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

451–460 of 508 posts

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

#451

Post by TeMPOraL »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #419
yftsui wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem of space of physically securing cash is more stable over time and better understood by non experts than the problem space of securing electronic payments: For example, the costs and benefits of "There is a new innovation in theft, people yank ATMs out of walls with trucks, which you can mitigate by putting up bollards" are easier to understand than "there is a buffer overflow in your logging software that…

Innovations in defense from physical theft: "time locks" in bank branches, where the safes and vaults take a fixed delay on the order of minutes to open, without any way for anyone in the bank to speed this up. This fact is advertised explicitly using stickers and posters around the bank, starting at the entrance. The point is to protect the staff, by making it clear there's nothing that can be achieved by coercion, and to deter robberies by making the criminals wait, vastly increasing their risk of being caught.

(And to add a cherry on top, this is usually not disturbing to actual customers, because they're busy doing usual bullshit paperwork while the safe is unlocking.)

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

#452

Post by nulbyte »

HWR_14 wrote: post #240
amrocha wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The rules were changed, I believe in some of the financial legislation passed post-2008.

They were changed in settling a class action lawsuit. But nothing was stopping merchants from offering a cash discount which would have served the same purpose.

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

#453

Post by QuarterReptile »

nathancahill wrote: post #390
QuarterReptile wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you just type in a phone number? In the US, you can always type in the rickroll phone number as a reward card. If it doesn't work, it's incumbent upon you to set up the profile for that store to keep the system going.

I hate to ask, but what's the rickroll phone number?

(248)434-5508

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

#454

Post by nulbyte »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #346
rtpg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a merchant wanted to, it would be trivial for them to give you a 3% discount for paying with debit. 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. Of cou…

> 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…

Nothing prevented merchants from offering a cash discount. Terms used to prevent merchants from adding a surcharge solely because they were paying with a credit card.

A class action lawsuit was filed, and the networks settled by allowing merchants to charge a fee only up to what they actually paid to process the charge if they inform the networks first. I gather most merchants don't inform the networks. And when they do charge surcharges, the fee they charge is obviously higher than the payment actually costs them.

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

#455

Post by nulbyte »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #357
nirvdrum wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Target also gives you a 5% discount for using their RedCard. It's your typical store-branded loyalty card. Except, instead of giving you "points" on your purchase you get an upfront discount. Target is unique in that they make this option available through a branded debit card for those that don't want or don't qualify for a credit card. But, it's not a discount specifically for paying with cash. > If a merchant want…

> Discounts get confusing and bump up against weird cases like minimum advertised pricing and potential taxation on the discount. I have never heard of this. Merchant gets the revenue, merchant pays the tax. If the debit price is $10, then the sales tax is on $10, and if the credit price is $13, then the sales tax is on $13. > Debit cards can get a bit weird when they function as credit cards. A customer may use a de…

> And no one should be swiping anymore, so I do not know what “swiping it as visa or Mastercard” means. It either says Visa or MC on the card, and that’s the PCN it’s going to use.

Debit cards are multi-branded. STAR is a popular debit network. Running a transaction over a debit network is far cheaper; often the merchant only incurs a flat fee for the transaction, and most card terminals give the customer a choice.

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

#456

Post by nulbyte »

qup wrote: post #416
hackernewds wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not how the chargebacks systems work. Source: I've worked in Fraud department at a large payment processor

Not sure what you mean. It was Square, which is talked about above. Customer's bank says "customer says they have no knowledge of this charge" Square allows a dispute, including with video and photo evidence of the guy signing the tablet himself. That was submitted. Customer's bank kept the money.

I suspect Square accepts the chargeback and passes it back to the merchant without dispute. Sadly, some processors find the cost of helping their merchants to be too high. I know Facebook does this.

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

#457

Post by whelp_24 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #444
whelp_24 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution, it's like the original constitutional democracy (the UK is uncodified btw). Your trust in government is far far too high.

> The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution You know... I'm a Brazilian. Our constitution has something around 200 pages. The reactions of US people about their government working is really surprising and hard to understand to me. Anyway, I'm sure that e.g. your postal service does not discriminate between legal business, because there's a rule forbidding it (that one I know that exists). Why do you think such…

Rules only work if they exist and they are followed.

There is no evidence such a law would be created, we can not even get net neutrality.

There is not a lot of evidence this law would be followed, corruption happens all the time, especially in background type things like electronic transactions.

Electronic transactions aren't anonymous, and the US certainly doesn't need more surveillance.

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

#458

Post by shwaj »

ajkjk wrote: post #433
shwaj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wandering a bit astray now, but Operation Choke Point 2.0 is currently underway, with the goal of debanking the cryptocurrency industry. Same playbook, different set of undesirable businesses.

Glad to hear it.

Yes, let’s cheer on the precedent of unelected bureaucrats exerting control over things we don’t like. That precedent will surely never come back to affect something that we do like

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

#459

Post by fuzzfactor »

Xylakant wrote: post #245
mnw21cam wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's a broad space between "a single shop" and "an entire country". Entire cities or states being hit by a technical glitch or a natural desaster (flooding , storms, ...) happens on a moderatly regular basis. Backbone connnections failing and taking certain areas or chunks of the internet population offline is also moderately common. Banks having issues with payouts happens, too. There are a lot of scenarios where…

>There are a lot of scenarios where having cash as a fallback is great.

Experience has shown an even more prosperous outlook from having cash as the mainstay and credit as a fallback.

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

#460

Post by orange-mentor »

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…

The government doing things is good, actually.
Post reply on HN