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

161–170 of 508 posts

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

#161

Post by noduerme »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #43
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.

It’s an expensive burger restaurant, not a grocery store. Having a bank account and a debit card doesn’t mean “participating in a debt-based system”.

Yea, both of those things mean participating in a debt-based system. If your money is all on loan from your credit card company, or in a bank that charges you fees to get it out, you literally have nothing. I don't give a flying fuck how expensive the hamburger is, the same thing applies to Dollar General or to tickets to the opera. A company FORCING consumers to use their money through a middle man bank creates a private currency that undermines the full faith and credit of the US government which itself is the only bulwark against mafias taking a piece of every transaction... and is only so because we have some say in its constitution. The government's assertion that we have a right to trade with its currency as opposed to that of a private bank is the assertion of our rights as citizens, not slaves to any given mafia or corporate power.

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

#162

Post by nonrandomstring »

Almost every comment is about politics, choice, privacy, rights, markets and percentages.

There's a completely different take; Civic resilience

From an operational and strategic security POV, cash is a vastly superior technology. It doesn't need electricity, a network of cables, satellites and routers.

Therefore cash in circulation acts as a buffer that provides economic stability and continuity of operations.

Also, take a look at a modern European bank note, like we have in the UK. It's a sophisticated technology. It's not like we still have Roman coins that any blacksmith can forge.

There are many good, but more subtle reasons for preserving the use of cash, and regulating business practices if necessary to do so.

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

#163

Post by jdjdjdjdjduuuu »

xyzal wrote: post #127
jdjdjdjdjduuuu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably can still do it with facial recognition

Great idea for the next ban!

Too bad it takes them decades to act on anything... Almost as if they wait for the next tracking method to be viable

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

#164

Post by closewith »

piaste wrote: post #158
laurencerowe wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit card processing costs in the US are absurd. Interchange fees are around 2% on average vs a cap of 0.3% for credit cards and 0.2% for debit cards in the EU. But cash handling costs a substantial amount too. We should probably all be paying by debit card and charging extra for cash or credit card.

Should be noted that in most of the EU cashback programmes are also not as big as in the US. Never heard of anyone getting "2% back from everything". That said, a middleman that takes a smaller fee is still much better for the economy than a middleman that takes in an oversized fee and then magnanimously hands back a chunk of it. Especially when that middleman is a worldwide oligopoly with far too much power. I try t…

> Should be noted that in most of the EU cashback programmes are also not as big as in the US. Never heard of anyone getting "2% back from everything".

Which, societally, is a good thing. Credit card rewards programmes are a tax on everyone that disproportionately affects the lowest earners who aren't availing of cashback.

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

#165

Post by amrocha »

closewith wrote: post #159
basisword wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. The government shouldn’t even need to get involved here. In the UK accounts have no standard charge and come with free debit card. There’s no reason banks in the US can’t offer this other than the fac…

> The government shouldn’t even need to get involved here. In the UK accounts have no standard charge and come with free debit card. Well, in the UK, fee-free basic bank accounts are the result of government regulation(1). It was part of the UK's implementation of Directive 2014/92/EU (2), which mandated access to basic bank accounts across the EU (of which the UK was then a part). (1) https://www.gov.uk/government/n…

Thank you for the funniest comment and reply I've ever seen here.

The libertarian version of the I Made This meme.

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

#166

Post by amrocha »

runnr_az wrote: post #84
charlie0 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are any laws we need to pass is that credit card fees should be disclosed on all receipts and optional. Cash buyers should not get penalized for not using a credit card.

At least in PHX, I’ve been seeing a lot of businesses with a 2-3% surcharge for cards

Huh, I thought that wasn't allowed by the card issuer rules. Isn't that why a lot of places don't take Amex? Because the fees are higher but they can't add a surcharge to cover it?

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

#167

Post by Findecanor »

kxrm wrote: post #79
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?

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.

I used to have that position, but here in Sweden the cashless have won and there is nobody who even cares to uphold the law. The same could happen elsewhere.

It is pretty much only the civil defence authority that encourages use of cash, because they are aware of the incessant hacking attacks that could disrupt the system at any moment. Cash has become less convenient for consumers: businesses refusing to take cash made it even more so.

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

#168

Post by iudqnolq »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #155
Maxion wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 find it hard to believe it is expensive to do AML and KYC for customers whose balances never cross 5 figures. It seems they would almost never go over any thresholds that require reporting.

From that you should infer that your guess is wrong, there is no such threshold for some requirements

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

#169

Post by iudqnolq »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #160
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…

> It's a real problem that some people cannot afford the fees on a bank account Plenty of banks offer no minimum checking accounts. Whenever this gets dug into, the fees they supposedly can’t afford are when their balances go negative, which is harder to justify being free.

For plenty of banks that's not the case. For ex Wells Fargo charges $10/month if your balance is less than $500[1]. That's a big deal for some people.

Ally Bank offers no minimum, but they're online only and reimburse for (some) ATM fees rather than it being free upfront.

Many ordinary people who try to get an ordinary bank account at an ordinary bank they take the bus and the walk to end up paying fees.

[1]: https://www.wellsfargo.com/checking/everyday/monthly-service...

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

#170

Post by jmopp »

irrational wrote: post #150
jdjdjdjdjduuuu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably can still do it with facial recognition

Face mask, fedora, and sunglasses.

This. Masks are a lot more acceptable in public than they were 5 years ago. Given the mass surveillance going around, I'm surprised more people aren't in favour of regular mask wearing in public.
Post reply on HN