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

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#21

Post by crazygringo »

athms wrote: post #19
crazygringo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Genuinely curious how it's incorrect?

Is it the word "illegal"? I mean, if a municipality or organization refuses cash for payment of debt... then they're just de-facto forgoing the debt, right? If they tried to bring the debtor to court to compel payment in non-cash form, the court would side with the debtor, no?

So perhaps not illegal but merely unenforceable? (But with the same consequence of it not happening in practice.)

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#22

Post by CaptainZapp »

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…

You're free to open your cashless business anywhere else, where it's legal.

Just don't count me in as a customer. I may not even necessarilly pay cash. But I try to avoid doing business with assholes.

And a physical store not accepting cash is, in my book, pretty high on the asshole scale.

edited to clarify: I'm not refering to the parent as an asshole, but to physical busines' who won't accept cash.

If you still find this outlandish, downvote away.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#23

Post by chelovek89 »

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…

But on the bill itself that Im holding now it says “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” Once you owe someone money they can state their preference for card/check, but they cant flat out refuse cash.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#24

Post by chelovek89 »

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…

Receiving cash does have a cost, it requires you to either have an employee to handle it or a machine, someone to install and do maintenance on your register or cash machine, and armored cars to transport your cash to the bank.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#25

Post by tinus_hn »

aplummer wrote: post #7

The problem here is that there isn’t a non-private-enterprise privacy sensitive (although accessible with appropriate warrants etc) cashless money system IMO. Cash enables so many problems in the world I’ll be happy to see the end of it.

All that darned privacy! If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#26

Post by erikpukinskis »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #20
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.

Not just America: Columbia, DRC, PRC, Saudi Arabia... lots of places!

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#27

Post by CaptainZapp »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #26
CaptainZapp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just America: Columbia, DRC, PRC, Saudi Arabia... lots of places!

Well, yeah, but civilized countries.

While you could argue that Columbia and PRC fall into those brackets, those are nevertheless countries with a high occurrence of corruption.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#28

Post by aplummer »

tinus_hn wrote: post #25
aplummer wrote: post #7

The problem here is that there isn’t a non-private-enterprise privacy sensitive (although accessible with appropriate warrants etc) cashless money system IMO. Cash enables so many problems in the world I’ll be happy to see the end of it.

All that darned privacy! If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

I’m saying it would need to be private, but still able to prevent money laundering, payments for sex trafficking, drug trade, weapons trade.

I’m aware such a thing doesn’t exist and may never, but this would be the ideal state IMO.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#29

Post by votepaunchy »

kgoltsov wrote: post #18
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 significant…

> or if you bank account has enough money to cover it, or if the purchase will affect your credit utilization significantly

You’re still doing this with cash since you need to be certain to have sufficient funds in bills and coins before making each payment. And there is more safety in a high credit limit or checking balance than carrying large quantities of cash.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#30

Post by throwaway34241 »

aplummer wrote: post #28
tinus_hn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that darned privacy! If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

I’m saying it would need to be private, but still able to prevent money laundering, payments for sex trafficking, drug trade, weapons trade. I’m aware such a thing doesn’t exist and may never, but this would be the ideal state IMO.

I agree. I understand the motivation to not have un-banked people locked out of the economy (although I don't know how big a problem that is in San Francisco yet - if it's only a couple experimental checkout-less stores it doesn't seem like a huge deal).

But maybe a better eventual solution to that would be for everybody to have access to some basic banking services (and some sort of electronic payments). I think many countries provide it at post offices.

Post reply on HN