have to do the paperwork to keep track of it and account for all the receipts. Unless you run to the bank daily, you have to pay an armored car to pick it up and deposit it for you.

Re:cash costs money

[robkeeney]

Exactly this. If I had a retail business, I would very strongly consider making it card only. No cash on site to be stolen in a robbery or skimmed by dishonest employees. No need to go to the bank to make deposits. No need to keep an appropriate amount of cash and coins on hand for making change, and no chance for screwing up making change. It would be so very much simpler to manage and reduce costs.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just an occupational hazard of being a rich motherfucker.

Re:cash costs money

[Khyber]

Man you know nothing of retail business. Many people pay cash-only because they don't want their spouses to know what they're doing. Try working the retail side of the porno industry some time.

Re:cash costs money

[Joe_Dragon]

Don't some porno shops have it set to stuff like ZXY entertainment group and not Jay's Adult Shop?

Re:cash costs money

[robkeeney]

It would be a cold day in hell that I worked in the porn industry.

Besides, there are pre-paid debit cards available at businesses that do accept cash which they can use to shield their illicit activities from their spouses.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

". . . they don't want their spouses to know what they're doing . . ."

Or, perhaps just as importantly, data aggregators and by extensions insurance companies, employers, and other customers of the dataveillance industry -- not pr0n (not that there is anything wrong with that) but there are a number of purchases I will only make with cash.

Re:cash costs money

[HornWumpus]

If your employing thieves in retail, they will just take inventory. It's not like the tape doesn't already tell you the till is short.

They are morons, coming up with consistent short tills makes it easy to identify exactly who's dishonest, vs. inventory shrinkage.

Re: cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

If you own a porno business, make the legal name something that looks nice; that's what shows up on the CC bill. Then put up a different name on the storefront.

Re:cash costs money

[omfglearntoplay]

Exactly the mentality of some small business owners I know, but the opposite of others. I see the dichotomy as such:

1. Do you hate paying taxes, but are OK with paying 2% to a bank for every single thing you do?

2. Do you trust big companies with skimming off the top, or do you trust your employees that you hand pick?

3. Do you feel OK when the rich get richer, but get pissed off when the small guy gets a bonus 1% higher than he got the year before?

Basically, I feel you should either be a Scrooge and hate losing money in any case, letting the actual measured bottom dollar make the decision (including future change)... or you should cater to your local workers and your own employees. Bigger and bigger businesses breed monopolies that eventually screw everybody if you let them. Credit cards are designed to steal from the moderately rich, middle class, and poor alike to make the richer even more so. I use them, but locally I use cash more and more to try to keep prices down.

Re: cash costs money

[Opportunist]

So the spouse has to use Google to know that "Fluffy Kittens and Bunnies Inc" is actually a titty bar?

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

If their spouses are examining their purchases to the point that have to keep it hidden I think they have bigger problems than not being able to use cash.

Re:cash costs money

[cascadingstylesheet]

accepting cash isn't free. Employees steal. You have to do the paperwork to keep track of it and account for all the receipts. Unless you run to the bank daily, you have to pay an armored car to pick it up and deposit it for you.

Er, neither is accepting cards free. There's a significant fee on every transaction, so much so that in some places (where it is allowed) businesses will offer a lower price to those who pay cash. .

(I'll grant you that a lot of the risk is offloaded to other entities when cards are used, and that therefore you might think the fees worthwhile in that respect. However, the customer and public are pissed at you, Spatula Warehouse, for having your systems compromised and their accounts hit with fraudulent charges, they are not pissed at Visa or BigBank.)

But in any case, accepting cards isn't free either.

Re:cash costs money

[Khyber]

Actually, as a matter of policy, many porno shops do not accept pre-paid cards, because of the potential for fraud. Caught plenty of people that worked at places selling gift cards, 'loading' the card with money, and buying stuff from my old shop, only to have the card declined a few weeks after the fact because it was determined fraudulent by the CC when they went over transactions.

Re:cash costs money

[Wrath0fb0b]

So dude makes a statement in general, and your complaint is that he didn't account for a niche set of businesses?

No one is gong to dispute that the porno shop and titty bar are going to accept cash, not least because tipping a dancer with a card is awkward. That only leaves the other 99% of the retail economy ...

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

A)
"Honey, what's ZXY entertainment group?"
"Uh, I don't know."
"I'll call and contest the charge."

B)
"WTF is ZXY entertainment group?"
Google.com

C)
"Honey, what's ZXY entertainment group?"
"Uh, I think it's the Redbox knock-off I used last month when I was out with my friends."
"You rented $80 worth of movies? Bullshit! You're buying giant dragon dildos again!"

Re:cash costs money

[chispito]

The problem is not a spouse that examines the bank statements. That is the very definition of balancing a checkbook, and it is an indication of a strong marriage, not a weak one. The problem is the porn, or whatever else one spouse is lying to the other one about.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many ways employees can abuse credit cards as well. Post voided transactions for instance. They essentially erase the payment transaction so when settlement happens, the business never gets the money for the goods or services. This isn't theft but the business still ends up with a loss. Restaurant servers can enter whatever they want into the final total on a card transaction after they have a signature regardless what the customer wrote in for the tip. If caught, the restaurant's reputation suffers a loss. Whether cash or credit, you still have to do the paperwork. Tellers might accept a business check that won't verify online which means the physical check is the same as cash. Then they had it back to the customer by mistake because that's what you always do. Network outages mean credit can't be accepted but cash would still work. When we've had them and go into cash only mode, customers walk out of the store and usually come back with cash. There are costs associated with accepting each and every form of payment.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not limited to prepaid cards, bruh

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Hire honest employees and drive it to the bank yourself. It doesn't cost money. Credit Card Company lies!

Re:cash costs money

[PPH]

Unless you run to the bank daily,

This is a major issue.

I have a fiend who used to run a primarily cash business. He could easily do $10K or $15K of sales a day. And he didn't like having that much cash on hand. So he'd send the store manager to the bank a couple times a day with a $5K deposit. Until some federal agents paid him a visit. Multiple daily deposits under the reporting limit triggered a "money laundering" investigation. Never mind that he had a legitimate business, documented his receipts and he didn't really care if the bank made the requisite reports based on his daily total receipts. It was cash and an excuse to hassle a business into cutting back on cash.

Cash has gone from legal tender to probable cause of criminal activity in this country. And in some cases, just having too much cash is a crime in and of itself. No more 'innocent until proven guilty'. The feds will just make your life hell if you look 'wrong'.

Re:cash costs money

[j-beda]

I have heard that Mountain Equipment Co-op ( http://www.mec.ca/ ) used to give a cash discount to reflect the perceived lower costs associated with cash over plastic, until they did a closer accounting of the actual costs and realized that the cash costs were comparable to the plastic costs. Paying employees for count, sort, deposit, and otherwise handle the cash are real, unavoidable costs. Errors, accidents, and thefts impose additional costs that can be minimized by increased error checking and security procedures, but those procedures impose further direct costs. Non-cash transactions also have various costs (including errors, and thefts) associated with them beyond the transaction fees paid to the processor, but they are often so much smaller than cash handling costs that they can almost be ignored when making a comparison.

Of course, the devil is in the details. Different businesses have different characteristics such that the balance between the the two can not be covered by blanket statements. And none of this addresses the psychology of the customer experience. It might be worthwhile taking a loss on the single pack of gum sales in order to maintain customer loyalty for more typical large purchases, or it might not.

Some possible customer results: "I just want some gum, but they have a $5 minimum CC purchase, so I won't go in at all." "I know they have $5 minimum, so I will buy some milk and bread along with the gum." "They don't have a $5 minimum, but now that I'm here I might as well pickup some milk and the paper too." "Oh, their sign explains their fee structure, without demanding minimums, that is nice, so I'll pay using the format that costs them the least to process."

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bullshit reason for 'cashless'. 'Cashless' is just one more stab at destroying people's privacy and anonymity. I don't want my purchases tracked by anyone for any reason whatsoever, and I don't give a fuck about all the bullshit arguments I'm now going to be subjected to about 'cameras everywhere' and 'smartphone tracks you anyway' (I don't have a cellphone anymore, LOL) or whatever else. STOP INVADING MY PRIVACY!

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

You're aware that poor people will be fucked over, yet again, in your 'cashless utopia', right? People who can't afford a bank account or credit card, and who get fucked over by CC companies fees on prepaid debit cards. Also you must hate that people have any privacy or anonymity left to them and want to help destroy that and create a true Orwellian dystopia where everything everyone does every moment of their lives is watched and tracked and analyzed because that's what a 100% cashless world will do.

Also what's little Jimmy or little Alice going to do when they want to buy some candy? They can't have credit cards or debit cards and are not even legally allowed to have them.

You're also ignoring the FACT that every other day there's some new data breach being discovered where criminals have stolen the very personal information of hundreds of thousands/millions of people. In your 'cashless' utopia it'll be even easier for them to drain away the funds of countless people because nobody will have cash anymore, and furthermore when there's nothing left on their cards or in their accounts they will have nothing to tide them over until the theft is straightened out with the banks. Your 'cashless utopia' is short-sighted to the point of inviting disaster. Like so many stupid ideas these days nobody is thinking for a moment about what can go wrong, only the blue-sky rose-colored-glasses fantasy benefits, and then everyone will run around waving their arms in panic when it all falls apart.

You can keep your 'cashless' world, it's another stupid idea I can't believe people are stupid enough to want.

Re:cash costs money

[HornWumpus]

Stripper was mad when I swiped my card through her slot!

Solution: Bluetooth labia piercings with CC readers built in! It's a million dollar idea.

Re:cash costs money

[future assassin]

If I thought like you I wouldn't even get out of bed in the morning. My shop did about 970K in sales this year and 98% of it was cash and I had no problems counting out the money and taking it to the bank, and keep track on receipts and sales. You know stuff you do when you run a business and no my time doesn't cost me anything since I'm being paid to do it and it is my shop and my time.

Re:cash costs money

[Danathar]

You would think that convenience stores in bad parts of cities would be the first to go this route. I know that if I had to open a quick mart or 7-11 in a major city I'd go no cash.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first time you have ever posted something that didn't make me hate you more. Congratulations?

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been a business and taken credit cards, I always pay cash where I can. Most small businesses pay a transaction fee plus a percentage of the transaction plus a monthly fee and lease of equipment. Paying 1.5% + 25cents so someone can swipe a $1 bag of cheetos really hurts. Not only the fees, but the contract you sign makes it a breach of contract to even tell your customers how much the fee is, or charge them 'visible' pass along fees. So you have to mark everything up. Not all cards are the same either. My contract -required- me to accept Diner's Club with a 5% fee in order to be able to accept Mastercard/Visa (1.25%) and Discover (2.5%).... I sold computers, so 5% was potentially a significant amount.

Re:cash costs money

[tepples]

Besides, there are pre-paid debit cards available at businesses that do accept cash

Once fewer and fewer businesses accept cash, watch the fees for these prepaid debit cards increase to the point where it costs $60 or more to buy a $50 debit card.

Re:cash costs money

[HornWumpus]

Hate keeps you warm fuckwit? Never change.

Re:cash costs money

[HornWumpus]

He should see an immediate increase in 'inventory shrinkage' and a corresponding decrease in deposits. It's apparently what the IRS wants.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Armored car.. if you're big enough, I guess. I can't be the only pizza delivery driver who escorted management to the night deposit slot on the way home. We had an ex-manager who robbed us 3 times after he quit, at the bank (actually had a minor with a shotgun doing the robbing, he was on a side-street with the motor running), and then at the door of the store once they started doing morning drops, instead. Nothing like a shotgun pointed at your head to get the old heart-rate going.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think that convenience stores in bad parts of cities would be the first to go this route. I know that if I had to open a quick mart or 7-11 in a major city I'd go no cash.

Are you really that stupid? The places you're describing are those where 95%+ of your business will be cash and your business will fail immediately if you do not accept it.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. And don't travel down south with wads of cash -- the cops will say you're a drug dealer and confiscate it.

Re:cash costs money

[Khyber]

The specific problem with pre-paid cards is that there is no recourse on them unlike credit and debit cards, oh ye who has never held a job and wouldn't know how these things work.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

1.51% + $0.10 adds up quickly. And if cash is phased out completely, that puts them in a great position to start raising those numbers.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to do the paperwork to keep track of it and account for all the receipts.

A crippling overhead under which 20th century American commerce could barely function.

Re:cash costs money

[Darinbob]

Employees double swipe credit cards too.
The purpose of the cash register is to reduce or catch employee theft.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you can probably count, add, subtract, and make change. I suspect that means you are over 40 (likely over 50).

These are dying skills. Have you tried to hire anyone that knows how to handle cash and make change in the last 30 years? It is a skill which simply does not exist anymore.

I learned to handle cash and make change (using a cash drawer -- no cash register) and write out "manual" sales slips (including calculating the tax) back in the 1970's.

I find it absolutely astonishing when you give some cashier an extra nickel to make the change work out evenly and they stare at you with this dumb blank look for 10 minutes before being able to make change (where they just give you back the extra nickel because they don't understand).

Or where they start making change and you ask them if you gave them a 10 or a 20 to which they reply "I dunno". They then make change for a 10 and you say "but I gave you a 20" so they give you back your original 10 too.

People are so absolutely stupid. But then, it is usually because no one ever explained to them how to do things properly. Or they were just to stupid to understand.

Re:cash costs money

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Yeah, I would expect he'd get a visit. All transactions 10k or over are reported to the IRS. Depositing 5k twice a day instead of 10k once a day should trigger an alert that you're trying to work around the system. Cause that's what a drug dealer would try to do (if they were laundering money badly). They'd have receipts too.

Let me guess, he had to spend a few hours explaining to them what was going on, and a few more with the bank official.

In general, it feels like open-carry advocates who get upset when the police talk to them when they open-carry. Duh, the police should. Not that they should prevent you from doing something legal, but they should a least talk to those doing something suspicious.

And he should have talked to the bank ahead of time so that they knew to expect deposits like that.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

If I thought like you I wouldn't even get out of bed in the morning. My shop did about 970K in sales this year and 98% of it was cash and I had no problems counting out the money and taking it to the bank, and keep track on receipts and sales. You know stuff you do when you run a business and no my time doesn't cost me anything since I'm being paid to do it and it is my shop and my time.

I think you're probably just making stuff up at this stage. You also sound increasingly incoherent and your comments read like you're having a conversation with an imaginary person.

Re:cash costs money

[thegarbz]

No. Thieves thieve things of value for them. If you work at a donut store the lack of a till may not suddenly equate to missing bottles of Pepsi as it can't be converted easily into something of value.

Don't underestimate how inviting it is holding a wad of cash while no one is watching. Or the power given to you by incorrectly running the items through the till with the expectation that you won't get caught since the paper trail will back your story.

Re:cash costs money

[thegarbz]

No but handling cash is expensive. Fees exist for cash too, banking, paying people to count it, transporting it, risk of robberies. Often that can work out higher than credit card fees.

Re:cash costs money

[david_thornley]

If you're an employee, then your time is free to you, but not to your employer. If you're self-employed, your time is limited and there's probably lots to do. You could either do something to make more money or have a little leisure (which most people consider worthwhile), so your time is not free when you consider opportunity costs.

Re:cash costs money

[HornWumpus]

In retail? Someone is _always_ watching. Everything is on video.

Modern cash registers will also tell the boss the % of nosales.

'Donut shop' is an edge case, with basically nothing worth stealing.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, local shop is the "[town name] arcade". Has caused some pretty hilarious misunderstandings.

Re:cash costs money

[Anonymous Coward]

you can just buy a single use credit card... Its not that hard..

Re:cash costs money

[future assassin]

I own the place and my time is free since its my business and its what I like to do.

Re:cash costs money

[david_thornley]

If you like counting money etc. as a minor hobby, sure. However, that is time you're not doing anything else.

Wonderfully great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as I can use somebody else's cardz!

Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

For ALL debts public and private. If I eat at your restaurant and you tell me you don't accept ANY US bill (even hundreds) I say thanks for the free meal!

Re:Legal Tender

[Desler]

Except that doesn’t mean what you think it does.

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.

So you’d be paid a visit by the cops for not paying.

Re:Legal Tender

[bistromath007]

That's not quite true. They are legally allowed to turn down bills too large or huge piles of pennies. If they don't take ANY cash, though? Yeah, just waltz right the fuck out.

Re:Legal Tender

[Lunix Nutcase]

If they don't take ANY cash, though? Yeah, just waltz right the fuck out.

Yeah have fun going to jail when the business calls the cops on you.

Re: Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't call cops on someone willing to pay but you just refuse to let pay. It is only a civil case.

Re:Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt any cop is going to throw you in jail when you explain they said you owed $30, you offered them a $20 and a $10, and they refused to accept it so you left. At that point, its not theft but a mere contract dispute. Cops will leave that to the courts.

Re:Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go

"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."

Re: Legal Tender

[gnick]

Can't call cops on someone willing to pay but you just refuse to let pay.

You can call the cops on whoever you want for whatever reason. You just might not get the results you want if they decide you're wasting their time. I could see different individual cops handling this situation differently.

Re: Legal Tender

[Mashiki]

I could see different individual cops handling this situation differently.

You'd be right. The cop would be more likely to let the person go and chastise the owner for failing to accept pubic tender as a form of debt settlement and then tell them if they don't like it to file a complaint. If the cop was having an extremely bad day, it was pissing rain outside and cold as anything, they'd probably also consider filing a "abuse of" charge against the business. While people would be right that the business can refuse to accept it, you're likely not going to find much sympathy when the person they're complaining about has money and the business refuses to take it.

Re:Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

After you've consumed a meal at a restaurant, you're in debt to them (otherwise they have no basis for calling the cops). If you're in debt to them, then they MUST accept the legal tender to settle said debt.

If you want to force people to use credit cards, how about asking them to prepay for the meal before extending credit to them (by letting your customers consume the meal ahead of payment?).

Re: Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the cop would arrest you for not paying.

The saying, "legal tender for all debts, public and private," was put there because paper money was not legal tender at one time, only coins could be used to pay debts. However, there has never been a federal statue mandating coins or paper money for debts. You may need to pay in chickens if the creditor so demands.

Re:Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

>So you’d be paid a visit by the cops for not paying.
Oh, will the restaurant tell the cops I owe them money? There's a word that means owed money.
>So you’d be paid a visit by the cops for not paying the debt.

You're forced to accept cash on debts. Post-negotiation. No one was discussing pre-negotiation, so don't bring it up.

Re:Legal Tender

[WaffleMonster]

So youâ(TM)d be paid a visit by the cops for not paying.

Absolutely false.

The creditor in this case is the restaurant who agreed to extend credit to you in the form of meal you pay for AFTER THE FACT.

The restaurant MAY require payment up front with credit card only yet cannot extend credit and then refuse to accept cash as payment against this debt.

Re:Legal Tender

[MerlTurkin]

Exactly!

Re:Legal Tender

[Cyberax]

Nope. A restaurant meal is treated as a transaction (albeit somewhat extended one). You don't get automatic credit. This is actually pretty significant, because failing to pay a meal check is classified as a crime (theft) while defaulting on a loan is a matter for civil courts.

Re: Legal Tender

[bistromath007]

Where did you get this idea? It's the opposite of how it works.

Re:Legal Tender

[david_thornley]

I don't know that they can turn down bills too large, but I don't think they're legally required to make change in that case. Coins do not have that "legal tender" printed on them, and I think there are limits in how many coins you are required to accept.

I pay with cash because....

[hipsterdufus]

I don't think my bank or credit card company needs to know where I eat lunch every day. Sure, I use plastic to avoid dealing with a cashier (gas stations and parking) and of course for online shopping where you can't use cash. I find cash convenient for me and faster than a lot of transactions I see when people have to use a card, wait for it to authorize, some then fire up a printer, then they sign it. Dunno. My bank probably thinks I'm a drug dealer. My cash machine is only a few minutes away from the office, so it's easy to get more. Lots of point-of-sale machines at small shops get malware on them as well. We've had a few instances at work where a lot of people suddenly saw unexpected charges on their cards. In both cases, a nearby lunch place had their point-of-sale system infected and it stole their information. So, it does happen.

Get off my lawn...I suppose?

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are withdrawing cash from the bank, your bank doesn't think you're a drug dealer. A dealer would get paid in cash and not need to visit the ATM.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[guruevi]

I find cash to be taking a lot longer in modern days. It's very rare I still have to wait for a slip of paper to sign, any purchase under $50 doesn't require it anymore and most systems now come with on-screen signing. I can just swipe the card before the cashier is even done scanning. With cash I have to count money, find change, wait for the cashier to punch it in, then wait for them to count change and then hope I don't lose the change somewhere or drop it on the floor.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[johannesg]

I pay with cash because I don't to end up living in a world where the government has 100% visibility on all of my financial transactions. Not because I do anything fishy with them, but because once everything is electronic, confiscation will also become a trivial measure. At least with cash they'll have to go door to door.

Not to mention negative interest rates. The only thing that keeps interest rates in check now is the threat of people withdrawing all of their money at once. Once that threat is gone, there will be no limit on negative interest rate as well.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Ol Olsoc]

I don't think my bank or credit card company needs to know where I eat lunch every day.

I find that leaving a trail of where I have been to be useful. People often think of only the negative aspects of someone being able to tell where you were. However, a couple key tracking elements, like " I ate at this restaurant at this time as evidenced by my credit card payment, you can observe me entering the restaurant at this time as evidenced by the parking lot security cam, and further verified by the nearby cell phone tower logs, you can make a personless alibi supported by data. I've been having a tough time re-finding the link, but a New York Banker accused of rape was exhonorated by video cam footage of him leaving work and getting money at an ATM at the time the sexual assault occurred. Sure, I use plastic to avoid dealing with a cashier (gas stations and parking) and of course for online shopping where you can't use cash.

I can also use the gas stations as proof of where I was, double verification via CC and Security camera.

But before I sound like some paranoid kook, I only bring this up as a possible benefit. The main reasons I live off credit cards is that I get a detailed listing of expenditures every month, which is a great way to budget my money. I have a separate Gas card, so keep close track of vehicle expenses. I have a 2 percent cashback card. Except for a few gas stations which charge less for cash, almost all businesses have the same cost for cash as credit. So I get several hundred dollars back once or twice a year.

The only catch is that you have to have the financial discipline to pay the card off every month. And the CC companies actually like that in some of their users because it gives cash flow.

Get off my lawn...I suppose?

Different strokes for different folks. My method isn't for everyone, as most people don't pay off their cards every month, and some are worried about that tracking element, either because they have a reason to be worried, or most likely just think of the negative possibilities of tracking. Me? I look for the advantages and take them. There's really no right or wrong here.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Rick Schumann]

You and I are not alone, friend, in seeing where things are heading, and that it's not a Good Thing. Keep fighting.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you afraid of the government seeing you buy fritos? Government doesn't care if you buy fritos. Multiple corporations do care if you buy fritos though because they want your name and phone number and address and tons of other person info so they can bombard you with deceptive marketing and re-sell your person info to other corporations so they can bombard you with deceptive marketing too.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Anonymous Coward]

I am able to basically do the same thing by just asking for a receipt wherever I go. It also gives me the privacy I want and if I was to ever need an alibi I'd just produce the receipt. It is my location data and I control it, not some third party.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Life is about more than your convenience down to the micro-second. Cash is better for society overall because it allows people to make purchases relatively untracked. It is not a government's nor a bank's business to know everything one purchases, where and when.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[shanen]

Most insightful comment I could find. Searched all of the comments moderated as insightful and on a variety of key words.

How much insight? Sorry, but I have to say not so much.

It doesn't matter who has 100% visibility on all of your financial transactions. If you think the government is more dangerous or less ethical than the too-big-to-fail banks and various corporations, then you aren't paying attention. The only thing keeping them in line has been the government, which is looking more and more pitiful as a defensive mechanism for ANYTHING these days. Especially for protecting our rights and freedoms.

I think the funniest delusion is actually held by the avaricious and super-rich bastards who think they are winning because they get to die with the most toys. Die tax free, too, thanks to the latest scam the cheapest politicians were bribed to deliver.

Get used to the new world. As I've noted before capitalism is as dead as communism. What we have now is corporate cancerism. There is no gawd but profit, and the chief prophets are giant corporations that will soon know your every movement and most of your thoughts because they will be able to track exactly where you spent every nickel and what you spent it on.

If any government still had the power or competence to capture the data, you can safely bet that government would be absolutely corrupted by so much power. However I think we are headed for NO government and NO laws except whatever the the last and most humongous corporation feels like having. Just for PR and advertising purposes.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the government's business to know everything one purchases, including Fritos: a total police/surveillance state - what could possibly go wrong?

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that leaving a trail of where my card (or copy of it) has been to be useful.

FTFY. You didn't think that it's an alibi, did you?

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Bert64]

If your card gets skimmed you call the bank to complain about the fraud, they refund you those transactions and issue you a new card... Minor inconvenience and no loss to you.
If your cash gets stolen it's gone, you file a police report and it goes into a huge database of never-to-be-solved crimes.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Ol Olsoc]

I am able to basically do the same thing by just asking for a receipt wherever I go. It also gives me the privacy I want and if I was to ever need an alibi I'd just produce the receipt. It is my location data and I control it, not some third party.

You pay cash and get a reciept is not remotely close to an alibi. You could decide to murder someone and tell someone to pick up something at somewhere and get the receipt. Think ahead - the third parties in control are what lend the veracity to your alibi.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Ol Olsoc]

I find that leaving a trail of where my card (or copy of it) has been to be useful.

FTFY. You didn't think that it's an alibi, did you?

A credit card bill and a security camera and cell phone tower records are a better alibi than most people's testimony.

If I ever need an alibi, My lawyers will be subpeoning the camera footage of every place I've been to.

Aint just the card honey, it's every form of tracking, the card is just part of the process.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the old "nothing to hide" retort.

The cry of the dullard.

Re:I pay with cash because....

[david_thornley]

I use my card for almost everything, and keep a fair amount of cash on hand. If I ever should decide to do something covertly, I can leave my phone at home, get some alternative transportation, and pay cash.

In Sweden this is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a big problem with cashless businesses. Where I live you can't go swimming or take the bus with cash.

I think it's a shame. You should be careful to preserve the cash option. First of all it's good for kids to learn the value of money, you don't get the same sense of spending if you don't lose something physical. Second of all, if your bank screws up you're supposed to be able to take out your money and walk out of the bank. If you can't use the cash you take out the banks' power increases a lot.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Rick Zeman]

We have a big problem with cashless businesses. Where I live you can't go swimming or take the bus with cash.

I think it's a shame. You should be careful to preserve the cash option. First of all it's good for kids to learn the value of money, you don't get the same sense of spending if you don't lose something physical. Second of all, if your bank screws up you're supposed to be able to take out your money and walk out of the bank. If you can't use the cash you take out the banks' power increases a lot.

I've been wondering how much the Salvation Army bell ringers have been hurting since less and less people carry cash with them.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[The Good Reverend]

Fuck the Salvation Army - they're a bigoted church pretending to be a charity, and don't deserve any of your money.

Also, fuck EVERY organization that collects on the street in front of businesses. There's no way to vet them to see if that person is an actual representative of the business, and they're often annoying/loud/bothersome.

Give to whatever charities you choose, but do it via their websites or in person.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Rick Schumann]

Oh, I'm sure The Rich aren't too concerned about Salvation Army, after all they want The Poor to remain poor, as a warning to Middle Class of what can be done to them if we don't 'behave' and do as The Rich tell us to. Why else do you think that in the U.S., one of the richest countries in the world, we still have a homelessness problem, and that anyone is Poor to start with?

Re: In Sweden this is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

They have iPads that take credit card.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Oligonicella]

You might want to shake up your conceptions on that by reviewing who are the greatest charitable contributors. It's not a money divide, it's political.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[rundgong]

Almost everyone in Sweden has Swish (Swedish link) now that handles instant money transfers from your mobile device.
It's tied to your phone number, so if you know someones number it's easy to send them money without knowing their real bank account number. This is probably the most common way to transfer small amounts of money where cash used to rule supreme.

Almost all charity organizations will accept swish payments if you don't have cash.

Swish is also increasingly accepted as payment in smaller convenience stores where a lot of sales are for small amounts where credit cards are prohibitively expensive.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[rwyoder]

I've been wondering how much the Salvation Army bell ringers have been hurting since less and less people carry cash with them.

They are already planning for it: http://thesouthern.com/news/lo...

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Bert64]

You should have multiple cards, there are lots of banks and several major card issuers - very useful if one bank or card network has a serious outage or something screws up etc. Also different accounts offer different perks depending on where or what you're spending etc.

On the other hand, cashless is very inconvenient for visitors who come from countries with different payment systems... I recently visited belgium and the netherlands, and many places would only accept "maestro" cards which aren't issued in a lot of countries and none of us had.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

They take credit cards.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

The cashless bus is coming in the U.S. It's here in LA for the rail lines: if you want to ride light rail or the subway for cash, you have to get a Metro Card from the machine (for an extra $1) that then gets your cash fare loaded on it. The card can be reloaded by machines at the stations (deposit cash or debit/credit card to the card) or online (deposit by DC or CC to the card account). The subway machines only accept the card (and physically identical monthly passes, and NFC phones with an app), and for light rail you have to tap the card or the phone/app at a terminal at each station before riding (ticket cops have apps on their phones and a NFC reader to check whether the card was tapped - or the app activated). You can still deposit cash on the buses, but noises have been made about ending that. Bay Area is still a little looser on the cash thing, though again rail is taking the lead on moving to a single card (Clipper) for everything. Sacramento is early in the game and doesn't have machines to dispense and reload its card yet (but no card fee yet either) and still accepts cash everywhere with single-ride paper tickets on light rail. What we need, though, is a single standard for the transit cards, like there is for the toll transponders in cars, rather than every system or region going its own way - people do travel beyond their home region and want to use transit from time to time. It's a pain to have to get 3-4 cards and remember to take the right one(s) on a trip.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the charities, Salvation Army included, now get much less money from me.
I'm happy to contribute, but I refuse to be logged and tracked, mailed and provoked, inventoried and harassed.
I make the mistake once of making an electronic payment to a charity, and I'm bombarded for eternity.
They waste all my contributions on their mail campaigns, so they get NOTHING any more.
I still pay to charities, but I steadfastedly refuse every last punter who wants to register me for my vote or support or once-a-month payment.
Fuck em.
If they don't provide a means for me to donate anonymously, they get squat.
I prefer to hand a fiver to the bum in the street, than have it sliced-and-diced in administration, publicity and overheads, and suffer a lifetime of repeated, expensive begging through postal campaigns.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Maestro is not a special card. It's the system that is used when you pay with your bank card. Most if not all bank cards in Europe and many other regions support it.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[thegarbz]

Not much. The door knockers have gone from asking for single donations to seeing up recurring transactions on credit card. Digitisation had been quite a win for them. Most of them don't even accept cash anymore.

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden has a problem with cash in general. Just about everything made more than a couple of years ago is no longer valid and there's every reason to believe that the current currency will be made invalid in a few years. Typically, this is done when countries are worried about people holding large amounts of wealth that can't be taxed (though the official reasons in this case include new security features, nickel allergy issues, and making robbery less efficient, none of which make a whole lot of sense). I had some cash left over from my last trip to Sweden a few years ago and figured I would hang on to it for the next time I visited (cash is very useful if you're a tourist, since you're never sure if your cards will work right away when you get there), but now it's all worthless. Should have spent it all in the duty free shop in Copenhagen (where they accept Swedish currency and give change in Danish), I guess. Sweden doesn't want people using cash and will probably declare all cash invalid within a decade (probably citing diminished demand now that they've greatly reduced the supply).

Re:In Sweden this is normal

[Bert64]

Yes, it's basically equivalent to a mastercard debit card... But if you don't have the maestro logo on the card then 99% of the vendors will refuse to even try processing it.

All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

This ``depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice'' is bullshit. If you eat at a restaurant, and then they announce they don't accept cash as payment, you're perfectly OK to just walk out. They may not accept your particular brand of credit card, but they MUST accept cash.

You have the right to settle your debts... and there's a government mandated way of doing that. They might as well claim your only way of settling debt is to present your first born... or give them one of your kidneys. Cash has that ``all debts, public and private'' in there for a reason---it's so everyone is forced to accept it on settling of debts.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[Lunix Nutcase]

If you eat at a restaurant, and then they announce they don't accept cash as payment, you're perfectly OK to just walk out.

Only if you don't mind getting arrested.

They may not accept your particular brand of credit card, but they MUST accept cash.

Wrong:

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.

Re: All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. The law says they don't have to take cash but they MUST take currency. You didn't address the original argument: what if the business says they only take children in payment? You pedantic fedora.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he was NOT wrong. The point in your link is that they do not have to accept cash for goods and services, but that only applies for payment up front. Once the goods are delivered without payment up front, you now have a debt. For a debt, they must accept cash.

Re: All debts, public and private...

[EndlessNameless]

He conveniently italicized the part that proves you're wrong, and you argue as though it wasn't right there in front of you.

Why are your delusions about US currency so important to you?

Re:All debts, public and private...

[mark-t]

Really... even if you *HAVE* the cash, and are willing to pay it, the cops are going to come out and arrest you?

I mean just think for a second... play out in your mind how the exchange between the restaurant on the cop they had to call to come and arrest the guy would occur. They can't say that a patron can't pay for their meal if the patron has offered cash, they can only say that the patron is not willing to pay them in their preferred payment method.... a method, which I might point out, is a LEGAL OFFER OF PAYMENT FOR DEBTS.

The only way I can see a restaurant being able to do this is if they required that the patron pay for their meal in advance of being able to eat it, because no debt has yet occurred.. and of course, that's probably going to kill nearly any chance of the patron being willing to offer any kind of voluntary tip because of how good the service or food was.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[guruevi]

At the end of the restaurant visit, wouldn't your cost be considered a "debt" since they've already provided the service.

If they don't announce they don't accept cash, then I would say, okay, I'll owe your business a debt. If they say: yes, that is right, then you can say: here is legal tender to settle the debt.

Re: All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

Walgreens doesn't have to accept cash. A restaurant does as you pay after, meaning it is a debt.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[Jason1729]

You're wrong. Your bill in a restuarant is debt and not a purchase.

If you do a dine and dash, it is not legally theft. They willingly brought you the food, you didn't steal anything; they willingly gave it to you. But they brought it to you because you led them to believe you would pay for it. So you have obtained goods and services by falsehood; in other words fraud.

So if you are willing to settle up your bill in cash and they won't accept it it's their problem, not yours.

Re: All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true from what I know.

I was once in a repair shop in the middle of Missouri and there was an old man there who, I guess, got his lawnmower repaired and he was trying to pay the $90 some dollars in change/coins only (which he had a bag full). They were trying to deny him and refuse the change but he convincingly quoted that because it was a debt they cannot refuse legal U.S. tender for a debt and eventually after the entire staff was called in they conceded and accepted his stacks of pennies, dimes, quarters, etc.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really... even if you *HAVE* the cash, and are willing to pay it, the cops are going to come out and arrest you?

I mean just think for a second... play out in your mind how the exchange between the restaurant on the cop they had to call to come and arrest the guy would occur. They can't say that a patron can't pay for their meal if the patron has offered cash, they can only say that the patron is not willing to pay them in their preferred payment method.... a method, which I might point out, is a LEGAL OFFER OF PAYMENT FOR DEBTS.

If anyone is going to be arrested in this situation, it'll be the restaurant manager, for wasting police time/whatever.

The only way I can see a restaurant being able to do this is if they required that the patron pay for their meal in advance of being able to eat it, because no debt has yet occurred.. and of course, that's probably going to kill nearly any chance of the patron being willing to offer any kind of voluntary tip because of how good the service or food was.

I can see this situation applying in NYC. Want a coffee, or a hot dog, or ... pay first by card. Vendor doesn't have to worry about depositing the cash. No card, no sale.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always call the police that the owner does not accept payment and that they are holding you against your wishes.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

>At the end of the restaurant visit, wouldn't your cost be considered a "debt" since they've already provided the service.
Yes.

Only for PRE-PAID goods and services would the Treasury's clause be valid re: not accepting cash.

This is what everyone copypasta'ng the Treasury.gov website is missing.

The moment you consume the goods before paying, or receive services before paying, you are now indebted to the retailer/serviceprovider/restauranter. Cash is valid in this case, regardless of the vendor's preference for payment.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, arrested because you didn't pay and still owe them.

There's another word for owing them.

They must accept cash for a standing debt. Stop linking a point about potential ones.

Re:All debts, public and private...

[tepples]

The only way I can see a restaurant being able to do this is if they required that the patron pay for their meal in advance of being able to eat it

This has long the case in quick service. For full service, the customer can insert the card before being seated, and the restaurant places an "authorization" on the card for twice the expected bill per person, only "capturing" the amount that the party actually orders plus whatever tip is written on the final check. It's the same way a gasoline/petrol pump works.

Re: All debts, public and private...

[Anonymous Coward]

The restaurant hands you a bill. This makes the restaurant a creditor asking for payment of debt incurred for services rendered. You are wrong.

Oh, please...

[magusxxx]

...they're doing it because they think they'll have less chance of being robbed.

Re:Oh, please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pumpkin: See, I got the idea, last liquor store we held up, all the customers kept coming in?
Honey Bunny: Yeah.
Pumpkin: And you got the idea of taking their wallets. Now that was a good idea.
Honey Bunny: Thank you.
Pumpkin: Made more from the wallets than we did from the register.
Honey Bunny: Yes, we did.
Pumpkin: A lot of customers come into a restaurant.
Honey Bunny: A lot of wallets.
Pumpkin: Pretty smart, eh?

dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[Joe_Dragon]

dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

What if are in the place where you just have cash or only have and a card they don't take?? Can they call the cops on you? Do they have to a big sign + the sever saying up front that we do not take cash?

In an criminal court some fine print may not stand up.

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[Lunix Nutcase]

dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

No. Businesses have no federal obligation to accept cash.

What if are in the place where you just have cash or only have and a card they don't take?? Can they call the cops on you? Do they have to a big sign + the sever saying up front that we do not take cash?

Then you're up shit creek.

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the business is smart, they *should* have a sign saying that they don't take cash. Many already have signs about no checks, etc.

Hmmm ... let's twist this around a little. You want to pay cash. They don't accept it. You now have created a debt, right? So the cash is legal tender to pay that. And we start the circle again, because while it's legal tender they don't have to accept it.

FWIW, most government offices in the US have been no-cash for ages. You have to pay fees with check or card. If you want to use cash, you're directed to get a money order in the amount of the fees and bring it back. There might be one office in the agency, such as a city finance department, that can accept cash for certain transactions, but none of the other offices do - cash requires a different type of security and employee training/certification.

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[mark-t]

Do they have to a big sign + the sever saying up front that we do not take cash?

Yes, in fact they do...

However, I'm still not sure that it would stand up if push came to shove... because in the end, payment for a meal after having received it is a *DEBT*, and cash is still always a legal offer of payment for debts.

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[Oligonicella]

Which you fraudulently incurred by lying about having a card.

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses have no federal obligation to accept cash.
If they want to report that someone "still owes", they do.

Businesses are federally obliged to accept cash on already-existing debts.

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[mark-t]

What if you didn't lie? What if the card was declined, or maybe you didn't realize that it was missing from your wallet?

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[bingoUV]

Suppose they have a sign in their establishment that they take only cards, no cash. And my bad, I didn't notice. And their bad that they didn't notice my T-shirt message that I pay only cash and carry no cards.

Re:dine and dash if you cash only = legal?

[david_thornley]

Exactly what did you agree to, and would a court hold it to be binding?

I propose new emergency numbers then

[Provocateur]

911 will still get you the ambulance straight to ER

but soon these rideshares will take you to ER, but since you came on your own, there might be a long wait. So be prepared, and dial

912 drive thru Taco Bell, then head to ER (perhaps with new emergency)
913 drive thru BK, then ER
914 drive thru KFC, then ER
etc.
 
We can also provide fixed order e.g.

916 Chicken Quesadilla at Taco Bell drive thru then ER
917 Big Bucket at KFC drive thru then ER

Sorry, no flashing lights on any of these

Re:I propose new emergency numbers then

[PPH]

911 will still get you the ambulance straight to ER

Not for long.

Going cashless

[axlash]

Are the obstacles towards going cashless technological or political?

Just supposing the technology did exist to have cards that held a representation of value. Let's say that these cards were backed by the government (i.e. so that you could transfer money to an individual or organisation without anyone having to pay charges on the transfer). Lastly let's also say that such technology was anonymous (i.e. so that if I stole your card with whatever 'money' was on it, I could use it without anyone asking me whether I was authorised to do so).

Would this take off? Would it be blocked by lobbying from Visa and other payment system companies, or protests from anti-government types who would not believe that such technology would *truly* be anonymous?

Re:Going cashless

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it would be blocked! No-fee cards vs. fees? No-brainer.

What we need is the card equivalent of a money order. You go in, pay cash, arguably without a formal identification and account setup requirement, get a card in that amount (probably less a processing fee), then use it like a debit card. I'm sure they already exist. Hey wait, they DO exist: gift cards. But the store doesn't have to accept them either, and many stores don't even if they're the "Visa" gift cards that aren't tied to one chain.

Re:Going cashless

[axlash]

"But the store doesn't have to accept them either, and many stores don't even if they're the "Visa" gift cards that aren't tied to one chain."

That's why the government will need to back this for it to work - the government will need to tell all stores to treat this card just like they treat money.

There is an advantage to the government, in that it saves on the cost of printing and managing paper bills, but this is not a big enough problem that the government would be able to justify the huge change. The only motivation for the government to do this would be if it could remove the anonymity aspect (it could then say that this was being done to keep citizens safe, prevent fraud, etc.)

Of course, there will always be the worry about the damage to this system if it was hacked in an act of terrorism.

Re:Going cashless

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see the objections being both political and religious. The religious aspect would be some would see paying with the card as being the "Mark of the Beast"

Thanks cash users

[chaotixx]

Thanks to those of you still carrying around cash. You help offset the credit card fees incurred by the merchant when I make a purchase, since they are built into the sale price. The credit card company then kicks back a portion of the fee to me, which I transfer to hotel or airline award programs and use to take a nice vacation every year.

Re:Thanks cash users

[Fly Swatter]

As a mostly cash paying customer, this would be funny if it weren't, sadly, true. :(

Re:Thanks cash users

[Waffle Iron]

Your theory is correct only if the following all have insignificant cost: armored cars, theft, counting, sorting, supervising and paying extra wages for less untrustworthy cashiers and managers.

Re:Thanks cash users

[PPH]

armored cars, theft, counting, sorting, supervising and paying extra wages for less untrustworthy cashiers and managers.

Welcome to New York.

Re:Thanks cash users

[DogDude]

This is true. It's also true that you're a selfish asshole. Congrats!

Slashdot "logic" at work again

[Anonymous Coward]

So I see lots of people who probably compared the "loss" of Net Neutrality to the Holocaust having no problems with businesses refusing to accept standard legal tender for basic transactions.

So given the synthesis of these two lines of logic I've come to the official Slashdot echo-chamber consensus: It's perfectly fine for any business to not accept cash OMG UNLESS IT'S AN ISP AT WHICH POINT WE MUST ENFORCE MONEY NEUTRALITY!

small shops want you to buy more then gum card

[Joe_Dragon]

small shops want you to buy more then a pack of gum to be able to use a card!

Re:small shops want you to buy more then gum card

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum purchase requirements generally go against Visa and Mastercard regulations, as far as debit cards go. Sadly, credit cards can have up to a $10 minimum purchase requirement thanks to Dodd-Frank, and of course merchants seem to think that credit and debit cards are the exact same thing. If a merchant tries to force you to a minimum purchase requirement with a Visa/Mastercard debit card, they're liable for whatever repercussions come their way if reported.

Re:small shops want you to buy more then gum card

[bad-badtz-maru]

The swipe fee's pretty hefty, like 10 cents. Small merchants can get hammered on small transactions.

Re:small shops want you to buy more then gum card

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit and debit cards *are* the same thing for many merchants. If they don't have the PIN terminals used for debit card transactions, they are run as credit and you sign the slip. They come out of your account a day or 2 later once everything clears. The merchant pays the full set of credit charges on the transaction, but in some cases that might actually be less than for debit - the main advantage for debit transactions is immediate transfer of the money, within clearing system limits.

Re:small shops want you to buy more then gum card

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't have the PIN terminals used for debit card transactions, they are run as credit and you sign the slip.

I knew the US was a bit behind Europe etc. in this regard but is this *still* a thing (not having PIN terminals)?

Re:small shops want you to buy more then gum card

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't absolve the merchant of their responsibility to NOT charge a minimum for debit cards. Ignorance is no excuse for not complying with merchant agreements. If you try to use a debit card and the merchant says you have to spend x amount of dollars, they can either pound sand and run the card or get reported and face consequences - Visa and Mastercard do not take kindly to merchant noncompliance (because it makes them look bad, not because it hurts the consumer) and putting up with that BS isn't something a consumer should just sit back and take. Sure, one could generally take their business elsewhere, but this doesn't help in instances where you're in the middle of nowhere and need x y and z right now while the merchant is snubbing their agreement with Visa/Mastercard.

Experience from a working-class red state

[elrous0]

Of course, NYC assumes their experience is typical. But where I'm at, EVERYONE still uses cash. It actually annoys me, because it takes time to make change. I'm actually surprised when I see someone else (like myself) paying with a debit card. Cash is still king here.

At least it's not as bad as it was in the 1980's in Miami, though. Back then, with all the drug smugglers, *everything* in that city ran on cash. People bought cars and mansions with suitcases full of cash (and banks, realtors, and car dealerships never asked where it came from, of course). It was a very strange place to be.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Anonymous Coward]

But where I'm at, EVERYONE still uses cash. It actually annoys me, because it takes time to make change.

In my experience, credit cards usually take longer. Swiping, authorizing, and signing take longer than getting change (unless they have to bust open a new roll of coins or two, which can add extra time).

I don't know how many times a delay in the line was caused by a credit/debit card transaction that would have been long complete had the customer used cash. It's consistently quicker.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Anonymous Coward]

But where I'm at, EVERYONE still uses cash. It actually annoys me, because it takes time to make change.

In my experience, credit cards usually take longer. Swiping, authorizing, and signing take longer than getting change (unless they have to bust open a new roll of coins or two, which can add extra time).

I don't know how many times a delay in the line was caused by a credit/debit card transaction that would have been long complete had the customer used cash. It's consistently quicker.

Signing? Who still signs? Use a PIN.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[DNS-and-BIND]

Why would that be? People from New York City are erudite and cosmopolitan, why would they think how they live it's typical? That's the close-minded attitude of provincial morons, thinking that your small pond is how the whole world works. Puzzling.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[avandesande]

Most purchases now don't require signature under 50$ it's very quick.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[PPH]

People from New York City are erudite and cosmopolitan

My sides! Please stop!

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Anonymous Coward]

That's hilarious, you counter "everyone in new york assumes their experience is typical" with the exact same argument, lol. Probably in poorer areas cash is still used a lot, but it's hardly the norm over a wide range.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[j-beda]

NYC does seem to have about 2.5% of the us population (8.5 out of 323 million). And the two coasts about about 90% "urban", with the rest about 75% urban, for a total of +80% urban. It certainly seems that "urban" is more "typical" than any other experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Of course, the NYC experience is not necessarily the same as the non-NYC urban experience.

None of this means that one should necessarily make decisions or base policy on the fact that the USA is a largely urban nation, but it also seems like a bad idea to not recognize that it is the reality that most of the population is "in the city".

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[HornWumpus]

People who think the world ends at the border of their hometown are hicks. Even if their 'hometown' is NYC. NY is full of hicks.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes more time for the card transaction to process and be signed than it does to make change, assuming a proficient cashier.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[DNS-and-BIND]

Where'd we go off on this unrelated tangent? We're talking about the fact that New York City regards itself as typical, and all others outside as some sort of alien beings from another planet.

If you want to change the topic like that, we need to remember that if rural areas are a minority, then their rights need to be very carefully protected. Experience shows us that the majority will brutally oppress anyone who can't defend themselves. Urban enclaves need to be very cautious going forward that they respect the rights of minority populations and take actions that will benefit them at their own expense. Basically, think about America's relationship with the UN: give, give, give without any thought of return.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Anonymous Coward]

Most purchases now don't require signature under 50$ it's very quick.

Fair enough. However, the authorization can actually take a while depending on location. Apparently, the new cards with embedded chip transmit much more data than the previous cards did. This can add quite a delay for locations with slower network connectivity. It's enough of a delay that cash is much faster.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Anonymous Coward]

Signing? Who still signs? Use a PIN.

Those who's banks don't support chip-and-pin.

Not to mention, I can't force the customer ahead of me to obtain a chip-and-pin card to avoid signing, which is where some of the delay comes form.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Bert64]

Many places now take contactless cards for small transactions, which are generally instant...
The idea of signing has always been ridiculous and does nothing of any value, anyone can write a random mark on a piece of paper.
PIN transactions actually provide a small level of security, in that you at least have to know what the PIN is or the machine will refuse your transaction. They also tend to be somewhat quicker than printing a piece of paper and drawing on it.

Re:Experience from a working-class red state

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a plan to remove cash to increase government control. They'll start in the cities, because that's a lot of the people and they can justify the high costs of removing cash from most places. Once the template is setup, they'll have it more affordable for other places. Eventually it will become mandatory. It won't be for years, but they can wait. They will take however long they need to to strip away freedom, it's their primary purpose.

I only use cash

[Anonymous Coward]

My pile is getting taller because there are less things worth my hard earned money.
If you dont want it fine, I will keep it.

Now you know why bitcoin is so high.

Even Americans dont want America money.

What of legal tender laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you do about legal tender laws then? The notation on most bills in the US says "this ..is legal tender for all debts, public and private". I was under the impression this meant it must be accepted. Originally this was used because the issuers wanted to be sure a merchant could not insist on payment in gold or silver (there were such coins back then, for the young who have never seen them since LBJ got rid of them). This didn't make merchants happy all the time.
Still, cash has the advantage that you can give it to others, and it doesn't come with tracking. Preserving the ability to do transactions that Big Brother can't decide are undesirable is needed as a component to preserving economic liberty. You can sometimes buy gift cards and save some of that autonomy, but not all of it.
Mind, paper money is not without its drawbacks, a major one being that it can be devalued. I miss the silver certificates which in theory at least could be exchanged for silver directly, giving a path to extracting value out of the paper money. It's been a long time since deliberate devaluation went on, but I could point out that, as a simple example, a candy bar circa 1957 cost 5 cents or in a few cases a dime. That same size candy bar today costs around a dollar. Similar examples can be found elsewhere, pointing out that the value of the dollar has been reduced by a factor of 20 to 25 since that time, quietly and with no debate. That is a post-WWII novelty that does not seem necessarily good to me.

Re:What of legal tender laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go

Only moments I use cash

[houghi]

Disclaimer: Living in Europe, Belgium. I only use cash is when I go out with friends or have drinks.
The reason is that most bars do not have a have a wireless payment yet, so ordering a drink and paying is not really an option if you want to pay each time. Paying at the end of a heavy night has other disadvantages.

When we go out with friends, we just split the bill. Throwing a lot of cash on the table is easier than having either pay per person or transferring money to friends.
There are several ways of doing the transfer of money for free. And that is also where the problem is. There is no standard yet the cab do it right away. I can transfer money via the European banking system for free, but that is cumbersome for small amounts. And as there are several ways to do it directly, you will need several ways to do it and hope that the other has one of them, so cash is easier.

For almost everything else I pay with either a credit card that I pay at the end of the month, so no interest or via debit card. So buying a magazine or a can of whatever or a snack will be paid by wireless. That is possible to 25EUR. After that I need to type in my 4 digit pin.

Remember that there is not or almost no tipping. If we go to a 1 star restaurant, we perhaps round up to the next 5EUR or 10EUR on a (4 people) 500EUR bill. People get paid for their job. Tipping is not expected and mostly just rounding up.

When I am in Germany or Spain, cash is much more a standard to use. Many places there will not accept cards or not under a certain amount. Spin is catching up fast, as far as I can tell. Germany? Not so much.

Also note the the credit card company can see where I bought something, not what. Same with the bank. The store will not have the card number, so it will not be able to link purchases to you, unless you have a store card,

Re:Only moments I use cash

[thenitz]

Germans are cash loving people, but also they have their own debit card network - EC - which is completely separate from MasterCard and Visa. Most stores don't take credit cards, not even Visa/MC credit cards, but on the other hand almoste everyone takes EC.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing, as a NYC resident (who doesn't go out a whole lot), is that the only establishment I've encountered that was card-only so far, was itself a bar.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[houghi]

I never ad an issue with my Belgian Debit card. Those are Bankcontact and Meastro.Not sure how they are linked in the backend, buy I assume that the banks accept payment with (EURO) debit cards in Germany, so they can use their EC card in Benidorm and on Mallorca at Ballerman. ;-)

Many stores in Belgium also do not take credit cards, but I have not seen one yet that does not take debit cards. Perhaps an ice stand or something like that or on a fair where the black market is still pretty active.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[j-beda]

Also note the the credit card company can see where I bought something, not what. Same with the bank. The store will not have the card number, so it will not be able to link purchases to you, unless you have a store card,

Well, the store might notice that every time the wireless MAC address aa:11:22:33:55:66 is visible in the store, the latest issue of "Cool dude Magazine" and "Brainz and Bronze Monthly" are sold. If they trade info with other establishments, they might not be able to track "houghi", but that phone can have quite a dossier built up after a while.

Eventually, there might be tentative links between that phone and other aspects of your life. Get a new phone and the old phone stops following the old routine, but a new one does, so the two might be linked. Sign up with a store's free WiFi system, and an email address might get linked to the profile.

The system doesn't need to be even close to perfect in order to provide useful data to retailers, so it seems almost inevitable that this type of thing will occur. Even without a cell phone to provide a simple tracker, eventually computer vision and security cameras will do visual tracking well enough to do this.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Also note the the credit card company can see where I bought something, not what.

May be true for Visa/Mastercard, but not for American Express.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays shops and vending points in Germany that take EC also take Maestro. MasterCard and Visa are typically only accepted in hotels, restaurants and petrol stations, but that is true in most countries.

Re: Only moments I use cash

[Anonymous Coward]

... because it isn't accepted anywhere.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[Bert64]

I found it the other way round, in germany almost everywhere accepted my international mastercard without any problems... In belgium on the other hand, many places would only accept a card called "maestro" which they don't issue here.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[houghi]

We are talking about cashless payments. Not about credit card payments. Maestro is the debit card system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I use my Maestro bank card anywhere in Europe without an issue. I trvel most to Germany and Spain, so that is what I used. I have used them in all other countries as well, but not to th extend that I can use it as a reference.

Re:Only moments I use cash

[thegarbz]

Come north of the border. People will look at you funny if your start trying to throw cash on the table. Splitting the bill is something effortlessly handled by ever banking app with a quick luck of a button and a review of who hasn't paid.

Havenâ(TM)t carried cash in years

[ruddk]

I havenâ(TM)t carried cash in years, except when traveling, to the US for example.
We got the app (mobile pay) in 2013 that enabled us to transfer small amount between people instantly and everyone of all ages uses that.
We have had chip on cards for some time and now contact less visa and mastercards.

Most stores donâ(TM)t hold enough cash because the open borders across the EU have imported new crime we werenâ(TM)t used to in Scandinavia.
So the banks donâ(TM)t have money to prevent bank robberies and the criminals turned to robbing shops and old people in their homes.

912 is the real 911!

[Joe_Dragon]

912 is the real 911!

Legal Tender

[Anonymous Coward]

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" - printed on the face of US currency

Does there have to be a public accommodation law to force establishments to accept the legal tender issued by the United States of America? I don't think I'm being pedantic to say that an establishment engages in commerce with the general public should accept the legal tender issued by the governing authority.

How to legally refuse business to homeless people

[Anonymous Coward]

Few homeless persons have access to credit/debit cards.

9-11 was a Jew job

[Anonymous Coward]

ae911truth dot org

Easy solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Open the package. Now a debt is created. Hand over cash.

Re:Easy solution.

[Baron_Yam]

Essentially, you would be violating the vendor's rules, meaning there was no legal transaction and you are not welcome on the property.

That's theft. And possibly trespass. I suspect you could get away with it at least once by playing innocent, but it likely wouldn't be worth the hassle.

Re:Easy solution.

[david_thornley]

Open the package before or after the sale? If it's after, there never was a debt. If it's before, you've damaged someone else's property.

Goal: Eliminate thoughtless people from government

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.

Whatâ(TM)s the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Those that think nothing of paying for a pack of gum with a swipe... The âoebig dealâ is that this behavior drives up the consumerâ(TM)s cost of goods. Now I understand the inefficiencies of cash, that a large segment of the population isnâ(TM)t withdrawing enough cash at once to minimize ATM fees, and that the business markup is somewhat returned to (some of) us as shareholder wealth, but thereâ(TM)s an important inefficiency being created because of the accepted-because-itâ(TM)s-hidden cost structure of merchant fees.

THAT is what they want!

[p51d007]

Government wants a cashless world. It's about control. When you no longer have any tangible assets, they can take whatever money they want (ask Greece). Or, they can control/monitor your purchases. Outlaw cash...then make a law about healthcare tied to what you spend. Go into a fast food establishment...order a cheeseburger, fries and a coke....BZZZZZZZ sorry, your last healthcare checkup says your BMI is too high. Try to buy a sports car...BZZZZZZZ...sorry, your driving record shows too many speeding tickets. DON'T think it can't happen!

Re:THAT is what they want!

[DogDude]

What does the government have to do with this? Take off your tinfoil hat and use your brain. Visa/MC get 3% of every single transaction.

Re:THAT is what they want!

[iggymanz]

wrong, government only wants its taxes and its central bank and certain level of inflation and economic activity. they don't care about this.

you already can have your drivers license revoked by repeated or severe violations of traffic law or certain criminal laws, that's been true for over a century and that won't change.

Re:THAT is what they want!

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the government have to do with this? Take off your tinfoil hat and use your brain. Visa/MC get 3% of every single transaction.

EVERYTHING.

"specie is the only constitutional money in this country", www.dict.org, "specie", bouviers

"Visa/MC" is the "government" if you haven't noticed.

Make-believe "credit" and irredeemable IOU notes are advantageous because they allow taxation by inflation without representation and with the public accepting > 2000% of the value of the "silver dollar" being debased over a slow period. Normally this would be "taking of private property without compensation" (for specie in hand, which is debt free, not owed to anyone, the "public's money" but can be privately-held, i.e. it is the property of the person holding it)

"socialist" types always do paper/credit because they can print more and pull back to "condition" (reward/stimulus/punish) as needed. They also like "full employment" because everyone is merely a cog to serve "society" (redefined to mean "the government") and this can be "stimulated" with inflation/deflation, interest rates, etc.

The first thing every "communist" or "socialist" government does is take the gold/silver and put it in "state hands"...and use it as collateral to print IOU notes/credit against (or ship it elsewhere, as collateral for the same).

Really, they like gold and silver coin, but only in their hands. They can't track it. They can't control it. With the actual treasury, free minting of gold and silver coin (which noone is running at present) they can't control how much "money" the "people" have in circulation or not, can't do "bonds" and collect usury.

Again, the "banks" are "the government". With fractional reserves (legalized usury/theft) it gets worse. With bailouts it gets worse.

The whole system is literally a banker dictatorship at this point, down to all the "courts" being in "commerce" due to the use of the "funny money".

Name ONE employer that pays people constitutional money "specie is the only constitutional money in this country", bouviers, "specie", www.dict.org

Even if you can name ONE such employer, what percentage of people are paid in such a manner?

Even if you accept "martial law for 150+ years is needed, due to "civil war, WWI, WWII, vietnam, korea, "war on terror" etc. -- shouldn't the "banks" be doing something with all this fraud and usury they collect to help the "war effort"? Why are they bailed out?

You are just confused who "the government" is. They declared themselves "kings" long ago. IT was "more efficient". Try the "hazard circular"

Re:THAT is what they want!

[Anonymous Coward]

"sovereignty inheres in the right to issue money"

it is a "traditional perogative of monarchs"

lest you think that is mere "Hyperbole" but literally "Visa" is "the government"

in the old days, they passed this off as (paraphrase) "there is no reason, except some cooperation between government and business is necessary to avoid either side usurping" ...nowadays they dont even pretend to do anything for the public. at least in the old days while they did all their usury, they pretended it was good for "everyone" as a type of "balance"

Re:THAT is what they want!

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like the white evangelicals decrying some imaginary "New world Order." To which Government are you referring? If it's the USA, they're doing a particularly awful job of eliminating cash. Treasury still issues pennies and nickels, when the cost of minting exceeds the face value.

Re:THAT is what they want!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's the USA, they're doing a particularly awful job of eliminating cash. Treasury still issues pennies and nickels,

This argument already occurred circa 1880-1890. Silver (and gold) is only worthwhile if paper is NOT legal tender. Try "the coming battle"

Duh. This is not rocket science. Bad money drives out good. Thomas Jefferson said as much (paraphrase) "every paper dollar makes a coin disappear [from circulation]" "paper is poverty, paper is not money but only the ghost of money"

Pennies and nickels LOL. Before > 2000% inflation of the silver dollar (the base unit, gold came later) we had mills. How many mills you seen lately?

Nevermind all that, "monetized debt" is slavery too. It would be bad enough just the inflation, but noone gets credited nowadays, they are literally working for their own credit.

I like the part where you failed to name one such employer. So 99% of people live under this system 99% of the time, but hey, the "Treasury" has pennies and nickels for you. LOL. My brother the accountant just informed me "banks" with less than 100 million in assets are chump change.

Do you even realize how condescending you sound, how far from reality your miniscule example is?
----
99% of people are murderers, but this one neighborhood is safe...kind of...5 minutes of 24 hours every day. So, you can't really say crime is bad. Do you have any sense of perspective?
---
Name one "bank" that can meet its obligations in silver or gold. LOL. They are just counterfeiting without end. It is just never-ending bankruptcy, every ~100 years they file protection for themselves, leave everyone else with the bill, start over with a new round. This isn't the first time.

The fact i dont worship satan does not make me a "white evangelical", it is not either-or. "Identity politics" just means you have no argument. All the "churches" are up to their ears in usury slavery and are incorporated nowadays too. They would be "satanic" too.

I wasn't aware that "the bible" (which one? you didn't say) said "unjust weights and measures are bad, but only for white people, everyone else gets a pass".

How ridiculous when you bring "Race" into such things.

Of course there is no "new world order" same satanic psychopaths as always.

Just because i am not worshipping satan doesn't make me an "evangelical". Did you see anywhere i said jeebus is coming back to save you? Or "god" is going to end this?

It looks like hell on earth for a long time. I don't see anyone being saved.

"federal citizens" are all naturalized (dc is not a state, despite "new state of columbia" in recent times, still not a state). Has no natives or common law traditions. Was ceded from actual states virginia and maryland. Like any other legal fictions, "federal citizens" are "legally dead".

So, if this is prophecy, then i see things at "the dead shall walk the earth stage". FYI commerce is where "satan" was cast down into "the sea". Common law of the land is local people with traditions. IT doesn't take an "evangelical" to see this is nimrod/tower of babel all over again. Nothing new, quite the opposite, revival of ancient paganism/satanism.

If you think this is "conspiracy" or "evangelical" you haven't read any good "conspiracy" or "evangelical" writings.

If saying that "satan" is a real thing is "conspiracy" then that is the end of the discussion -- most "religions" that makes you a "satanist" by default. I am not saying i agree with that view, i am saying "religion" has to be translated its own terms and worldview.

If I write "goto 1" that may or may not be valid in:

-- BASIC, C, C++, assembly, forth, etc.

perhaps variations for each, e.g. C wants a semicolon, may not allow numerical labels, but a similar statement "goto one;" might be valid.

When i say "satan is the god of this world" that is a statement, "satan" www.dict.org bible dictionary.

No "faith" needed. Either you accept that means so

Re:THAT is what they want!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You think it's the government is going to do it? It's going to be insurance companies who do it. And they won't warn you. They'll just see that you bought a cheeseburger when you weren't supposed to, cancel your insurance (but still accept your checks), and you'll find out when you're checking out of the hospital.

What are you complaining about, it's on page 7 of fine print that if you eat red meat while your BMI is over 22.5, your insurance is canceled.

Government regulation is the only thing that's going to stop that reality.

Re:THAT is what they want!

[Anonymous Coward]

also, if i was making a "conspiracy" argument, i would at least have lizard people from inner earth, metaphysical metaphors, etc.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37775/37775-h/37775-h.htm
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/etidorhpa/EtidorhpaHome.htm

you simply haven't read any good "conspiracies" if you think that is a "conspiracy" argument.

Re:THAT is what they want!

[voss]

The government wouldnt do that not because they are benign or nice but because stopping you from buying that cheeseburger or a sports car would interfere with its primary reason for cashlessness ... tax collection. The more transactions go cashless the harder it is for off the records payments to be made. Its not the federal government that would love this...they dont care as long as you declare income, they make cash. Who love this is state and local governments that depend on sales tax revenues.

Itâ(TM)s good to be a Jew.

[Anonymous Coward]

We control the finance, bagel and media industries. We run the Illuminati. We have a pretty sweet deal going on.

This won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

There is value in a single default payment method that always works.
Without one, you can be held hostage for the magic coins that you were supposed to have.
Until reading this, I had been taught and thought cash was this method that always works.
But the article clearly says no.
That's broken.

These folks are removing cash from this role without replacing it with anything else that can be reasonably expected to be universal.
Not everybody has a Credit/Debit Card.

I think if you have a meal at a restaurant, or have service done on something you own, and you didn't notice until it's time to pay that the policy is no cash, then the cops will come and cash will work or the price will become zero. You might not be able to eat there again and you might have to go to court to make it so, but eventually cash should be ok. Just because that's the way I think the world should work does not make it so.

The customer may not always be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the business who dictates terms of payment method. And triple fuck the NYC attitude of which donny trump is the poster child.

Prediction: WWIII is going to happen due to this attitude.

Freedom???

[markdavis]

>"A Visa executive described this practice to CNN as offering shoppers "freedom from carrying cash.""

This needs to be stopped. That is NOT "freedom", it is the exact opposite. Cash should *ALWAYS* be accepted at merchants. I see nothing wrong with cash-only, or offering both cash and credit/debit, but there are huge potential issues with credit/debit only, not the least of which is privacy and tracking. Also- emergencies and technology failures.

Re:Freedom???

[Anonymous Coward]

> That is NOT "freedom", it is the exact opposite.

Of course.

>Cash should *ALWAYS* be accepted at merchants.

Think like you are a big corporation, or a government. Ask yourself, "wouldn't it be nicer if everyone stopped using cash". What are the advantages when it comes to tracing the entire economy?

Because the people with the power have the motivation, the deed is sure to follow.

Cash will be banned as soon as is practical. That's a couple decades off still, but they are going there as fast as they can.

cards cost more

[DogDude]

Cards cost significantly more than cash. Cards cost 3%. Cash handling isn't nearly that expensive.

Re:cards cost more

[tepples]

Cards cost 3%. Cash handling isn't nearly that expensive.

How much does cash handling cost, both for small-transaction merchants and for large-transaction merchants?

Re:cards cost more

[HornWumpus]

If your doing it right, cash costs are negative your marginal tax rate plus your actual cash handling costs.

Re:cards cost more

[DogDude]

We're small a small transaction (~$50ish average receipt) merchant, and our cash handling costs are pretty minimal. Honestly, I haven't calculated it, but it works out to just a few man hours a week. We do 8 figures worth of sales every year, so those few man hours/week don't add up to anything close to 1% of our gross sales.

Re:cards cost more

[Anonymous Coward]

3%? LOL. For small merchants maybe.

Re: cards cost more

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit cards are 2-3%, but bank cards are much cheaper.

I pay with Credit

[rsilvergun]

because I get cash back and pay it off every month. It's about $500/yr. It's basically a 1% discount on life in general. It pays for my video game hobby. I'm not responsible for fraud so I don't really care about the malware and there's plenty of better ways to steal my identity than a random credit card swipe anyway. And I like the idea that if I'm mugged all they get is cheap cell phone and a wallet full of worthless plastic.

As for tracking, meh. They way I see it is that if I live in a society where tracking the sandwich I bought becomes a significant impact on freedom then I'm already so thoroughly screwed it hardly matters anymore. In terms of freedom I've got much, much bigger fish to fry.

Re:I pay with Credit

[Anonymous Coward]

At 1% that's $50,000 per year, or $4166 per month. You spend that much on your credit card?

I'm disputing your figures. You know what you spend. I do find that number incredible.

Re:I pay with Credit

[HornWumpus]

I used to play that game when I was a 'road warrior'. It's not too hard to capitalize when your living out of airports and hotels.

The downside is they can and will stick you with debt on your personal card if the co goes belly up. But the CC companies like to make you personally liable for company cards, so not much benefit. Submit expenses 'instantly', make friends in accounting.

Re:I pay with Credit

[ahodgson]

I could see that as an average. One $10k vacation adds up quick. Gas, food, clothes, pet expenses, car insurance, phones, internet, cable, car repairs, home/garden tools and stuff, going to movies, buying electronics, video games, everything else, it all adds up if you have the income to support it. My wife and I probably spend $3k a month on our shared card on average, and we're not anal about putting everything on it by any means.

debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

In The Netherlands, card is king: debit card. Almost no one carries cash anymore, but credit cards are also very rare for daily purchases.

Why do Americans use credit cards instead of debit cards? Is it really the 1% kick-back received from a portion of the fee the merchant pays to the credit company, or is it a real need to buy things one cannot otherwise afford?

Also, why do American merchants pay the fee to credit card companies instead of simply accepting direct debit only?

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[PPH]

Why do Americans use credit cards instead of debit cards?

Better protection against losses. Rewards points. Maintain a good credit score (if you pay them off).

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Credit cards offer cash back which is nice. But the main reason is in the US they offer far better protection against fraud.

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

So people use an insecure payment method because it offers better protection against something only possible with said method to begin with?

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

No, both credit and debit cards are weak. But the credit card offers more protections.

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

How is a debit card weak? With a credit card, you can make payments using only numbers printed on the card (which can easily be copied or intercepted). With a debit card, it is impossible to make any payments without using the physical chip on the card and, for amounts above a threshold, entering the PIN.

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Maybe outside the US. In the US, with just the numbers on the card, you're typically just limited to the funds in the account.

Debit cards are dangerous.

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds awfully similar to a credit card and just as dangerous, but I don't quite see how it would be more dangerous, unless the liability is handled differently.

Re:debit card vs credit cards in the USA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The liability is handled quite differently. CC liability is usually limited to $50 or $0 (it's pushed onto the merchant) Most importantly, the CC company will not make you pay/charge interest while they ask the merchant for proof. Debit card liability is tricker, I believe there's more of an onus on you. But certainly, in that case, you're trying to get money back. They won't front you the funds while they try to resolve it. So, if there's fraud, that may mean you don't have the cash to do X with a debit card, whereas with a credit card it only means you may not have the credit on a specific card (I don't know if disputes count against your credit limit while they are in place. Probably).

Actually more than the cash users

[rsilvergun]

what offsets those fees is how much easier it is to upsell somebody on credit. That's why you can pay with a credit card for things like food, video games electronics and even the down payment on a car but you can't do it for rent or a house payment (not without crazy fees anyway).

I wish I could say I don't fall for this. Microsoft did this with XBox points. You don't feel the cost the same way when you're not counting out bills and change.

Re:Actually more than the cash users

[dryeo]

There's been studies on this. Seems when someone pays with cash, both a pleasure center and a disgust center light up in peoples brains. When paying with plastic, only the pleasure part of the brain lights up. This means that people are more likely to spend money using plastic and one of the main drivers of businesses encouraging plastic.

As a retailer...

[DogDude]

... cards are *expensive*. They're about 3%. It doesn't take 3% of our gross revenue to handle cash. Nowhere close to that.

These businesses who can afford to throw away 3% of their gross right off the top are doing so because either:
- Their products are severely overpriced, and they don't mind giving 3% to Visa/MC
- They're being run by very inept people.

I use cash everywhere possible. It's easy. It's cheap. It's anonymous.

Re:As a retailer...

[Anonymous Coward]

- they're providing good customer service. Customers want to pay with cards it's way more convenient. I wouldn't shop at a place that doesn't accept cards.

Re:As a retailer...

[j-beda]

These businesses who can afford to throw away 3% of their gross right off the top are doing so because either:

- Their products are severely overpriced, and they don't mind giving 3% to Visa/MC

- They're being run by very inept people.

I think you are missing something somewhere, because by that logic there should be far far far more businesses that do not take credit cards, and the vast vast vast majority of consumer facing (versus business-to-business companies) that I deal with do take credit cards.

I suppose they must have upped their prices to cover those 3% fees and their customers have sucked it up due to the convenience, or they have taken a pay-cut. Those places that don't take the cards may be making a bit more money per transaction, but they have not been able to drive the ones using CCs out of business due to their supposedly lower costs, and maybe they have lower business volume.

Re:As a retailer...

[DogDude]

... and I wouldn't shop at a place that didn't accept cash.

Re:As a retailer...

[DogDude]

I think you are missing something somewhere, because by that logic there should be far far far more businesses that do not take credit cards, and the vast vast vast majority of consumer facing (versus business-to-business companies) that I deal with do take credit cards.

No, that's crazy. Nobody today can afford not to take cards. Cards are 80% of our sales. But, that 20% of cash doesn't cost us the 3% in fees, so you'd have to be dump or crazy not to accept cash.

Re:As a retailer...

[j-beda]

I think you are missing something somewhere, because by that logic there should be far far far more businesses that do not take credit cards, and the vast vast vast majority of consumer facing (versus business-to-business companies) that I deal with do take credit cards.

No, that's crazy. Nobody today can afford not to take cards. Cards are 80% of our sales. But, that 20% of cash doesn't cost us the 3% in fees, so you'd have to be dump or crazy not to accept cash.

Are you sure? First off "typical" credit card fees seem to be more like 2% according to https://www.cardfellow.com/ave...

Just pulling numbers out of my ass, but if a business needs to pay someone for two hours per week (which seems like a huge under estimate, it is only 20 minutes per day for a six-day week) to deal with cash (count, sort, bring to the bank to deposit, etc) than that would be easily $30 in labour per week. $30 is 3% of $1000. If that is 20% of sales, then total sales are $5000/week. Probably very few businesses are successful on $5000/week in gross sales, so that isn't very persuasive, but it is suggestive. I imagine that $50,000/week in gross sales is more typical, which is $10,000/week in cash for those 20% of transactions. 3% of that is $300, or somewhere around ten hours of labour (seven hours if looking at 2%). That does seem a bit high, but it doesn't take long to use up that "budget" if the drive to the bank takes up much time, or there are any thefts or losses or errors at the till.

So, three percent might be high, but anyone who thinks it is significantly lower than 1% is probably wrong too. A one person operation might not be "paying" themselves for the time it takes to collect, count, and deposit their cash, but the time is being spent non-the-less, and the risk of loss or theft is probably a bit higher for cash vs plastic.

At some point, if a business does most of their transactions with plastic, it might be less expensive to eliminate the whole cash-processing infrastructure. Not having to purchase the hardware (cash register, safe, etc.) might tilt the calculation away from cash.

Re:As a retailer...

[Anonymous Coward]

A business has to pay people money to carefully handle cash and cheques, etc. If the 3% fee costs less than having to pay people, then this fee becomes marginal and then it saves a company some money. I have other explanations based on actual real life experiences that I could add, but that is the first thing that came to mind.

Is this even legal?

[filesiteguy]

I thought that the bills all stated something like they are good for all debts private and public.

Re:Is this even legal?

[Hodr]

Let me know when your local taco shop institutes layaway.

Most retail transactions fall under contract law, and in a contract I can require (and you agree to) almost any payment terms. If we don't agree, then no transaction takes place.

But is it legal?

[petes_PoV]

Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice

I could have sworn I read somethere words to the effect: THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

And restaurants are one of the few types of establishment that are pay-after-consume. So there isn't even the possibility of returning the "goods". At least, not in their original state.

There's that assumed future again...

[Anonymous Coward]

" In the future, when dollar bills are found only in museum display cases"

This is the same type of ignorant remark you heard from people twenty years ago about how books would be obsolete in five years. Typical newslet pushing their agenda to people incapable of or uninterested in real intellectual examination of the information they acquire from the world.

"And over here we have a full color print out of a website once called Slashdot, which was owned by many until its final collapse in the courts for its habit of cutting and displaying large portions of copyrighted articles from pay-walled sites. This artifact was donated around 2019, during the Great Consolidation by the Disney Committee."

Banks will love this trend

[gallondr00nk]

The trend towards cashless troubles me because it takes a transaction between two parties and adds a third party - the bank. As we've seen in the past few decades, they're not exactly trustworthy or competent.

Retailers are already charged for every transaction made by card, which is fine for Walmart but not expensive for small traders, further biasing the market towards already huge entities. It adds a monetary cost as well as a knowledge barrier to small traders, flea market stall holders and self employed tradespeople.

Furthermore, every purchase becomes a public act with a permanent record. If there is information on you, you can bet your ass someone will pay for it - social media has made it a business model to collect it. The panopticon wasn't built around government, but advertising. This is not a hypothetical future but instead our reality, today.

Do you really wish to give up more privacy? As America lurches and burps and farts its way towards authoritarianism with King Baby at the helm, don't you think the Intelligence Services will be delighted to pour through your purchase records for signs of being an Enemy of the People?

Simply, it's another centralising trend at a time when people should be keeping well away from it. In a way, its a sign of how centralised we have become - the lie of the tech utopians was that we would rid ourselves of middle men. Instead, the middle men have become ubiquitous.

Re:Banks will love this trend

[EndlessNameless]

It adds a monetary cost as well as a knowledge barrier to small traders, flea market stall holders and self employed tradespeople.

It's minimal. If they can setup their S-corp or C-corp, it's doable. If they can setup their accounting books, it's doable. If they can file their taxes without professional help, it's definitely within their reach.

You can get a chip-capable card reader for your Android phone for around $100, so it's cheaper than most cash registers.

The panopticon wasn't built around government, but advertising.

We could eliminate this with privacy laws. Too bad no one is interested though.

Simply, it's another centralising trend at a time when people should be keeping well away from it.

Centralization and decentralization are trends. There are always players moving against the prevailing trend.

Use cash for 95% of all payments

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been doing this for years. Minus business expenses which I put on a business credit card, I pay for everything in cash. It is faster, more private, and helps prevent identity / card theft. If I have a major expense, I will use a wire or bank draft.

Just witnessed major issue with that.

[will_die]

I was at a local restaurant for lunch, average cost of $8-$10 after tip, and it was mostly full. Then they lost phone connection, so no credit card usage.
People were having to dig up bills from bottoms of the purse or where ever they could. I was sitting near the cash register and they were giving discounts because people did not have enough cash with them to pay the bill.

I don't understand the quote

[HuskyDog]

"We travel a lot for work," she said, gesturing to a colleague, "and if they don't take credit cards that makes things difficult."

Umm, am I missing something here? Surely this article is about places that don't accept cash, not ones that don't accept credit cards?

Also, how exactly does travelling a lot make it hard to use cash unless she is referring to international travel. Perhaps if you travel a lot you end up in places where you don't know where the cash machines are?

Is said 34 year old auditor extremely dumb, or (rather more likely) has she been misquoted?

Re:I don't understand the quote

[Anonymous Coward]

people on expense accounts really don't want to carry cash. if you use your corporate card, everything is accounted for and your expenses are done. if you use cash, you have to keep all of your transaction receipts and then re-file them, which is a major pain in the ass. the quote is correct.

Re:I don't understand the quote

[HuskyDog]

Ah, OK, that makes some sense (although it still doesn't explain what it has to do with shops which don't take cash).

Where I work we don't have company credit cards, so the claiming back pain is exactly the same for either payment method.

This could work if, and it's a big if:

[fustakrakich]

We need to demand that the post office reopen its old basic banking services and issue cards that won't carry the huge taxes that the banks call "fees". Otherwise we are being robbed big time.

If true, that's illegal in the US

[whitroth]

Given that US paper money says "This note is legal tender for ALL debts, public and private" (emphasis mine). Refusing cash is refusing to be paid, so I guess whatever it was must be free, or they're not selling it.

NY Times "journalism"

[kenh]

Kristin Junco, a 34-year-old auditor for the state Education Department, said she had not used cash for about a week and much prefers a cashless establishment to its opposite. "We travel a lot for work," she said, gesturing to a colleague, "and if they don't take credit cards that makes things difficult." [...] Not surprisingly, the credit card companies, who make a commission on every credit card purchase, applaud the trend. Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice.

So, despite just quoting Kristin Junco that paying via credit card is her preferred method of payment, the "reporter" than writes of credit card companies "depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice" (the reporter assumes everyone prefers to pay in cash)?

When did a desire to pay a debt in a certain manner (cash, credit card, debit card, personal check, bitcoin, third-person check, loose coins, beaver pelts, etc.) obligate a retailer to accept your form of payment?

Re:NY Times "journalism"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

When did a desire to pay a debt in a certain manner (cash, credit card, debit card, personal check, bitcoin, third-person check, loose coins, beaver pelts, etc.) obligate a retailer to accept your form of payment?

For cash - 1792 (gold backed); 1971 (fiat). (US Dates, your country may be different.)

Re:NY Times "journalism"

[david_thornley]

Federal Reserve Notes, which are themselves legal tender in the US, date a lot earlier than that. I never saw a gold certificate in circulation, and only a few silver certificates when I was very young, probably the early 60s.

This seems like an anachronism to west coasters

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in silicon valley and I haven't used cash for transactions for over ten years, and that's the norm here. Nobody carries cash anymore. There are only three exceptions, which are all a pain: 1) occasionally i need coins for the gas station air pump -- and yes, this sticks firmly in my mind because of the major pain in the ass it is to go find some coins, 2) some diminishingly small number of farmers market vendors only take cash (like the lady who sells fresh mushrooms), and 3) due to the mess w/ federal law, legal pot dispensaries only take cash.. but they always have an ATM right there. I do recall several times in a few years having to get some cash for tipping parking valets.

Re:This seems like an anachronism to west coasters

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 3
It's this way in CO too. Blame banks who are unable/afraid to open accounts for dispensaries. So tons of cash sits around. Someplace. Grass is still illegal at the federal level and the banks are afraid of breaking the federal law. Imagine that, banks afraid of breaking the law.

Legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe if a debt is incurred, such as first dining and then paying the tab, the proprietor would have to accept your federal reserve note as the legal tender laws state that they are legal tender for all debts public and private. But I could be wrong.

you don't like money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, the best way to be a successful business is to make it as easy as possible for your customers to purchase your product. If some customers want to pay with cash, and others want to pay electronically, why would you NOT accept both? Oh, because you are bad at business!

Cash, use it, or become a banks & government s

[Wowsers]

A lot of people use cards for payment because they don't have to have a pile of cash, it's sort of quick (so long as the bank network doesn't go down), you can track payments, but there are very serious downsides that these people who are pushing the so called cashless society do not want to consider and definitely do now want to tell people about.

1. You can track all payments. Fine if you're dopey person parroting the state's "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" nonsense, but that means they will know everything about you, what newspaper you buy, did you buy a sex toy, did you give your grandchildren a bit of birthday money.
2. You lose all control of your wealth. What I mean is, instead of having an ability to buy what you want with cash, the moment it's all electronic, the government can stop you existing by freezing your access to electronic "money". Good luck to eating / paying bills without money. This can be extended so you vote the right way in elections nothing happens, and raid your account as punishment if you voted "the wrong way".
3. With no cash, at a moment's notice, the government can decide it will raid all your bank / savings accounts for x%, just like the European Central Bank did to Cyprus - they called that state crime a "bail-in". Noticed how the US economy is $19Trillion+ in debt, reduce it by raiding your accounts one day, you won't have a say in it.
4. With electronic "money", there is NOTHING to stop the banks and card providers suddenly increasing their transaction fees. Want to protest about it? Too late, you have no alternate way of paying for anything,.
5. Much is made of the ability to track transactions, with the claim you can stop money laundering. This is false. If a drug dealer for example has a suitcase of $20 bills, it's going to weigh a lot, and attract a lot of attention. But in the electronic world, at a press of a button, that same amount of money can be sent around the world any number of times, cleaning it. Nobody does it? Just ask HSBC (and other banks) who where caught doing just that, laundering money for drug cartels.
6. Cash funds crimes and terrorism? It's far easier to move electronic "money" around to fund terrorism, just ask governments and banks and stock exchanges, they do it daily.

So before people think what a great idea going cashless is, you better be prepared to sign your life away to being totally controlled, and not cry about it when it is.

standard privacy plug here.

[bill.pev]

Cash does allow for transaction privacy, which credit cards definitely do not. I have nothing to hide, that doesn't mean I want ALL my purchases tracked, and linked to recent ad campaigns, and input to recommendation engines, and given to my health insurance provider, and such. (Not that that any of that would happen. ha.) Maybe there will be a bitcoin option..?

OK, now come at me, troll bros! I know how you all hate any thinking that's not pro-business, so score me a 1 and tell me all my problems.

Re:standard privacy plug here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to buy tobacco, beer, and liquor with cash. What with the current administration, how long before your bank can sell your proclivities data to your insurance companies? What about people who like to buy firearms face to face legally. These transactions would need to resort to bartering. Underground bartertowns will spring up like never before. People have the right to buy and sell anonymously. Only those who would want to control you would argue to the contrary.

Cash.

[ledow]

Good.

I waited 30 years after reading, as a kid, that all the future money would be "credits" on some central account, accessible at a tap by authorised people. Every comic book, sci-fi movie, future-prediction TV science show, everything.

Finally it's here and people are whining. Now, yes, ideally it would be zero-fee and not run by two major corporations (American Express hardly counts outside of America, I've literally never seen anyone use one), but pre-pay credit cards are so cheap as to be cheaper than banking rates for personal customers nowadays (free bank accounts are rapidly becoming a thing of the past and never let you do all the useful stuff anyway).

Now, finally, we don't have to carry little tokens that are produced at great expense, and copied en-masse, to represent things that don't actually exist. We can just go straight to using a number that's traceable, accountable, recordable, etc. Whether the bank has all its gold stolen or not I really don't care. My account says so-much-money and that's what I want back, guaranteed by law in my country.

And it saves me having to carry change, get the right note, update all my coins every 10 years when they change the designs (in my country in the last 10 years they've changed the 10-pound, 5-pound notes and the 1 pound coin at least and that 10 years might even encompass the 2 pound coin, I forget).

To be honest, cash has been dead to me for a while.

I have a wallet with cards in. I have backup cards. I have pre-payment cards. And I can buy pre-loaded cards in minutes using anything from Bitcoin to Amazon vouchers.

I have a handful of high-value coins in the car to pay for parking (because we STILL haven't worked out how to pay for parking in my country - either convoluted, per-car-park SMS-based pissing about, or cash! Where are the card-readers? Where's the national chain? Where's the "pay-by-Oyster"? Useless people!) and to put a coin into shopping trolleys that are locked together.

Everything else... if it's notes I spend it as soon as I can or bank it if it's a lot. For coins, I stick them in a jar which my friends and I use for lunch or whatever else we need it for.

It's about time we just ditched the concept of cash entirely. There is no redeeming feature of it that isn't vastly outweighed by the cost of making and handling it.

Re:Cash.

[knorthern knight]

> And it saves me having to carry change, get the right note, update all my
> coins every 10 years when they change the designs (in my country in the
> last 10 years they've changed the 10-pound, 5-pound notes and the 1 pound coin
> at least and that 10 years might even encompass the 2 pound coin, I forget).

Huh? Here in Canada, during my lifetime, there have been multiple redesigns of paper and coin currency, and the $1 and $2 paper bills have been replaced by coins. The government simply stopped issuing the old paper/coins. The old currency remained valid until they eventually wore out. We did not have an India-style de-monetization fiasco https://www.bloomberg.com/view... The only problem was waiting for vending machines to be updated to accept new coins/bills.

Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[Rick Schumann]

Please use this comment thread to list all the reasons why 'cashless' isn't practical.

Here's one: How do you buy something from a random person on Craigslist when there's no cash? I don't want this person having anything to do with my bank accounts or even knowing my name. I wouldn't give him a check for the same reason. How do you pay this person for what you're buying from them if there is no cash?

Re:Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[ledow]

Back at you:

Why would you take money from someone that you have literally zero information on if you then handing over a valuable product of your own in exchange?

Especially when any fraudulent / stolen money will just be sucked out of your account with no explanation without any way for you to know where it came from? Whether that's a Bitcoin double-spend or a bank anti-fraud measure, it makes no difference.

Cashless is not only practical (I live as-close-as-dammit to cashless as it's possible to be, and cash plays such a little part in my life that it's consigned to a jar of coins in my house and a small cache of coins in the car... one just a dumping ground used for "anything" to get rid of it, and the other for paying parking - I'd PAY people the former to get rid of the latter so I could park and pay without needing cash.) it's much more sensible.

In the UK, we have things like PingIt, which is a bank account with a unique number just for it, which sort-of ties to a mobile phone number (but there are other checks). I can PingIt to buy everything from Bitcoin to paying my tax to shopping online, including giving a friend a tenner or a random third-party on a sales site some manner of payment. We just need to know each other's phone numbers. Paypal has something similar.

And though they won't "find me" just by that information alone (they would literally have nothing more than my mobile phone number), there's a trail the police could follow so other people DO accept it as payment, which they wouldn't your anonymised currency.

Think of this: You sell, say, a car. Some guy "pays you". He takes the car. You get a note from the bank the next morning that the money is not yours so they took it back. Or the Bitcoin forked at the wrong time and your transaction wasn't real. What do you do? Do you ever accept that payment method ever again? I'm guessing no. You just lost your car because of it, and that'll be sold four more times in similar dodgy transactions before it's ever picked up on a camera. No different to being paid in fake-notes.

At least if you have SOMETHING to tell police, who have a way to trace back, they might be able to do something about it. And if it's "official", then you have a way to prove losses / damages in court, which will be recognised as such.

Cashless is sensible. Anonymous cash really is not. Unless... quite literally... you don't want to be able to trace fraud, ever.

And most of the population of the developed world are majority-cashless already. Even developing nations have such things. It just makes much more sense. Not perfect, by any means. Open to abuse by dictatorial governments, of course. But anonymous cash systems are vulnerable to a lot simpler, more common, and a lot more prevalent crimes than "government stealing / tracing all my money" which you have no real defence against anyway - if they want to do that, they have a billion options to do just that that don't care what technology you used.

P.S. I have bought things from random-people on the Internet for the last 25 years and most of it wasn't cash. Everything from eBay to Gumtree, paying friends for meals to donating to artists in the street, using Paypal, PingIt and even Bitcoin. And any number of similar services. I haven't used a cheque in decades (and I was mostly paid in them at one point).

I currently have ZERO coins or notes in my wallet.

Nobody cares about your use-cases, because they are catered-for, or not an issue. But everyone would care about your use-cases in your "ideal" anonymised world. Because then you would have NO WAY to trust the other people paying you, ever, and it would be a minefield of fraud to sell anything.

Re:Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[Fly Swatter]

Why would you take money from someone that you have literally zero information on if you then handing over a valuable product of your own in exchange?

Cash has value. It will have the same value that you just sold your product for. The person you sold it to doesn't matter, cash is cash, you have it now and it has value - the transaction can't be undone.

Now lets look at cashless anything. That person can file a dispute with their creditor that takes that value from you after the transaction. Now they have your product and you have a headache. Granted with cash you could sell them a junk product and they get stuck with the headache. But back to numbers in an account (cashless) - thats all cashless is - just numbers - and as we are witnessing with bitcoin anything can happen to it, and you can't safeguard against it happening. With cash I can hide it for a bit so someone can't just decided you don't have it anymore.

I can hand someone cash, with cashless I need a third party to get involved (for a fee).

While I don't expect to win an argument as cashless seems to be the way we are going, I see bitcoin as an accelerated disaster that an all numbers cashless society will become, even if it takes a century.

Re:Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[LeftCoastThinker]

Your example only reveals your ignorance. I do cash transactions all the time. If you are going to be selling something like a car, spend a few minutes and educate yourself. Nearly all private party sales of cars are cash, since money orders and checks are too easy to fake or use fraudulently. If you invest in a $5 cash pen and take the time to learn what to look for in legit cash, when you count the bills you spend a few extra minutes to verify the metal thread is present and of the right denomination, along with verifying the other water marks/anti fraud measures are present and correct. Can they still pull a weapon on you and steal your car? Sure, but again, there are ways to mitigate the risk. My favorite is doing the transaction in the parking lot of the local police station. If they won't show up there, they were never a legit buyer.

The reality is that however you are going to engage in monetary transactions, you must still do due dilligence, and cashless doesn't necessarily exempt you from this. In fact, there are myriad ways to defraud people using cashless transactions where the money can be moved overseas instantly and you will never see it again with no trail of recoverability.

Re:Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[Rick Schumann]

What the hell are you even talking about? CASH IS CASH. It has INHERENT value. Nobody is going to come to you and say "that cash isn't yours" and 'take it back' from you. 'Fraudulent stolen money' indeed.

Re:Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Cash has no inherent value. It's a piece of paper with a number printed on it, or a piece of mostly base metal with numbers stamped on it, that we agree is worth the stated value. It's called "currency."

Cash has no owner. It has a possessor at any point in time. "Ownership" of a particular amount of cash has to be documented in a ledger someplace for that value to be considered officially in someone's possession, commonly adjudged as (temporary) ownership.

Once upon a time, there was something called "bitcoin" that was intended, among other things, to act like cash. That is, it was possible for it to be totally anonymous, usable by any possessor without being required to reveal their identity. Which of course led to its use in criminal and other situations where, as with cash, the ability to remain anonymous is important. To a limited extent, that has changed with bitcoin and similar systems.

Re:Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking moron, or a troll, same difference, kill yourself.

Re:Reasons why 'cashless' won't work

[sabbede]

Quick semantic point - cash has derived/representative value, not inherent. Value is an idea, and currency is based on a common agreement that it represents value.

The Down Side

[LeftCoastThinker]

Cashless is great, convenient etc. until it isn't. Wait until the next hurricane, earthquake or N Korea shoots an EMP attack and the power is out for days or weeks. Then the people with no cash will be stuck with no ways to buy food and water or other necessities... There is a reason that hard currency is still around even when credit cards have been around for decades.

The other problem with going cashless is the invasion of privacy that is routine by big businesses and the government. If you are fine with both knowing every intimate detail of your life, go for it, but if not, you may want to make some purchases with untraceable cash.

Re:The Down Side

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I don't know if it was you, but I remember a Puerto Rican /.er who had almost all his assets in bitcoin. Post-hurricane, he was unable to buy what he needed without access to the cloud. It was pretty horrific.

Re:The Down Side

[Kjella]

The other problem with going cashless is the invasion of privacy that is routine by big businesses and the government. If you are fine with both knowing every intimate detail of your life, go for it, but if not, you may want to make some purchases with untraceable cash.

The problem with this approach is that most people think nobody will give a shit until somebody gives a shit. Like, who many gives a shit how many beers you drink, like really? I'd like to believe that's mostly my own business or at the very least that's about drunkards not getting their booze. Until, unless, somebody thinks woah, that guy's been pretty buzzed pretty often, let's count that against him. Not that he's ever been drunk on the job, but like no smoke no fire you know?

Statistics is hell. No, seriously I mean it they're grossly unfair to those who go against the grain and yet satisfying enough to keep using them. Let's say you have 10,000 people, 100 Muslims and 1 terrorist. If you pick on the Muslims it's 100:1 against the general population, a pretty huge improvement over 10000:1. But it's also 100:1 harassing innocent Muslims to catch one terrorist.

I find those really hard to reconcile. I mean if like 99 of 100 felons want to continue their life of crime, am I right to suppose that the 100th person also wants that? Or should I just presume he's one individual making his own choice and the past he shares with the other 99% is irrelevant? I mean sadly and correctly you're judged on what people know, whether or not it actually means you as an individual would fit that stereotype.

Re:The Down Side

[Anubis IV]

Your “problem” regarding emergencies isn’t actually a problem. I take it you’ve never worked in or been in a restaurant when their card machines suddenly went down? I’ve been at a few places (as a patron or shopper) when that sort of thing happened, and while cash is obviously preferred in those situations, the places I was at simply pulled out some pre-Internet gear for handling credit cards for the people who lacked cash. They wrote up the receipts, added the card numbers to a paper register, and then made a carbon copy of the card for proof that it was provided. Whenever the power/Internet/whatever came back up, they then went back through and processed all of those backlogged transactions.

I support keeping cash around for many of the reasons you and others espouse, but I can assure you that the credit card system is more robust than you think.

Cash is nasty dirty

[Danathar]

http://time.com/money/4621673/... Think about that next time you go to McDonalds or some similar restaurant where the person handling cash is often handling food.

Re:Cash is nasty dirty

[Anonymous Coward]

And I suppose you sanitize your debit care every time you use an electronic keypad to make purchases? Because other people have been sliding their cards into that slot before you, cards they have been touching with their unwashed hands, picking their noses, scratching their balls.

People are nasty dirty. We figured this out fairly recently. We learned to use soap and wash our hands before we eat. But there has never been a disease outbreak linked exclusively to the use of coins or paper bills. You are just a weirdo with a germ phobia.

Re:Cash is nasty dirty

[Danathar]

if I had no choice, I'd rather lick my debit card than the 5 dollar bill in my wallet. Sure, both are nasty but cash is most certainly worse.

Re:Cash is nasty dirty

[Anonymous Coward]

And your point is? You already made it clear that you are irrational.

Where's the lawsuits?

[John Jorsett]

I'm surprised that a "no cash" policy hasn't attracted lawsuits from advocacy organizations for the homeless or illegal immigrants. If you're somebody living on the street or unable to establish an account due to being in the US illegally, then if you want to pay cash for some food you're out of luck.

Credit union coverage

[tepples]

As far as I know, most credit unions don't charge any fees for regular savings and checking accounts

Is everyone included in some credit union's geographic "field of membership"? And for those new to banking, how much does it cost to obtain the ID required by "know your customer" regulations?

Re:Credit union coverage

[Dragonslicer]

Is everyone included in some credit union's geographic "field of membership"?

"Everyone", most likely no. Most major cities, I would imagine, though. My nearest major city has a credit union that any resident or employee in the county can join.

And for those new to banking, how much does it cost to obtain the ID required by "know your customer" regulations?

Does it require any more than an employer needs when you're hired? If those are things that aren't readily available to all residents, then that's a more fundamental issue that needs to be solved.

Re:Credit union coverage

[tepples]

If [forms of identification needed to get a job or a bank account] are things that aren't readily available to all residents, then that's a more fundamental issue that needs to be solved.

Based on what I've heard during the debate on voter ID, a lot of even natural-born citizens apparently don't have their original birth certificate handy. A certified copy of a birth certificate can be obtained at the vital records department of the county of birth, but often the subject must appear in person, sometimes several hundred miles (several hundred kilometres) away from home. Some have no debt (such as postpaid utility bills) in their own name, or no personal printer with which to make paper copies of electronic bills, and therefore no proof of address. U.S. state legislatures controlled by the Republican Party are disincentivized to solve this "more fundamental issue" because economically disadvantaged voters tend to lean Democratic if they do manage to register.

Re:Credit union coverage

[Dragonslicer]

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying (though the last time I needed a copy of my birth certificate, I didn't need to show up in person; I have no idea if it's required in any of the 49 other states). A couple of people that I know who were born in Europe don't understand the problem with requiring ID to vote, because getting an ID in those countries is easy and necessary for every resident. It can be difficult to get them to understand that in some parts of the U.S., a person has to take an entire day off from work and travel 50 miles to get an ID. I even had trouble explaining why North Carolina's law was overturned, when there were emails explicitly discussing how to limit the acceptable forms of ID to those that were more likely to be used by minority residents.

Requiring ID for things, even for voting, would be far more reasonable if it cost no money and took a total of 30-60 minutes between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on a weekday or between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on a weekend.

Re:Credit union coverage

[Cyberax]

Most countries in Europe also have automatic voter registration.

Fees baked in...

[klubar]

The credit card fee is just one of the "fees" baked into your purchase. If you go down the fees that are added to the cost of an item, that you may or may not use, credit card fees are just one of them. For example, many shops offer "free" parking. If I walk to the store, I'm still having the "free" parking baked into the cost. Perhaps other stores offer a very generous return policy. If I'm the kind of person who buys something and rarely returns it, then I'm paying for the return policy. Same is true for good customer service--if I walk in and know exactly what I want, I'm still paying for the knowledgeable staff. In general, the "baked in" fees should average out. On some transactions you might not need the service, and on others you take advantage of free parking, credit card, generous return policy and knowledgeable staff. If you feel that the merchant is charging you for services that you never use, perhaps you're shopping a store that is targeting a different customer.

Re:Cash, use it, or become a banks & governmen

[PPalmgren]

This reads like a paranoid schizophrenic's writing. I'm not a fan of centralization, but most of your points focus on hair-brained nightmares of a libertarian without properly thinking them through. For example, #4 isn't possible because the value of the dollar is only stable internationally due to its reliability - if you want to see what happens when governments confiscate assets from private individuals and corporations without cause, look at Argentina and Venezuela and their currency volatility. Confiscating people's savings would send the dollar into a tailspin and cause it to lose more value than they gain by stealing it. Your take on this shows a severe lack of understanding in macroeconomics and how the global economy works, especially the focus on the national debt.

Re:Cash, use it, or become a banks & governmen

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE.

The parent is correct to say that those pushing for a cashless society are not being honest about their true motivations for doing so. Those motives vary depending upon who is making the argument, but the fact remains that these people are not being honest about why they really want you to stop using cash. Before getting into their motives, it's helpful to remind ourselves of several key benefits of using cash:

1. Cash preserves anonymity in ways that electronic transactions do not and cannot.

2. Cash supports no additional fees which aren't immediately apparent to the end user.

3. Cash attaches physical tokens to individual units of value in a way that our brains can easily understand and process.

These same benefits are at the heart of why those pushing for a cashless society dislike cash, although their motives vary as we will see.

First, there are those who favor government control and either subscribe to socialism as a political philosophy or are sympathetic to its intentions and goals.

1a. If the government is going to monitor or control transactions in the economy then anonymity of transaction is anathema. To the extent that cash provides that anonymity it's disfavored by leftists because it frustrates their attempts to control the economy which they view as essential to achieve socialist goals.

2a. Because cash does not easily support additional fees it makes the levying of taxes or surcharges more transparent and less acceptable to end users. Government bureaucracies must be paid for and to the extent that those bureaucracies are necessary to control the economy that means taxes, fees and surcharges. People naturally resent additional fees, taxes and surcharges so anything which makes such levies more obvious to ordinary people will be disfavored by leftists because it makes levying taxes, fees and surcharges, which are necessary for their government projects, more difficult and contentious.

3a. The physical tokenization of cash makes expenditures more obvious to the ordinary person and more open to questions regarding value gained for money spent or frugality. Because leftists are all about intentions first and results second, questioning value for money is undesirable because it forces people to focus first and foremost on results which is precisely what the left doesn't want. They want people to focus on how they feel about government programs, not on efficiency or costs, which they cast as the uncaring and self serving focus of rich people who care nothing for the concerns of the poor. Meanwhile, the poor still end up with little or nothing even when the socialists are in charge, but at least they have the consolation of knowing that somebody in power cares about them, at least theoretically.

Next, there are banks and big business who's goal it is to maximize their profits, to the extent allowable by a very strict reading of the law.

1b. If transactions cannot be monitored or controlled then that data cannot be mined for additional valuable information. So cash is essentially a lost revenue opportunity for big businesses. Other disadvantages of cash from the standpoint of banks and big businesses include: more easily stolen, costly to transport and secure, magnet for criminal activity.

2b. Big business in general but banks especially make money on fees and surcharges. They are a huge profit center. To the extent that fees and surcharges are more difficult with cash and therefore less prevalent, profits are hurt and thus cash is disfavored by big business and banks too.

3b. Big business and banks both understand that people spend more freely when they don't feel the effects of that spending or the feeling is delayed until after the expenditure has been made. To the extant that cash puts the spending of money and the pain of no longer having it front and center, it's disfavored by banks and big business. People easily get into trouble with credit cards and other forms of electronic money in ways that they typ

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally who cares, other than payment system salespeople? When I need to buy a new payment system, I go to the payment system store and buy one that's in my budget. I don't care if it's plasma powered, LED powered, or fairy dust powered.
A payment system is a payment system is a payment system.

Uh huh

[Anonymous Coward]

New York (and California) are representative of such a small and elite portion of the population as to be meaningless. Whoopty fucking doo.

Re:Cash, use it, or become a banks & governmen

[Anonymous Coward]

You've created a straw man. When society is cashless, it becomes trivially easy to shut off an individual's finances. No impact on the greater economy at all.

There's a reason why Jews sewed diamonds into the hems of their skirts in WWII. Cash is portable when the world goes to hell. And sometimes it does.

And "They" don't have to deal...

[rnturn]

... with any of those grubby poor people who don't have credit cards or smartphones and only have access to cash. Why would a business that encourages people to use a freakin' credit card to buy a pack of gum want to have any of "those" people lingering around their stores?

The cash-based drug war . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

But - if cash disappears, then . . . the drug war ends . . .

Provision Fees

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live we have a local debit card without provision fees.
But when the government made it legal to pass on provision fees to custumers,
the card companies sued the state for unfair competition!? - how is this unfair?

no one is forcing them to take provisions.. they could just have a card subscription fee.. most cards have that already!

why should cash customers pay a higher price for goods to cover card provisions?

I feel card provisions, is like protetion money payed to the card marfia!

They will lose....

[MerlTurkin]

my business if they go cashless. It's a retarded move for these idiots. I refuse to use a card of any kind for small purchases. It's stupid. Cash or you can GFY.

Where are the fundamentalist whackjobs now?

[Mal-2]

I remember that through the 1970s and 1980s, a whole lot of Christian sects were big on the whole "mark of the beast" thing, and railed against trackable transactions (among other things). Their fears were most likely way out of proportion to the actual threat, but where are they now? We could use some useful idiots willing to take the point.

As a local shopper...

[Picodon]

I also favour cash with local businesses because I know full well that card transactions reduce their income by a margin that, at the end of the year, is not so insignificant. And I know (from talking to them) that they generally appreciate it.

It’s a shame that the government does not set up an alternative payment method. Historically, governments have promoted trade through the creation and management of currency (which, by the way, is not free to the community, but the nation bears the cost because it is an essential tool). But policymakers have failed to provide an upgrade, possibly because of technical limitations: it’s obviously difficult (but, I imagine, not impossible), to create a secure, portable, anonymous and community-supported (i.e., at no cost per use) way of paying that could advantageously replaces cash-carrying wallets with electronic wallets. Of course, there may be other reasons in play, including lobbying from the banking sector (particularly, the credit card business), the desire to eliminate anonymous transactions for easier policing (fighting tax fraud, money laundering, etc.), and more.

Nonetheless, it’s also the role of the citizenry to demand for solutions, and fair solutions at that (i.e., not pseudo-solutions that allow private corporations to track your life and every purchase, and to get a financial cut on top of it). Yet, I haven’t seen any public discourse on the topic, which I find really strange.

Re:As a local shopper...

[DogDude]

Nonetheless, it’s also the role of the citizenry to demand for solutions, and fair solutions at that (i.e., not pseudo-solutions that allow private corporations to track your life and every purchase, and to get a financial cut on top of it). Yet, I haven’t seen any public discourse on the topic, which I find really strange.

At least in the US, a larger percentage of the citizens have been convinced that private corporations can only do good, and government can only do bad. You're right. The government should step in and create a system, but I don't see that ever happening in the US.

Re:As a local shopper...

[XxtraLarGe]

At least in the US, a larger percentage of the citizens have been convinced that private corporations can only do good, and government can only do bad.

I think the majority distrust both, but we have a choice in what corporations we deal with. Neither Google nor MasterCard are going to show up at our house unexpectedly with a S.W.A.T. team & kill us.

You're right. The government should step in and create a system, but I don't see that ever happening in the US.

The only system the government would come up with would let both the corporations and the government be able to track all of your purchases.

Wired on China move to electronic payments

[Paul Fernhout]

with big privacy and social implications: https://www.wired.com/story/ag...
"Cash, Liu could see, had been largely replaced by two smartphone apps: Alipay and WeChat Pay. "

Re:Wired on China move to electronic payments

[Altrag]

So you get home and post on Facebook about how you just bought the cutest pair of jeans with your cash.. We traded our privacy for convenience long, long ago.

China's a bit of a different case though of course where privacy implications aren't just "we'll target more ads at you" so much as "we'll disappear you and maybe your family as well." Of course that's offset by the culture being well used to having to mind their tongues and their actions in case big brother is watching, so having to apply caution in one more area of life isn't exactly a stretch..

Dangerous precedent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never got on the credit card craze, because they weren't available to me when I was a kid. As a college student debit hadn't been invented yet, and while prepay VISAs were a thing, they were not convenient to purchase or activate.

Long story short: I stuck to cash, and as our digital economy expanded I began appreciating the benefits of cash more and more as I watched more and more people sell their souls to the beast of consumerism, because 'why should I(they) be concerned about something that will likely never happen?'

Nowadays I just realize how much of a schism there is because the truly free thinkers, those who are anti-establishment because they realize what the establishment is doing to us all. And more and more often I try and figure out how to get those of us left with our sanity and no stockholm syndrome banded together so we can actually live in a state that both represents and respects us. The walls to that opportunity are closing in on us, and if you want to get out, it is time to find the cracks now, because pretty soon you will be bricked in with nowhere to run, and no way to hide.

support small businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

I purchase almost everything with cash for one simple reason, fees. I would rather my local business have the extra 3% or o that is part of my community than sending that money to Visa. As a small business owner loose about $1000-1500 a month to credit card fees and I want to do what I can to help other small businesses save that.

Also, most people say it is 3% but it never is. My rate is actually 1.1% but after customer rewards are factored in we average 3.2%. American Express hovers around 8%. I am blown away by the amount of people who think Visa/Discover... make their money on interest alone and don't know they charge businesses to swipe.

Re:eyeroll...advertisement is not a contract.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it isnt,

A useful synonym for many advertisements would probably be "lie".

*** It's all about control ***

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about control, gentlemen. Full stop. Governments cannot wait until cash is gone. I will continue to use cash until it's removed from the system and I'm forced to comply, but then I will still barter for the things I would like to keep private.

When cash disappears, the barter system will erupt anew. Think about this. There are elements that love the cashless system that will come, particularly medical insurance companies and governments.

People will not be able to buy anonymously unless they barter among friends or the underground bartertowns that will will spring up. Vacuum-pack your smokes, snuff, and liquor and put it away.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

near future

[Anonymous Coward]

A rich woman at a cashless card-only restaurant in Manhattan accused
a homeless woman of stealing the diamond and platinum encrusted collar off of her pocket dog. The police took the homeless woman down to the station where they interrogated
her. When she came out of the interrogation room, her teeth
were like broken window panes, with several missing entirely,
and both of her eyes were blackened. The rich woman found
the collar in the cashless card-only restaurant under the
plush velvet seat, apparently, the clasp came undone by accident. The homeless woman was sent to jail regardless.

Cash is still a long way from dead.

[X!0mbarg]

When any business can be hit up for their services by refusing legal tender for services rendered (or products delivered), they quickly return to at least accepting cash, even if it's not their preferred method of payment.

After all, on every bill, there is a line that reads: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER, FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". This quote is missing from any coins, thus being a main reason that the $1 coin has not even come close to replacing the bills in the U.S.

Any business that refuses Legal Tender for services rendered can consider the debt paid in full... IF the state where you are attempting to do so has a law in place that prohibits refusal of legal tender.

See the following for details:
https://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."

All in all, there are still a few holdouts on the "No Cash" bandwagon.

Frankly, as long as my non-credit-card-based debit card is accepted, I'm good to go. It is a shame that more places don't accept such debit cards, though...

Re:Cash is still a long way from dead.

[OrangeTide]

1. There is no federal law that requires a person or organization accept currency or coins as payments for goods or services.
2. Coins are legal tender. See Title 31 (Money and Finance), Subtitle IV (Money), Chapter 51 (Coins and Currency), Subchapter I (Monetary System), Section 5103 (Legal Tender) of the United States Code.

If you have a written contract and do not specify the form the payment must take, then US currency must be accepted.

When you purchase something, the contract is immediately resolved when the conditions are met by each party. If one condition is that the shop owner tells you you must pay with a credit card, then you can refuse the service or leave the good.

If they really didn't post a sign anywhere sayings "NO CASH" then you can press the legal tender issue for services that are already rendered. Because even if they took you to small claims court, you can pay cash if you lose. If services are already rendered, but they did tell you several times "NO CASH", then I'm not sure what they can do about it. (they probably should have asked for the non-cash payment up front)

In China, the authority knows everything

[Anonymous Coward]

China, especially in big cities, most people have gone cashless, they pay using smartphone apps, and 3D barcodes

A lot of stores don't take cash, even roadside vendors and beggars, YES, BEGGARS have put up 3d barcodes

It brings a lot of conveniences - and a lot less petty crimes, such as robbery

But the ultimate consequence is that the authority knows and controls everything

Every single transaction is recorded, with timestamp, GPS location, and so on

Because of this, it is becoming more and more difficult for people to donate their money to 'rebels', or groups of people who have 'different thought' from the 'official approved' version

What is happening in China should be our reminder --- never, ever allow the authority too much leeway, and a cashless society will definitely tied us to A MONOPOLY THAT WE CAN NOT SHAKE LOOSE

Re:In China, the authority knows everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post, thanks.

"It brings a lot of conveniences"

I just do not understand this claim. I've heard many people make it, and I've read it online many times, but I just do not see the convenience. I can pay for anything with cash in close to 5 seconds, or even faster if I have the exact amount. I don't mind carrying cash, I don't mind carrying change, and I don't mind dropping into an ATM one or twice a fortnight to pick up some more, especially as this is always done while on the way to somewhere, and is only rarely a special trip.

So is this fake news? The banks (who obviously have a lot to gain) keep seeding the media with the magic word "convenience" and people start to believe it?

BTC or cash

[OrangeTide]

I can take my business elsewhere if you only take Apple Pay, Android Pay and chip-only credit cards.

Couldn't buy a coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to the coffee house down the street.
I was really looking forward to having a nice warm coffee on such a cold winters evening.
I offered 1/2 a chicken to pay for the coffee , but the barista denied me.
He said that accepting chickens for payment was so last month.
I was shocked!! Shocked I tell you! I had been planning this for months!

(For the humor challenged, this is a joke, ok?)

Maybe you're bad with numbers?

[OrangeTide]

NY and CA are where 18.25% of the population of the US live, that's significant.Those two states combined are 19.1% of the US's GDP. Throw in a big state like Texas and you find combined they go past a quarter of the total population.

bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Planet fitness does this and guess what; I still don't use their service.

If you're a business and you do this, you guarantee a loss of business.

Credit cards and "smart" pay methods are loaded with privacy violations; I'll never pay with a card.

Re:Cash, use it, or become a banks & governmen

[david_thornley]

Without getting into the details of why you are wrong, almost all my assets are digital. This includes my bank and other dollar accounts, my bonds, and my stocks. There is functionally no difference between dollars I own and credit cards I use, except for the very small amount I keep in the form of rectangular pieces of paper and metal disks.

Restaurants like it BECAUSE it's discriminatory

[Shirley Marquez]

Going cashless is a way for restaurants to keep out poor customers that they don't want sullying their doorsteps. They don't care that it's discrimination; they're doing it BECAUSE it's discrimination. Unless we pass laws prohibiting the practice the trend will continue.

Never Never Never

[ebvwfbw]

Never let them take cash away from us. If we go to a cashless society then the politicians can play more games because they can. They will. Note I didn't say R or D or anything else. It's just too tempting.

The result is we'll have to go back to something physical, like silver and gold. Something they can't steal from us nearly as easily.

Oh it's not that bad I hear you say. In 1954 I have a picture of the 1954 Plane-O-Rama by Beechcraft aircraft. There are around 50 aircraft in that picture and it says it's a 1 million dollar display of NEW aircraft. Twins, bunch of singles, etc. over 50 of them. Today 1 million would buy you maybe two singles, one of the twins. The room would be almost empty. That's how much money politicians have stolen from us since WWII. That is, around 95% of the value.

Having INVENTORY is dangerous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having INVENTORY is dangerous.

Take payment up front; avoid surprises.

[knorthern knight]

Cash is legal tender for all debts public and private. What the establishment could do is ask for payment up front, like many fast-food restaurants do. They can't refuse to accept cash for a debt. But they can refuse to serve you if you don't pay up front electronically. Since no food has been prepared or served, there is no debt to pay, and no dispute.

Payment up front avoids unpleasant surprises, regardless of whether you want to pay via cash at a card-only outfit, or via credit-card at a cash-only outfit. Another wrinkle; I've seen a few places that take cash or debit-card only; no crdit cards.

Legal Tender for all debts public and private....

[MercTech]

I need to find that court case from the 70s.

Restaurant refused to accept a sack full of pennies for a meal and called the police on the poor chap. The judge ruled that a merchant refusing legal tender for a debt just gave away the merchandise.

Cashless may be the wave of the future but just might not be legal to refuse cash yet.

How does that work in a power outage?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how does the cashless business function when the power goes out? Look at the recent hurricanes and how they had to bring in generators to get the ATMs on-line so that people could get cash. The stores were unable to process the credit card transactions and thus would only accept cash.

The war on cash is a war on you and your ability to function in times of disaster, distress and other unexpected situations.

Cash in all of the forms it has taken over the centuries is a necessary tool. In many countries, cash allows dissidents to purchase needed supplies without going to jail or being killed. Cash allows you to move freely without government or corporate punishment.

And the exclusion?

[lgalindo]

Maybe late in this discussion, but I've read the comments and nobody mentions that cashless business let some groups, like homeless, really out of systems, not given them even the possibility of buy groceries with cash. Cash is, as somebody mention, not only anonymous but even a democratic way of transaction in some places. At Sweden, comments before, where the no money movement has some years pushed by the government, this topic hasn't closed today.

Re:Goal: Eliminate thoughtless people from governm

[Agripa]

I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.

That is a Crazy Eddie solution. Forget it.