3 ms·

I have not found a shop that refuses cash, but if I did I would also refuse to shop there. It shouldn't even be legal for a shop to refuse cash. I understand

I have not found a shop that refuses cash, but if I did I would also refuse to shop there. It shouldn't even be legal for a shop to refuse cash. I understand the grey area of some asshat coming in with $300 of pennies, but outside of those edge cases, it should be illegal to operate a physical store without accepting cash, and without putting in limits to convince people not to use cash.

JackFr 4y ago
Stores should be perfectly free not to accept cash. While our money says "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private", that assumes there has been a meeting of the minds who agree to conclude a transaction. But up until that point I don't see an obligation. And I don't see using the force of government to compel people to do something increases their freedom.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  Which means the unbanked cannot do business there. How do the unbanked pay their electric bill? 1 of three ways. 1. They walk into the electric company directly and pay directly (no fees) 2. They walk into a store that "supports" said electric company and pay (with fees) 3. They find a kiosk that accepts the cash and pay (with fees). 1 implies they have access to a vehicle or that they take public transportation. The problem is that public transportation is trading their TIME for money, the other problem being, public transportation only exists in cities. These sorts of policies have an adverse effect on the poor, making them poorer and increasing the likelihood that they cannot exist in our society. The question is, what are the benefits of not accepting cash? The answer is that it's cheaper for the business. I'm ok requiring businesses to pay that expense if it means people can walk into a physical store and be guaranteed to purchase something.
  - merely-unlikely 4y ago
    > The question is, what are the benefits of not accepting cash? Credit card processing fees, cash collection services (ie hiring armored trucks), theft concerns (both from employees and robberies), and the accounting headache of dealing with cash are all valid reasons depending on the area and business. There are trade offs on both sides of accepting/not accepting cash.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      Which all translates into higher expenses for the business, and I'll repeat myself that I'm ok with the business being required to take on that expense.
      - JackFr 4y ago
        The coercive power of state for thee, but not for me.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        absolutely, because if there's one thing WE KNOW TO BE TRUE. It's that the state has never, ever, been used against the poor.
scrlk 4y ago
> I understand the grey area of some asshat coming in with $300 of pennies In the UK, coins are only considered to be legal tender up to a certain amount. This amount varies depending upon the value of the coin. See: https://www.royalmint.com/help/trm-faqs/legal-tender-amounts/ https://www.royalmint.com/help/trm-faqs/legal-tender-amounts... Is there any equivalent rule in the US?
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  not that I'm aware of, but I'm not a legal expert either.

JackFr 4y ago

Stores should be perfectly free not to accept cash. While our money says "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private", that assumes there has been a meeting of the minds who agree to conclude a transaction. But up until that point I don't see an obligation. And I don't see using the force of government to compel people to do something increases their freedom.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
Which means the unbanked cannot do business there. How do the unbanked pay their electric bill? 1 of three ways. 1. They walk into the electric company directly and pay directly (no fees) 2. They walk into a store that "supports" said electric company and pay (with fees) 3. They find a kiosk that accepts the cash and pay (with fees). 1 implies they have access to a vehicle or that they take public transportation. The problem is that public transportation is trading their TIME for money, the other problem being, public transportation only exists in cities. These sorts of policies have an adverse effect on the poor, making them poorer and increasing the likelihood that they cannot exist in our society. The question is, what are the benefits of not accepting cash? The answer is that it's cheaper for the business. I'm ok requiring businesses to pay that expense if it means people can walk into a physical store and be guaranteed to purchase something.
- merely-unlikely 4y ago
  > The question is, what are the benefits of not accepting cash? Credit card processing fees, cash collection services (ie hiring armored trucks), theft concerns (both from employees and robberies), and the accounting headache of dealing with cash are all valid reasons depending on the area and business. There are trade offs on both sides of accepting/not accepting cash.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    Which all translates into higher expenses for the business, and I'll repeat myself that I'm ok with the business being required to take on that expense.
    - JackFr 4y ago
      The coercive power of state for thee, but not for me.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        absolutely, because if there's one thing WE KNOW TO BE TRUE. It's that the state has never, ever, been used against the poor.

scrlk 4y ago

> I understand the grey area of some asshat coming in with $300 of pennies In the UK, coins are only considered to be legal tender up to a certain amount. This amount varies depending upon the value of the coin. See: https://www.royalmint.com/help/trm-faqs/legal-tender-amounts/ https://www.royalmint.com/help/trm-faqs/legal-tender-amounts... Is there any equivalent rule in the US?

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
not that I'm aware of, but I'm not a legal expert either.