5 ms·

As long as companies can specify that exact change is required, I'd by ok with this. Having to break $100 bills adds a lot of stress to small business if they c

As long as companies can specify that exact change is required, I'd by ok with this. Having to break $100 bills adds a lot of stress to small business if they can't validate them.

mindslight 6y ago
As someone who makes it a point to pay in cash (pre-pandemic), I wouldn't have a problem with the ability to balk at $50 or $100 bills (even though fifties are the new twenties). It should probably be stated as a percentage of the transaction though - let's say a business could refuse to give change more than 20% of the total. That's restrictive enough that businesses would be free to adopt the strict policy (total has to be at least $84 to pay with a $100), or relax a bit to something reasonable (say $70 for a $100). edit: Thinking about it, a fixed ratio wouldn't work well, otherwise you'd need to spend $17 to guarantee paying with a $20. Good thresholds might be $80/$35/$10 to reflect the increased incentive to pass larger counterfeit bills.
- pc86 6y ago
  The problem isn't (always) giving a lot of change, it's being able to verify that the larger bills are genuine. None of the fast food establishments near me will accept anything larger than a $20 and I'm positive there are folks going in there and ordering $40+ worth of food.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    The same thing happens with credit card fraud though. Insisting on small bills doesn't solve the possibility of giving away free product. Ultimately, the restaurant's incremental cost of providing $40 of fast food is pretty low. The main worry is giving out significant real cash in change.
    - coredog64 6y ago
      I thought fraud was on the bank for amounts over ~ $20 (which is why restaurants don't bother to check signatures/ID for typical purchases). They are on the hook for chargebacks and low-level fraud.
  - Slartie 6y ago
    > The problem isn't (always) giving a lot of change, it's being able to verify that the larger bills are genuine. That should be fixed by changing the bills' design to be more resistant to counterfeiting, not by effectively making them useless because nobody accepts them anymore due to rampant fraud. Most currencies in developed countries don't have this weird counterfeiting problem that the US dollar apparently has when it comes to higher-valued denominations (with "higher" apparently starting at 50$), so that's some evidence that there must be a lot of room for improvement.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    It’s not really fraud threats, but the fact that it “empties” your cash drawer. If someone is given change for $100 minus their order, you now have up to 4 less $20s, and a $100 that can only be gotten rid of through exchanging between tills/cash box or someone asking for $100 cash back.

As long as companies can specify that exact change is required, I'd by ok with this. Having to break $100 bills adds a lot of stress to small business if they can't validate them.

mindslight 6y ago

As someone who makes it a point to pay in cash (pre-pandemic), I wouldn't have a problem with the ability to balk at $50 or $100 bills (even though fifties are the new twenties). It should probably be stated as a percentage of the transaction though - let's say a business could refuse to give change more than 20% of the total. That's restrictive enough that businesses would be free to adopt the strict policy (total has to be at least $84 to pay with a $100), or relax a bit to something reasonable (say $70 for a $100). edit: Thinking about it, a fixed ratio wouldn't work well, otherwise you'd need to spend $17 to guarantee paying with a $20. Good thresholds might be $80/$35/$10 to reflect the increased incentive to pass larger counterfeit bills.

pc86 6y ago
The problem isn't (always) giving a lot of change, it's being able to verify that the larger bills are genuine. None of the fast food establishments near me will accept anything larger than a $20 and I'm positive there are folks going in there and ordering $40+ worth of food.
- mindslight 6y ago
  The same thing happens with credit card fraud though. Insisting on small bills doesn't solve the possibility of giving away free product. Ultimately, the restaurant's incremental cost of providing $40 of fast food is pretty low. The main worry is giving out significant real cash in change.
  - coredog64 6y ago
    I thought fraud was on the bank for amounts over ~ $20 (which is why restaurants don't bother to check signatures/ID for typical purchases). They are on the hook for chargebacks and low-level fraud.
- Slartie 6y ago
  > The problem isn't (always) giving a lot of change, it's being able to verify that the larger bills are genuine. That should be fixed by changing the bills' design to be more resistant to counterfeiting, not by effectively making them useless because nobody accepts them anymore due to rampant fraud. Most currencies in developed countries don't have this weird counterfeiting problem that the US dollar apparently has when it comes to higher-valued denominations (with "higher" apparently starting at 50$), so that's some evidence that there must be a lot of room for improvement.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  It’s not really fraud threats, but the fact that it “empties” your cash drawer. If someone is given change for $100 minus their order, you now have up to 4 less $20s, and a $100 that can only be gotten rid of through exchanging between tills/cash box or someone asking for $100 cash back.