6 ms·

You know how US Dollars say “This note is legal tender for all debts” on them? It seems to absurd to allow companies with an oligopoly on most of the transfer

You know how US Dollars say “This note is legal tender for all debts” on them? It seems to absurd to allow companies with an oligopoly on most of the transfer of those notes to pick and choose what sectors are appropriate for citizens to interact with financially.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lallysingh 5y ago
That's not what that means. https://www.quora.com/On-every-US-dollar-bill-the-message-This-note-is-legal-tender-for-all-debts-public-and-private-is-printed-How-is-it-then-legal-for-some-businesses-to-not-accept-cash?share=1 https://www.quora.com/On-every-US-dollar-bill-the-message-Th...
- l33t2328 5y ago
  The comment you linked to doesn’t address the point I made. My point was that you can spend your cash wherever you want, in whatever way the seller will accept. My point was not that sellers ought to be forced to accept bags of pennies.
tylersmith 5y ago
That has nothing at all to do with payment processing.
thephyber 5y ago
There is no financial neutrality requirement, but perhaps there should be. Also, that quote on the dollar has nothing to do with your argument. You seem to be projecting a layperson’s interpretation of those words instead of the relevant jurisprudence.
travisjungroth 5y ago
> companies with an oligopoly on most of the transfer of those notes This is an important distinction. Credit card payments are not notes. They are not cash. So these companies have very little to do with the transfer of cash. The point of "legal tender" is that if you try to pay off a debt in cash, they can't claim you haven't paid it and take you to court. If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice). What's tricky is this has to be a debt, as in past tense. If you try to buy groceries with cash and they refuse, you can walk out but you can't the groceries with you. Participation in the cash market is mandatory on anyone who is owed money. Everything else on top (credit cards, checks) is essentially voluntary. Merchants can take it or leave it, the processors can come or go. If you want to make an argument about the outsized effect that Visa has on the US monetary system, that's totally legitimate. It just has little to do with the concept of "legal tender".
- gowld 5y ago
  But cash is illegal! If you try to pay a $10K debt in cash, it will likely be seized for no reason whatsoever, on suspicion of criminal activity.
  - xenadu02 5y ago
    The way to avoid this if you want to really pay in cash is to order the cash from your bank and have an armored car service transport it for you. There is just little point since that's more expensive than a check or ACH transfer. And yes Civil Asset Forfeiture is pure evil, I agree.
  - anticensor 5y ago
    Unless you are paying it to your local tax office, of course.
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice). I think they would have a case, because you still owe them a debt. But then after you lose the case you can pay in cash. Just how I understand it, could be wrong. Doesn't change your point though.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    How could they operate no-cash businesses if this were true? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fact-check-cashless-businesses-banned-only-some-local-state-laws/3330804001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fac...
    - travisjungroth 5y ago
      From the Treasury website: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. ~ The important distinction is payment for goods or services vs payment for a debt. Dine-in restaurants work on debt (you eat the food then pay for it), but grocery stores work on payment for goods (you get the food and pay for it in one transaction).
JohnBooty 5y ago
The choice of wording -- specifically "debt" -- is deliberate and meaningful. If I owe you $5, you have to accept my $5 bill as legal tender But if I want to buy something from your store that doesn't mean you have to accept my $5 bill - that's not a debt

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lallysingh 5y ago

That's not what that means. https://www.quora.com/On-every-US-dollar-bill-the-message-This-note-is-legal-tender-for-all-debts-public-and-private-is-printed-How-is-it-then-legal-for-some-businesses-to-not-accept-cash?share=1 https://www.quora.com/On-every-US-dollar-bill-the-message-Th...

l33t2328 5y ago
The comment you linked to doesn’t address the point I made. My point was that you can spend your cash wherever you want, in whatever way the seller will accept. My point was not that sellers ought to be forced to accept bags of pennies.

tylersmith 5y ago

That has nothing at all to do with payment processing.

thephyber 5y ago

There is no financial neutrality requirement, but perhaps there should be. Also, that quote on the dollar has nothing to do with your argument. You seem to be projecting a layperson’s interpretation of those words instead of the relevant jurisprudence.

travisjungroth 5y ago

> companies with an oligopoly on most of the transfer of those notes This is an important distinction. Credit card payments are not notes. They are not cash. So these companies have very little to do with the transfer of cash. The point of "legal tender" is that if you try to pay off a debt in cash, they can't claim you haven't paid it and take you to court. If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice). What's tricky is this has to be a debt, as in past tense. If you try to buy groceries with cash and they refuse, you can walk out but you can't the groceries with you. Participation in the cash market is mandatory on anyone who is owed money. Everything else on top (credit cards, checks) is essentially voluntary. Merchants can take it or leave it, the processors can come or go. If you want to make an argument about the outsized effect that Visa has on the US monetary system, that's totally legitimate. It just has little to do with the concept of "legal tender".

gowld 5y ago
But cash is illegal! If you try to pay a $10K debt in cash, it will likely be seized for no reason whatsoever, on suspicion of criminal activity.
- xenadu02 5y ago
  The way to avoid this if you want to really pay in cash is to order the cash from your bank and have an armored car service transport it for you. There is just little point since that's more expensive than a check or ACH transfer. And yes Civil Asset Forfeiture is pure evil, I agree.
- anticensor 5y ago
  Unless you are paying it to your local tax office, of course.
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice). I think they would have a case, because you still owe them a debt. But then after you lose the case you can pay in cash. Just how I understand it, could be wrong. Doesn't change your point though.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  How could they operate no-cash businesses if this were true? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fact-check-cashless-businesses-banned-only-some-local-state-laws/3330804001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fac...
  - travisjungroth 5y ago
    From the Treasury website: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. ~ The important distinction is payment for goods or services vs payment for a debt. Dine-in restaurants work on debt (you eat the food then pay for it), but grocery stores work on payment for goods (you get the food and pay for it in one transaction).

JohnBooty 5y ago

The choice of wording -- specifically "debt" -- is deliberate and meaningful. If I owe you $5, you have to accept my $5 bill as legal tender But if I want to buy something from your store that doesn't mean you have to accept my $5 bill - that's not a debt