Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#11

Post by ben_jones »

I disagree that every store must accept cash. Life-impacting transactions such as grocers and transportation sure, but if a ritzy boutique or Apple store wants to make things more streamlined by only accepting card so be it. It’s better as a customer.

I’m also wary of what I would consider to be ADA-styled protections for the Homeless by forcing businesses to accommodate them in increasingly fringe ways (IMO the rally cry for cash accepting stores WAS that it would hurt the homeless otherwise). Already in San Francisco the homeless are not prosecuted for petty crimes and receive free health services via frequent use of emergency care facilities. I worry the increased privileges for the homeless will attract more homeless to San Francisco, a city which has already proved it cannot alleviate the problem.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#13

Post by [deleted] »

ben_jones wrote: post #11

I disagree that every store must accept cash. Life-impacting transactions such as grocers and transportation sure, but if a ritzy boutique or Apple store wants to make things more streamlined by only accepting card so be it. It’s better as a customer. I’m also wary of what I would consider to be ADA-styled protections for the Homeless by forcing businesses to accommodate them in increasingly fringe ways (IMO the rall…

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#14

Post by comex »

mamon wrote: post #10
crb002 wrote: post #5

So they install one self pay cash box? Not a big deal, and probably required for ADA. Not all seniors have access to electronic payment.

Seniors or not, the most important thing to me is this: cash is issued by the government, and can be used without incurring any additional cost. Credit cards require you to sign contract with a bank, which is a private company, that makes money on every transaction. Government should never force you to sign a contract with a private entity, for any reason, so if they ever want us to go cashless, then I would expect t…

But the law in question isn’t about the government requiring people to go cashless; it’s about whether private businesses (stores) are allowed to require their customers to go cashless.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#15

Post by athms »

crazygringo wrote: post #8
ploika wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a human right as such, but it's the law pretty much everywhere in the world. A shop refusing to accept legal tender seem pretty brazenly illegal to me.

It may seem illegal to you but no, it's actually generally not illegal. E.g. in the US specifically, US bills say "legal tender for all debts", which means it's illegal not to accept cash once a debt is incurred . But in most places a business owner is perfectly free to not create the opportunity for customer debt in the first place, i.e. not sell something -- whether based on form of payment ("We don't accept Amex")…

You are wrong about US legal tender.

You have to know about the history of currency in the United States to fully grasp why those words are there. The simple explanation is the Coinage Act of 1965, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103[1], entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." Coins are issued by the US Mint (Treasury Department). Paper money is issued by the Federal Reserve, not part of the US government, but the paper itself is printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Treasury Department).

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 municipality, organization, or person must accept currency or coins as payment for goods and/or services. Businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

There was a time in the United States when different forms of currency were available and considered legal tender, including some issued by the states, both individually and via the Confederacy. The original Coinage Act of 1792 made both silver and gold forms of legal tender, and people could come to any US Mint and have their bullion turned into coins.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#16

Post by crazygringo »

athms wrote: post #15
crazygringo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may seem illegal to you but no, it's actually generally not illegal. E.g. in the US specifically, US bills say "legal tender for all debts", which means it's illegal not to accept cash once a debt is incurred . But in most places a business owner is perfectly free to not create the opportunity for customer debt in the first place, i.e. not sell something -- whether based on form of payment ("We don't accept Amex")…

You are wrong about US legal tender. You have to know about the history of currency in the United States to fully grasp why those words are there. The simple explanation is the Coinage Act of 1965, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103[1], entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all deb…

I think you're agreeing with me -- what specifically are you saying I'm wrong about? My comment said exactly what I think you're saying -- that businesses are free to choose what to accept, by refusing to do business in the first place.

(Or did you mean to reply to the same comment I was replying to?)

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#17

Post by guelo »

ben_jones wrote: post #11

I disagree that every store must accept cash. Life-impacting transactions such as grocers and transportation sure, but if a ritzy boutique or Apple store wants to make things more streamlined by only accepting card so be it. It’s better as a customer. I’m also wary of what I would consider to be ADA-styled protections for the Homeless by forcing businesses to accommodate them in increasingly fringe ways (IMO the rall…

Thank goodness for the homeless for preventing at least some of the people that don't like looking at poor people from moving here.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#18

Post by kgoltsov »

kozak wrote: post #2

I pay electronically almost everywhere, but I do recognize that cash payments are a basic human right. Going 100% cashless opens doors to all sorts of monopoly/distopia scenarios.

Not to mention privacy issues. I like using Square, but now my email gets sent around to any store I visit. Even with a regular credit card, they already get my full name from any transaction.

Plus with cash, you've made the payment and you're done. You don't have to check if the charge was correct, or if you bank account has enough money to cover it, or if the purchase will affect your credit utilization significantly.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#19

Post by athms »

crazygringo wrote: post #16
athms wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong about US legal tender. You have to know about the history of currency in the United States to fully grasp why those words are there. The simple explanation is the Coinage Act of 1965, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103[1], entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all deb…

I think you're agreeing with me -- what specifically are you saying I'm wrong about? My comment said exactly what I think you're saying -- that businesses are free to choose what to accept, by refusing to do business in the first place. (Or did you mean to reply to the same comment I was replying to?)

You said, "US bills say 'legal tender for all debts', which means it's illegal not to accept cash once a debt is incurred."

This statement is incorrect.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#20

Post by CaptainZapp »

ummonk wrote: post #9

Now can we please also stop the cops from confiscating cash if they find more than a certain amount in a person’a vehicle? People shouldn’t be penalized for using legal tender.

I really don't mean to be glib, but really: Only in America.

Sure, you may have a hard time opening a bank account with half a million unexplained cash, but just confiscate somebody's life savings, especially when poor, unbanked and possibly black is a very American concept.

In any other civilized place the onus is on the authorities to prove that the money is dirty. Not the other way 'round.

Post reply on HN