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

251–260 of 508 posts

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

#251

Post by Amezarak »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #194
cowsandmilk wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And those fees are usually egregious and do the most harm to low income people. Why can't these account refuse to go negative during withdraw or spend via debit? It seems simple to me, but then banks could collect fewer fees. I weep for their profits.

Overdraft "protection" was opt-out for several years, and is now opt-in.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...

I have a lot of experience with low-income people and people not great with money (and the overlap between them). The problem is most want this feature. They would not want the transaction declined. They know they don't have any money.

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

#252

Post by aembleton »

bilekas wrote: post #248
blockwriter wrote: post #91

I'm opening a coffeeshop in Chicago and do not plan on accepting cash, just seems easier and safer to me.

> 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.…

If you're using a bank that charges you for making a $2 card transaction, then perhaps you should change bank. I feel that bank is limiting their customers options when doing that.

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

#253

Post by marklubi »

shapefrog wrote: post #202
dehrmann wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Banks also literally charge a % fee to deposit cash into your account.

Can you provide a citation on that one? I've never heard of such an absurd issue.

The closest I can think of is when a bank tried to charge my son for using their coin counting machine because he didn't have an account there (he's a minor, but I had an account).

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

#254

Post by jdietrich »

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,…

>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.

If the power goes out, I can't get any cash. I don't keep any meaningful amount cash on hand and neither does anyone I know, including my elderly relatives. Most of the stores I shop at won't actually be able to sell me anything, because none of the products have price tags and I sincerely doubt that any of their staff are trained to revert to pen-and-paper accounting. Even if they did manage to keep things running, they'd likely run out of change by the end of the day. The grocery stores are JIT and have no more than a few days of stock of anything; again, I doubt there's a manual backup to their reordering system.

Maybe things are different in countries with less reliable infrastructure, but I just can't think of a scenario in which cash would gain you any appreciable amount of resilience without much wider systemic changes. So much other stuff beyond payments is wholly reliant on technology. I'm not sure that would be a wise investment versus improving the resilience of power distribution and network infrastructure.

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

#255

Post by bestest »

bilekas wrote: post #248
blockwriter wrote: post #91

I'm opening a coffeeshop in Chicago and do not plan on accepting cash, just seems easier and safer to me.

> 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.…

customers paying with a card charged by the bank? it does not happen in Europe. is this a US thing?

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

#256

Post by jdietrich »

marklubi wrote: post #253
shapefrog wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks also literally charge a % fee to deposit cash into your account.

Can you provide a citation on that one? I've never heard of such an absurd issue. The closest I can think of is when a bank tried to charge my son for using their coin counting machine because he didn't have an account there (he's a minor, but I had an account).

Many business accounts have a monthly allowance of free cash deposits, but the standard fee is 30¢ per $100.

https://www.bankofamerica.com/salesservices/smallbusiness/re...

https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/assets/pdf/small-business/...

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

#257

Post by blackshaw »

makeitdouble wrote: post #178
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,…

> 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…

Let's think about who wouldn't be fine in a cashless economy:

* Elderly people who struggle with technology.

* People fleeing coercive situations like domestic abuse where their abuser controls their finances.

* People with mental disabilities, for whom cash might be the only thing they know how to use.

* Homeless people, who might literally rely on cash to survive.

* Poorer people who prefer cash because it helps them budget and limit their spending.

* People so poor or otherwise disadvantaged that they don't even have a bank account.

That last group is much bigger than you think: by one estimate, 6% of American adults don't have a bank account and another 13% are "underbanked".[0] That's tens of millions of people in the US alone who don't have access to the basic financial services that you and I take for granted.

I have no idea how they do it. I'm not sure how it's even possible to navigate modern life without a bank account, but then I'm an educated, affluent professional who has no idea what it's like to be poor. Just because I don't need cash doesn't mean that no-one else does.

So basically, I think that asking "why should a business be forced by law to accept cash?" is like asking "why should a business be forced by law to provide wheelchair ramps and elevators?" If you don't think the answer is obvious, then you need to check your privilege.

[0] Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/who-is-the-least-likely-to-hav...

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

#258

Post by Chris2048 »

jdietrich wrote: post #254
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,…

>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. If the power goes out, I can't get any cash. I don't keep any meaningful amount cash on hand and neither does anyone I know, including my elderly relatives. Most of the stores I shop at won't actually be able to sell me anything, because none of the products…

It isn't just for infra failure. When your credit card provider cuts you off for "unusual activity" that they won't go into detail about, and you realise they are free to refuse you business as they feel like - you'll appreciate cash while rushing to find a new provider as existing debts still loom.

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

#259

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

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 apartment complexes charge convenience fee of 2-3% for paying with card. They don't take cash either, so I paid with money orders while living in the US.

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

#260

Post by blackshaw »

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

Wait, is it common in the US for brick-and-mortar businesses to charge you extra if you pay by card? That doesn't happen in the UK.
Post reply on HN