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

401–410 of 508 posts

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

#401

Post by lotsofpulp »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #391
lotsofpulp wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe that a merchant is allowed to do this? A federal law was passed over 10 years ago allowing this. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/new-rules-el... > A PCN cannot stop you from offering your customers a discount or another incentive for using a certain method of payment, as long as you offer it to all your customers and disclose the offer clearly and conspicuously. For example, you can…

Amex sued the government about this though. Not sure the outcome but it is more complicated than “government banned banning credit card fees”

No, they did not. It was about merchant agreements prohibiting different surcharges for different PCNs, i.e. charging more for AmEx than for Visa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_v._American_Express_Co.

The FTC site is pretty clear, and they are the regulator.

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

#402

Post by dvngnt_ »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #181
noduerme wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that it's immoral to punish people for have no bank credit, and even leaving aside the ethical implications it creates a split-level society that pushes part of the population further toward desperation and crime. Banning cash to allegedly keep workers safe is the ultimate whitewashing of corporate greed at the expense of workers and the public. This is a good law.

It's very strange that developing countries can go cashless, with everyone paying for everything on their smartphones, but a developed country like the US somehow can't.

the USD is much more important

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

#403

Post by LocalH »

robertlagrant wrote: post #238
bigtunacan wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about preference. It's well understood that refusing cash payments has an outsized impact on both the impoverished and underrepresented classes. One easy way to keep the homeless from coming in to make purchases is to refuse cash payments. The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people.

> The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people. Businesses are also run by people. Everything is people. The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving. It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month. It would rather just write a r…

> The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving.

Handling cash has been an accepted cost of business for over a century, but now it’s somehow an undue burden to continue doing so? Hogwash.

> It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month.

That sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Good luck at getting something like that implemented in the US.

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

#404

Post by grey-area »

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 not resilient in some pretty important ways:

It is vulnerable to counterfeiting which mean citizens lose out regularly as they don't have the means to check all cash is valid as shops or banks do.

Physically it is vulnerable to destruction and cannot be replaced if burned for example, unlike a bank card or other token of identity linking you to your funds.

It is vulnerable to devaluation (in has this in common with electronic cash)

In the event of societal collapse or degradation it becomes worthless fairly quickly, which is the opposite of resilient.

Cash is not at all resilient compared to electronic money therefore, and people are voting with their feet to get rid of it, laws like this will just delay the inevitable for a decade or so.

Bank cards will also disappear pretty quickly IMO (next couple of decades), as they're just a physical token of ownership and not really required if you can rely on say a combination of biometrics to assert identity.

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

#405

Post by marssaxman »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #373
blackshaw wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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. If you don’t think the answer is the federal government should be providing the necessary infrastructure, then you want retail business operators t…

Does the federal government provide wheelchair ramps and elevators? I was under the impression that the government simply lays out requirements in the building code, and business operators pay to fix their accessibility problems as part of the cost of doing business.

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

#406

Post by lotsofpulp »

marssaxman wrote: post #405
lotsofpulp wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you don’t think the answer is the federal government should be providing the necessary infrastructure, then you want retail business operators t…

Does the federal government provide wheelchair ramps and elevators? I was under the impression that the government simply lays out requirements in the building code, and business operators pay to fix their accessibility problems as part of the cost of doing business.

No, and that comes at a cost too. There are cities where infrastructure improvements like sidewalks do not get made because the accessibility requirements make them too costly.

It is a tried and true tactic for politicians to be able to claim they did something, but also keep taxes low. It really screws the smallest and poorest businesses/communities.

IDEA 2004 - Feds mandate each and every kid get an “individual education plan” and make it very hard and expensive for school leaders to expel kids who cause problems. And of course, Feds provide no money.

So what happens? Poorer towns with insufficient resources for paraeducators to manage problematic kids just let the kids stay in class and cause disruptions. Poorer students who want to learn get punished.

Richer areas that can afford complying with all regulations are even better off than before, except their residents get lower taxes and their leaders get to say they did something to help people.

Legislating a minimum standard is easy and cheap. Funding it and executing it is expensive, so everyone tries to avoid it.

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

#407

Post by pc86 »

sitkack wrote: post #347
pc86 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand the point of this comment. "Credit cards don't need this network, except realistically they do , they just didn't used to." So in some scenario where electricity is unavailable, credit cards will be just as worthless in most cases as apps and gift cards.

You are feigning confusion, you do understand it. Please don't propagate this mind virus here.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You have no idea what I do or do not understand, and my comment provides additional context which makes it pretty clear in what context I'm using the word "understand."

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

#408

Post by tuukkah »

dcow wrote: post #397
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 didn’t matter if a blacksmith “forged” a coin because the coins were worth their weight in the material used to make them.

Forging a coin (profitably) entails using material which is cheaper than the nominal value of the coin.

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

#409

Post by kgeist »

seanhunter wrote: post #300
kgeist wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country, we have a similar system like in India (in fact, we copied it from them) and I've experienced this situation: a government-run gas company mistakenly claimed I owe them money, and the bank withdrew the claimed amount without due process, because they have some sort of mutual agreement that all their claims are legit unless I bring the issue to court. I won and they had to return the money.

How would that have been different had shops and local merchants been forced to accept cash?

The government can't just take away all your cash on a whim without any notice. That's why, I guess, some people prefer cash. If you want to use cash, you want local shops to accept cash. Personally, I'm OK with being cashless.

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

#410

Post by nisegami »

dcow wrote: post #399
nisegami wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally called ahead to order food then arrive to pick it up and be told that the card reader has not been working all day. Had no cash so I just ended up leaving.

Why not offer to leave your phone number and pay later when the system is back up. The food goes to waste otherwise…

I live in a low-trust society, so they wouldn't have accepted something like that. Had they offered, I might have said yes and gone back later. But I was mostly just pissed they didn't mention it on the phone.
Post reply on HN