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

D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 508 posts

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#71

Post by lotsofpulp »

alphabetting wrote: post #59
lotsofpulp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bank does not keep your money in a safe. Cash is a very, very small portion of money. We are mostly just editing numbers in various databases over and over. I would propose the federal government offer an inalienable electronic money account as a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I get the sentiment but in practice I think many would be against the govt being in possession of their funds given attitudes towards the IRS

Many would do well to already assume the government is in control of their funds. Pretty sure if the government wants to freeze your funds at any financial institution, the financial institution is going to let them. See what happened in Canada.

This is where

> inalienable electronic money account as a constitutionally guaranteed right.

this comes in. It should be impossible to take away someone’s ability to electronically send and receive money.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#73

Post by Spivak »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #60
aketchum wrote: post #15

I have no dog in this fight as I rarely deal with cash and do not run a retail business. However from a conceptual point of view I really have a viscerally negative reaction to not accepting cash. It is a societal acceptance of the rent seeking behavior of the credit processing networks. I already have to pay a sales tax to ${TAX_ENTITIES.length} different government entities, I don't love that I also have a 3% tax g…

> I don't love that I also have a 3% tax going to VISA/Mastercard/Amex/... You don’t. The merchant you are buying from is choosing to pay 3% for credit card payments because they believe incentivizing people to pay with credit cards will result in them earning more (via higher prices or higher margin goods) than incentivizing them to pay with debit/cash. If a merchant wanted to, it would be trivial for them to give y…

And this practice is super common but it's usually worded in the reverse and more when dealing with business where being able to accept cards isn't a selling point, like your rent or government services. They'll just the 3% direct to you. One of the weirder examples was when paying a fee for a permit I needed. They charged me $x for the service, then $y separately to cover the fee for $x.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#74

Post by maximilianroos »

kxrm wrote: post #19

I live in DC and support this law not just from an accessibility standpoint but also from a privacy standpoint. I am tired of every retail/restaurant establishment building a profile of me.

...then don't buy things from those businesses?

We need a stronger reason than "I want that" to force businesses to give us things — otherwise how do we decide whose preferences we should mandate?

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#75

Post by dools »

PumpkinSpice wrote: post #55
dools wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operation Choke Point was run by the government within the framework of the existing banking sector. It was enacted by DoJ (one part of the government) then: "In August 2014, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced a bill that would limit law enforcement's ability to restrict access to the banking system as a response against Operation Choke Point.[12]" So it was stopped by Congress, another part of governm…

I'm having trouble parsing your argument, to be honest. In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. In a society that permits cash, the government's reach is still long, but not nearly as complete. Unless you always expect governments to be perfectly benevolent and well-attuned to the ne…

> In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not.

Evidently it can do so in a society with cash also, eg. Operation Choke Point.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#76

Post by dools »

junofan wrote: post #65
PumpkinSpice wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble parsing your argument, to be honest. In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. In a society that permits cash, the government's reach is still long, but not nearly as complete. Unless you always expect governments to be perfectly benevolent and well-attuned to the ne…

I think the overarching point was that you should trust the government with anything because they have the power to make laws, and if they wanted to make laws that harmed you they would just do that. I disagree, however.

No the overarching point was stated pretty clearly as:

> ... a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#77

Post by dools »

jaza wrote: post #61
dools wrote: post #7

Instead of banning cashless businesses because it's discriminatory to the unbanked perhaps they should focus on reducing discrimination in the banking sector and providing a publicly run electronic payment system.

The government provides a public payment system that's accessible to all and that protects privacy. It's called cash.

Yes, that's not electronic.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#78

Post by [deleted] »

foolswisdom wrote: post #68
lotsofpulp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't love that I also have a 3% tax going to VISA/Mastercard/Amex/... You don’t. The merchant you are buying from is choosing to pay 3% for credit card payments because they believe incentivizing people to pay with credit cards will result in them earning more (via higher prices or higher margin goods) than incentivizing them to pay with debit/cash. If a merchant wanted to, it would be trivial for them to give y…

Assuming that's correct, that effectively boils down to the same thing? Prices would be somewhat lower if merchants didn't need to consider the ~3% disappearing in the payment processor.

[deleted]

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#79

Post by kxrm »

maximilianroos wrote: post #74
kxrm wrote: post #19

I live in DC and support this law not just from an accessibility standpoint but also from a privacy standpoint. I am tired of every retail/restaurant establishment building a profile of me.

...then don't buy things from those businesses? We need a stronger reason than "I want that" to force businesses to give us things — otherwise how do we decide whose preferences we should mandate?

I specifically do avoid any business that is cashless. I appreciate any business that puts a sign up claiming to be cashless so that I can specifically avoid doing business with them.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#80

Post by zoky »

foolswisdom wrote: post #68
lotsofpulp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't love that I also have a 3% tax going to VISA/Mastercard/Amex/... You don’t. The merchant you are buying from is choosing to pay 3% for credit card payments because they believe incentivizing people to pay with credit cards will result in them earning more (via higher prices or higher margin goods) than incentivizing them to pay with debit/cash. If a merchant wanted to, it would be trivial for them to give y…

Assuming that's correct, that effectively boils down to the same thing? Prices would be somewhat lower if merchants didn't need to consider the ~3% disappearing in the payment processor.

That doesn’t necessarily follow though. Consumers are more likely to go to a store that takes credit cards and spend more once they are there than a store that accepts only cash. If the merchant has to pay 3% in credit card fees for a 20% increase in revenue, that’s likely a good deal for the merchant.
Post reply on HN