241–250 of 508 posts
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,…
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.
The fees exist in the UK but the UK never had the cash culture that the US does so very few consumers made a fuss about it. Plus the UK has a much longer history of debit card use than the US.
The US banking sector is less regulated than the UK sector so can get away with adding fees. The UK banks would love to move to the same model but would get strung up by the public and regulators.
I'm opening a coffeeshop in Chicago and do not plan on accepting cash, just seems easier and safer to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
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,…
The problem with cash being a thing that keeps working if the lights go out is that there isn't enough of it in circulation to meet the demand if all the lights go out. Having a bit of cash means that you can still pay for your purchases if one random shop has a technical glitch with their card reader, but if the card payment system for a whole country falls over then there just isn't enough lying around to cope with…
There are a lot of scenarios where having cash as a fallback is great.
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.
The new "meta" seems to be charging you a tax for not using their loyalty card. Items at Tesco are now significantly more expensive if you don't scan a Clubcard. I suppose it is easier to rotate those than bank cards though
Argentina has effectively a cash-only economy. Queues in excess of an hour at the supermarket are fairly common partly because of the overheads in having everyone pay with cash (needing to empty the tills, validate large notes, taking time to get correct change out and/or giving change). Let's not be so quick to say that card payments are all bad.
The argument is more centered around business who flat out refuse to accept cash. Which is on the face just ridiculous.
I'm opening a coffeeshop in Chicago and do not plan on accepting cash, just seems easier and safer to me.
But why ? For things like a coffee that's maybe $2, why should I, as a customer, possibly incur a fee from my bank for a $2 coffee? You as a business can do what you like, maybe you could just limit the max bill denomination to 20 or something.
I feel your limiting your customers options when not allowing cash. I know I personally would actively avoid a coffee shop like that.
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, 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They just don't have change for a $20. Malicious compliance is fun. Besides, having to have change is the really big cost of cash handling. Almost all your customers come in with big notes from an ATM and leave with smaller notes or coins, so you have to keep getting change from the bank. Just rebrand "not giving change" as "mandatory tipping" and it's even a pro-worker move!
> Just rebrand "not giving change" as "mandatory tipping" and it's even a pro-worker move! rounding-up to avoid handling change is the norm when paying cash in "tippable" situations like at restaurants or farmer's markets.