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

141–150 of 508 posts

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

#141

Post by hackernewds »

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…

Not to mention, cash transactions are slow and frustrating and fraught with fraud and risk of burglary. 3% is a positive ROI investment

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

#142

Post by hackernewds »

rascul wrote: post #112
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…

> > 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. Today I picked up flooring from a place that gave a 5% disc…

Many places you are paying with cash also push for that option to skirt on reporting taxes.

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

#143

Post by dehrmann »

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/...

People seem to forget processing cash isn't free. If you're small, it's a trip to the bank. If you're large, it's an armored truck. Employee theft is a problem. Counterfeit money is a problem. If we pretend it's 1% instead of 3% (since you can get 2% cash back), 1% for not dealing with the downsides of cash sounds ok.

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

#144

Post by hackernewds »

csomar wrote: post #122
rtpg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a merchant wanted to, it would be trivial for them to give you a 3% discount for paying with debit. I don't believe that a merchant is allowed to do this? Probably very dependent on your deal with credit card processors but my understanding is that the default contract between a merchant and a credit card processor stipulates that you are not allowed to offer discounts to not use credit cards differently. Of cou…

> I don't believe that a merchant is allowed to do this? Probably very dependent on your deal with credit card processors but my understanding is that the default contract between a merchant and a credit card processor stipulates that you are not allowed to offer discounts to not use credit cards differently. I think this was in the past or no longer enforced. I lost count now of the stores that will charge you a 2-3…

if credit card processors started enforcing this rule of the contract, would they be at risk of legal trouble?

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

#145

Post by augustl »

Maxion wrote: post #140
lacker wrote: post #135

I've noticed recently more of the food truck or farmers' market type businesses aren't officially cashless, which is illegal in California AFAIU. They just don't have change for a $20. It's a real problem that some people cannot afford the fees on a bank account, but I would prefer that we find some way to provide everyone with minimum banking services. Like a no-fee government-provided debit card. I know, the govern…

Big problem is AML and KYC related legislation - this is expensive to do for people who are statistical outliers. I.e. people with low income. So it'd have to be government subsidised banking.

I would love to see analysis on the trade offs with KYC and AML. How much does it actually help in fighting crime? Vs. all of the lost opportunities due to all of the red tape and regulatory blockers for legitimate business models.

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

#146

Post by hackernewds »

bagels wrote: post #126
maximilianroos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?

There is an element of injustice, the poor and immigrants may not have the same access to banks and credit as others do.

They have access to alternate options for where they shop.

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

#147

Post by em500 »

SuperNinKenDo wrote: post #117
Spivak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really any different from Netflix being card only? Or worse being online-only so you need a relationship to an ISP?

Personally I think Netflix should be compelled to offer a path to using cash as well.

Many of the larger internet services, including Netflix, can already be funded with cash via gift cards sold in supermarkets.

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

#148

Post by hackernewds »

qup wrote: post #6
fragmede wrote: post #3

Interesting. I get why you'd want to ban cashless business, but many business in a nearby town with a high crime rate are going cashless because you can't rob a Square reader quite as easily as a cash register.

I know a business that went cash-only for the same reason in reverse: the thieves were doing it via chargebacks saying they never heard of the place. Couldn't win disputes even with video evidence. They put in an ATM, can't charge that back.

That is not how the chargebacks systems work. Source: I've worked in Fraud department at a large payment processor

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

#149

Post by noduerme »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #94
noduerme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses have a legal obligation to not discriminate against lots of recognized classes. Those without credit cards should be protected as well, because living in this country should not require you to participate in a debt-based system. If it did, it would be government of banks, not a democracy. Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.

There is no "forcing". If there is sufficient demand for paying with cash, then someone will start a business that accepts cash and charges more, thus making more profit. More people will start such businesses, driving down the price until the price accurately affects the additional risk plus market demand. If no such business exists, it is because the cost of the risk/hassle of dealing in cash is too high compared t…

This is akin to saying that if there were sufficient demand for free speech rights, privacy, or the abolition of slavery, markets would provide for those things - and that their removal is simply an economic function.

Like, if enough people want handjobs from non-sex-trafficked sex workers, surely some massage parlors will open to cater to ethical customers, right?

Markets do not guarantee civil rights, and they shouldn't be relied upon to do so. Moreover, their failure to do so should not be construed as a proof that broad enforcement of those rights would not improve both individual businesses and the wider economy. Nor should the economic impact be the sole reason for society to choose whether those rights are worth defending.

By your logic, businesses can choose to refuse service on the basis of race because a certain race is poorer on average - and people from that race just have to hope they will be served by another business that comes along to hoover up their money.

We as a civilization have decided that we don't want the market or a collection of individual businesses to make those sorts of decisions. Protecting people from predatory discrimination is the role of civil society and government, and why we make businesses conform to certain standards, whether they like it or not.

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

#150

Post by irrational »

jdjdjdjdjduuuu wrote: post #119
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.

They probably can still do it with facial recognition

Face mask, fedora, and sunglasses.
Post reply on HN