Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I have been carrying more cash lately since is seems to speed transactions over credit cards with the embedded chip.
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.
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?
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.
...they're doing it because they think they'll have less chance of being robbed.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
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.
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!
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
... 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.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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.
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.
davecb@spamcop.net
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
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.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
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?