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

211–220 of 508 posts

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

#211

Post by mjevans »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #209
makeitdouble wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't need electricity, a network of cables, satellites and routers. But most businesses do. The main issue is there: why should a business be forced by law to accept cash if they absolutely need electricty and cables to work as a business ? It's one step below forcing them to accept hand written checks. Those are also extremely resilient, you just need a pen and paper. But god no I wouldn't want to deal with…

> But most businesses do. Ummm, for quite small values of "most" :) I have a handle on this because I set a resilience assignment to a cohort of about 20 MBAs at a business school. Specifically I asked for a representative range of businesses; - fast food - gymnasiums and sports - nail bars and hairdressers - auto-repair and mechanic/garages - child and day-care .... you get the picture, _loads_ of variety. They did…

Yes, whomever's on call for fixing any related system should have the physical keys to open the locks. Automatically logging that and post incident reports / etc as necessary.

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

#212

Post by globular-toast »

yftsui wrote: post #180
nonrandomstring wrote: post #162

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,…

Cash is a superior technology for security -> Huh? The bullet proof glass cage protecting the cashiers is the “technology”.

Don't forget privacy is a very important part of security.

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

#213

Post by ck425 »

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…

Can someone explain to me fees on American banks? And the % card surcharges other comments are talking about? As someone from the UK I've never heard of banking fees except on debt facilities and the only surcharges I've seen are minimum spends or 50p charges on cards in small shops, which almost never happens anymore.

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

#214

Post by makeitdouble »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #209
makeitdouble wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't need electricity, a network of cables, satellites and routers. But most businesses do. The main issue is there: why should a business be forced by law to accept cash if they absolutely need electricty and cables to work as a business ? It's one step below forcing them to accept hand written checks. Those are also extremely resilient, you just need a pen and paper. But god no I wouldn't want to deal with…

> But most businesses do. Ummm, for quite small values of "most" :) I have a handle on this because I set a resilience assignment to a cohort of about 20 MBAs at a business school. Specifically I asked for a representative range of businesses; - fast food - gymnasiums and sports - nail bars and hairdressers - auto-repair and mechanic/garages - child and day-care .... you get the picture, _loads_ of variety. They did…

Those businesses need a working cashier that keeps untampered records. Not because they're inherently electronized, but because they want the convenience of it. It just makes a lot of things easier. The same way they do digital bookkeeping, not because they can't do it on paper but because it's just a pure hassle that distracts from the business.

"survival mode" is just that, you can accept cash during a hurricane, and refuse it for the rest of the year when you operate nromally.

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

#215

Post by xwolfi »

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…

You're dreaming if you think the merchant is abandoning margins to finance card companies because they bring business he's convinced he wouldn't have had otherwise: he's making everyone, cash payers included, pay the 3% premium, keeps his margin, fattens the credit providers, the credit consumers get their 3% back, the cash payers do not, the merchant doesn't give a damn and is paid his margin as before, plus a bit more for cash payers.

You thought... prices were dynamically changing per acquisition channel, or that credit borrowers were "privileged" because they took a credit risk and got a "reward" coming from... the merchant ??? Man, what a beautiful world that would have been :(

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

#216

Post by usr1106 »

pjc50 wrote: post #199
usr1106 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand those are more expensive than normal accounts on commercial basis, bad value for the money. It's only that the bank cannot refuse to open a basic account because they don't like the customer's business. I doubt a debit card is included. Those accounts are needed because all wages and even social benefits are only paid by bank transfer in most EU countries. Disclaimer: Haven't checked the details now.

> Disclaimer: Haven't checked the details now. Well that's dumb. The UK version is fee-free and of course it includes a debit card; how would you use the account otherwise? Passbook account like the 1970s? They don't want you tying up valuable cashier time.

I assume the motivation was that banks don't have to offer free service and make losses on it, they can charge "a reasonable" price.

In practice they charge less "for good customers", i.e. where they do or at least assume to make more money by selling other products or by paying a non-competitive interest rate on higher balances.

A quick Web search brings up a ruling that a German bank was ordered by court to pay back the fee difference between a commercial account and a basic account. But I understand the practice continues more or less hidden. Few of the basic account customers would claim their rights.

I would guess most basic accounts come with an ATM card.

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

#217

Post by Maxion »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #200
cowsandmilk wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that post was ridiculous "dog whistle" to discriminate against low income people. How can you work your way out of poverty if you cannot keep a bank account? Ridiculous. people who are statistical outliers. I.e. people with low income Unbelievable, this one. Some people are blind to their privilege here.

I'm not sure how you interepreted my comment as being rude towards some group of people, I was merely describing why things are the way they are.

Here's a longer description:

KYC and AML costs are fixed. I.e. identifying someone is a one time cost (if done virtually, around 5-25 USD, more if done in person).

AML costs are ongoing, but can be automated to a great degree to save on costs. Usually this is done via various heuristic and statistical methods. These work great for the customer types you have a lot of, but for those you have less of you have less training data and your models will cause more alerts than necessary. Alerts that need to be looked at manually.

Most of these occur from rich people doing stupid shit, but you also get the same happening on the other end of the spectrum. Poor people usually are very creative with their money, and this causes them to hit AML checks. (Think crypto, remittances, romance scam victims and the like).

Rich people aren't a problem, they have so much money in the bank that their compliance costs are offset by the profit the bank earns on them.

The average customer usually isn't a problem either, there's a lot of them so a few being unprofitable doesn't really matter.

But low income people will incurr more AML and KYC costs that the bank can't offset --> these customers aren't profitable and the bank will do as much as they legally can to annoy them until they leave.

This phenomena is called de-risking (it happens to companies, too) and is hugely damaging and is a side-effect of the increasing AML and KYC regulations (Which are shit).

AML / KYC regulations desperately need exceptions for people who aren't moving a lot of money. And, conversly, those who DO move a lot of money need to be put under stricter regulations. A) Because it is financially possible and B) they're the guys who do the really damaging money laundering.

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

#218

Post by Maxion »

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.

This is precisly the issue, there are no exemptions to AML and KYC regulations for those not moving a lot of money around.

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

#219

Post by xwolfi »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #83
foolswisdom wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is that merchants do not NEED to consider the 3% disappearing. They can post a sign right now telling people “3% discount for using debit”. The merchants that do not offer lower debit prices choose to pay the extra 3%. It is up to the customer to decide if prices at merchant that gives debit discount or merchant that does not give debit discount are better.

The merchants never pay, you do: prices all increase by exactly 3%. You think employees accept a 3% salary decrease because suddenly all clients pay by cash ? Absolutely not: prices will increase to cover the risk of this happening, and neuter the cost of the payment processor: it's one more cost, and you are the one paying. The merchant RECEIVES your money. He will not OFFER anything to you or the payment processor just for the sake of it.

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

#220

Post by hardware2win »

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…

>then someone will start a business

I hate this argument that "someone will start business"

No. If people will struggle with getting food then they will adjust and get cards despite not liking it. Nobody will open business for them.

For me this is some kind of free markets naivety

Post reply on HN