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

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#31

Post by athms »

chelovek89 wrote: post #23
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…

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.

Wrong.

The words don't imply that paper currency must be accepted for a debt, simply that the currency can be used for a debt.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#32

Post by GhostVII »

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.

What's your main problem with cash? Is it that it is fairly untraceable? Because for me that is the main benefit. If it is possible to access my purchase history with a warrant, it is also possible to access that history without one if the government or police force is malicious. And if we eliminated cash, people would just find something else to use for illegal payments (ex. gold, anonymous cryptocurrencies, etc.)

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#33

Post by athms »

crazygringo wrote: post #21
athms wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Yes, it is the word 'illegal'. There isn't a federal or state statute requiring paper currency (or coins) to be used to pay off a debt.

Debt doesn't disappear because an organization refuses to accept cash. They can accept cash. They can also accept chickens. While not a form of legal tender, a business can barter for goods and services. Organizations can also restrict certain forms of cash from being used. They refuse to accept anything higher than $20 bills or refuse to accept the entire payment in pennies.

Legal tender means that the note is honored and backed by the United States. The paper currency we know and love is actually called a Federal Reserve Note and should not to be confused with a United States Note, which is no longer in active circulation but it is still considered legal tender. In fact, the United States Note was called Legal Tender Note and a successor to Demand Notes which were printed during the Civil War. The Demand Note had a green back which is how the term greenback came into existence. Other forms of currencies have been issued and used as money includes Treasury Notes and National Bank Notes. Many state chartered banks also printed their own notes. You have to remember the Bureau of Engraving and Printing didn't exist until 1862 and the Federal Reserve until 1913.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#34

Post by Pinckney »

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.

The UK does it too:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/apr/25/prostitution...

> In November 2008, 20 police officers broke down Finch's front door and searched her house, taking £700 from her purse that she says had been put aside to pay the mortgage. Her laptop computer, mobile phone, driving licence and passport were also taken. No receipt was given.

> Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the police keep 25% of any assets confiscated from raids, the Crown Prosecution Service keeps another 25%, and the Inland Revenue the rest.

http://prostitutescollective.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/...

> The burden of proof is reversed so people have to prove that any money they have was not earned through “criminal activity”

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#35

Post by athms »

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…

Only coins are issued by the government. Paper notes are issued by the Federal Reserve.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#36

Post by lagilogi »

Pinckney wrote: post #34
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.

The UK does it too: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/apr/25/prostitution... > In November 2008, 20 police officers broke down Finch's front door and searched her house, taking £700 from her purse that she says had been put aside to pay the mortgage. Her laptop computer, mobile phone, driving licence and passport were also taken. No receipt was given. > Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the police keep 25% of a…

OP specified civilized countries.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#37

Post by beatgammit »

Can we get sales tax to be included in the price on the shelf? The main reason I don't use cash is because I have having change, and sales tax always ends up with me having odd change. In Oregon, I use cash a lot more often because prices tend to avoid weird change.

Some restaurants include tax on the shelf price ($3 for hotdog instead of $2.99 + tax or whatever), and if that were more common, I might forgo credit/debit cards.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#38

Post by ijiiijji1 »

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…

Sorry, but you're wrong. I watched a lawyer's YT channel video on this topic. It's legal tender for all public debts, but private companies can set whatever restrictions are on modes of payment so long as they don't violate local/county/state/federal laws and don't tick off their customers. For example, there's a number of airport baggage checkers around the US that are credit-card only... and a number of airlines' in-flight purchases that accept cards only. Also, prices on an shelf in most municipalities are "an invitation to treat," not a contract, so merchants only match shelf prices out of customer service, as it's rarely ever a legal requirement.

Disclaimer: I love cash because of the privacy, transferability and budgeting limitations it provides. (Cash is King.)

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#39

Post by closeparen »

guelo wrote: post #17
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.

This comment is perfect San Francisco. We welcome the homeless as props that reinforce our moral superiority for welcoming them. More extreme or visible distress, behavior further outside social norms, etc. suits us even better. But God forbid we make any tradeoff whatsoever to actually improve their situations or bring behavior within norms.

Please, let's bring in as many migrants as possible who don't like looking at poor people, then we might actually do something about poverty.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#40

Post by crazygringo »

athms wrote: post #33
crazygringo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Yes, it is the word 'illegal'. There isn't a federal or state statute requiring paper currency (or coins) to be used to pay off a debt. Debt doesn't disappear because an organization refuses to accept cash. They can accept cash. They can also accept chickens. While not a form of legal tender, a business can barter for goods and services. Organizations can also restrict certain forms of cash from being used. They refu…

So I did some more research and I think you're actually incorrect here about orgnanizations restricting cash from being used to pay off a debt (as opposed to purchasing goods/services), which is what I've been talking about all along. From the Federal Reserve:

> This statute means that all United States money as identified above is 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 payment for goods or services. [1]

In other words, yes, organizations can accept chickens or barter. But if you have a debt and you only want to pay cash, and they refuse it, then there's nothing they can do to compel you to pay in a different form.

So again -- you're right there's no law against prohibiting cash payment for debt, but if a business can't collect otherwise, then for business purposes it's effectively a prohibition regardless. (Only difference being that a company can't be fined/punished for it, they just lose the value of the debt.)

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

Post reply on HN