Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not paying with cash

rubenerd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: Not paying with cash

#241

Post by nunez »

geoduck14 wrote: post #95
jppope wrote: post #81

I prefer cash, not for the reasons mentioned. First, cash makes me really think about what I'm buying. It doesn't poke you the same way when you tap a card... which is obviously one of the main reasons they want you do use cards. When I use cash, I am reminded of when I didn't have a lot, which keeps me from spending without thought. Next, its a hallmark of the middle class to spend money that you don't have. Myself…

>Myself and some other people pay their cards off every month but that isn't the norm. Many people keep a balance I've heard this statistic a lot, but I haven't seen any recent evidence it is true. I used to work for a bank, and our Credit Card holders would (mostly) pay off their balance every month. We called them Transactors vs Revolvers. 85% of our CC were Transactors, and some of them would pay down multiple tim…

Lots of people carry a balance. Credit card lenders wouldn't exist or give away insane sign-up bonuses if they didn't.

From NerdWallet [^0]:

> A NerdWallet survey conducted by The Harris Poll in conjunction with our annual study in 2023 found that 43% of American adults who use credit cards (and 38% of all American adults) said they have revolving debt. The CFPB, meanwhile, found that at the end of 2022, payments on 48% of general purpose credit card accounts were for less than the full balance, meaning some debt was being revolved

Additionally,

> In 2022, credit card issuers “charged off” $37 billion in balances, meaning they determined that those balances weren’t going to be paid.

Total credit card debt in 2024 was ~$626.8 billion with a peak of $42 billion in 2019.

That was from my own cursory research. Here's how GPT-5 did when I asked it about this topic: https://chatgpt.com/share/68b9b95f-0b14-8012-be34-48cb3bd10d.... Taking a cursory look at the sources provided shows that its analysis is mostly correct.

[^0]: https://archive.ph/0AzYa

Re: Not paying with cash

#242

Post by r0m4n0 »

snypher wrote: post #161
r0m4n0 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this writer focuses on the buyer side but on the merchant side, there are similar tradeoffs. People (employees, robbers etc) steal cash and it adds work to close out registers at the end of your day. Having no cash in your store solves those problems. I run a non profit with membership dues and I have tried to just boot the 3% of our membership that pay w/ check or cash annually (I haven’t convinced the rest…

Pretty scummy way to reject the people you rely on to fund your cause. Do you get paid from this non-profit you run?

No, I donate a lot of money on top of the time I volunteer for free. Someone has to spend maybe an hour every few months to deposit a single check for $50.

You got me on the rejection part because there are some benefits the members get (being able to attend social events, newsletters, etc) but if your donation is a net negative on an organization, I just don’t think they should donate at all. They don’t know it’s a net negative though and maybe would donate with an electronic payment but possibly don’t know? I think it’s mostly old people doing things the way they are used to

But TBH I’m not sure if much of this matters other than the ratio. Time is money and if there aren’t enough people utilizing something, it’s just not worth it to continue. If it’s a government org that’s possibly the only thing that needs to accept all forms of payment

Re: Not paying with cash

#243

Post by ProllyInfamous »

s5300 wrote: post #113
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local credit union has switched entirely to machined staff, even inside locations (with attendant staff for transaction impossible via ATM). For some silly reason, the machine stocks only these bills: $5$ $20$ $100$ Why waste an entire cash dispenser on fives when it could instead be handing out fifties (or at least tens)... especially at an ATM!? I think it's time for a $1000 bill, again. Let's get rid of bills l…

>> Why waste an entire cash dispenser on fives when it could instead be handing out fifties (or at least tens)... especially at an ATM!? Hacker News user unaware Poor People^tm exist

Poor People™ do exist, yes.

But does anybody actually run to the ATM for just five dollars (as opposed to say ten)?!?

Just for reference, I am a blue-collar electrician that lives in a less-affluent rural state. I became worth zero dollars 9 years ago, which was a pleasant day I'd labored years towards.

Re: Not paying with cash

#244

Post by ProllyInfamous »

dlcarrier wrote: post #195
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local credit union has switched entirely to machined staff, even inside locations (with attendant staff for transaction impossible via ATM). For some silly reason, the machine stocks only these bills: $5$ $20$ $100$ Why waste an entire cash dispenser on fives when it could instead be handing out fifties (or at least tens)... especially at an ATM!? I think it's time for a $1000 bill, again. Let's get rid of bills l…

My plan for coins would be to eliminate dimes, but make nickels the size of a dime, still out of the nickle/copper alloy, so they are cheap to make and dime coin mechanisms could be easily modified to accept them, but wouldn't unless modified.

Yours is admittedly a better idea / more divisible currency combinations.

Re: Not paying with cash

#245

Post by ProllyInfamous »

RulerOf wrote: post #174
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local credit union has switched entirely to machined staff, even inside locations (with attendant staff for transaction impossible via ATM). For some silly reason, the machine stocks only these bills: $5$ $20$ $100$ Why waste an entire cash dispenser on fives when it could instead be handing out fifties (or at least tens)... especially at an ATM!? I think it's time for a $1000 bill, again. Let's get rid of bills l…

> I think it's time for a $1000 bill, again. I agree, but I'd actually like to see 200 and 500 dollar denominations as well. Would keep the same number of distinct bills that way if the three smallest ones were phased out.

Another great idea; our denominations are beginning to mimic ¥en of the mid 2000s [not a good sign].

Re: Not paying with cash

#246

Post by ProllyInfamous »

TheBicPen wrote: post #155
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local credit union has switched entirely to machined staff, even inside locations (with attendant staff for transaction impossible via ATM). For some silly reason, the machine stocks only these bills: $5$ $20$ $100$ Why waste an entire cash dispenser on fives when it could instead be handing out fifties (or at least tens)... especially at an ATM!? I think it's time for a $1000 bill, again. Let's get rid of bills l…

The problem with leaving both dimes and quarters is that you'd need dimes for any price that's a multiple of 10c but not 50c. Getting rid of dimes would make it so that every price payable with cash is payable entirely in quarters.

What do you think about Dcarrier's idea [above comment response] about nixxing the ten-cent-piece, and then reducing the size of a nickel to the current-dime-size?

I liked it.

Re: Not paying with cash

#247

Post by marssaxman »

r0m4n0 wrote: post #139
marssaxman wrote: post #16

I got irritated with the profusion of "no cash accepted" signs a few years back and started making a point of always carrying cash, to use whenever practical. I don't take it to an extreme, but I also don't want to live in a world where every transaction is trackable and all commerce is regulated by Visa, Mastercard, Apple, or Google.

I think this writer focuses on the buyer side but on the merchant side, there are similar tradeoffs. People (employees, robbers etc) steal cash and it adds work to close out registers at the end of your day. Having no cash in your store solves those problems. I run a non profit with membership dues and I have tried to just boot the 3% of our membership that pay w/ check or cash annually (I haven’t convinced the rest…

I understand why people do it; but - there has to be some threshold beyond which you would not be considering this decision, doesn't there? Would you still be considering this if 5% of your members were paying in cash? 10%? There's a point at which it would be clearly worth it to you to accept cash.

All I can do is try to keep that share of cash users up through my own action, and talk about what I am doing to encourage other people to do likewise, in hopes that business owners will continue to see cash as a normal part of their operation worth maintaining, and not as an oddball nuisance.

Re: Not paying with cash

#248

Post by limagnolia »

socalgal2 wrote: post #198
limagnolia wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most if not all of those rewards are paid for by the interchange that they charge merchants, not the interest they charge customers. Of course, interest and fees are also profitable, but banks are pretty happy if you use the card and pay it off every month.

All the costs, reguardless of where they are accrued, are figured into the prices every one is paying

As others have pointed out in other comments, accepting cash has its own cost. I leave it up to business owners/managers to decide how much it costs them and if they want to offer me a better price if I pay by card or by cash, and if they make the policy clear, I am more than happy to determine which payment method to use based on their own pricing policy.

Re: Not paying with cash

#249

Post by limagnolia »

IAmBroom wrote: post #229
limagnolia wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most if not all of those rewards are paid for by the interchange that they charge merchants, not the interest they charge customers. Of course, interest and fees are also profitable, but banks are pretty happy if you use the card and pay it off every month.

Because money is fungible, it's meaningless to say "X is paid for by Y not Z", as long as Y and Z are both greater than X.

Yes indeed. My larger point is banks are happy if you pay off your balance each month, and banks are happy if you carry a balance but still make your payments. They are satisfied with either type of customer. They just don't like customers who don't pay ever.

Re: Not paying with cash

#250

Post by Izkata »

toast0 wrote: post #189
jaza wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Various studies have shown that, for the investment needed to "maximise your rewards" (ie time needed to research the different cards on the market / read the fine print of your chosen product / put through payments on a high rewards card; money on signup fees, recurring fees, transaction fees, etc), you'll achieve a much better ROI just investing the equivalent time and money into an index fund.

Getting a 2% discount on everything doesn't take a lot of time, or cost me anything directly. I did have to call the issuer once to get it changed from 1.5% to 2%, but there was a pretty good ROI on that ten minute phone call. I also have a 4% card, which took a good amount of effort, and needs regular attention as the issuer has realized it wasn't a good idea and is changing the deal. Now it has a limit and then fal…

> Getting a 2% discount on everything

Some years ago I looked what my bank offered and there were a lot of exceptions, it was very far from "everything". I think the math came out to saving like $100 total a year, not really worth it.

Post reply on HN