5 ms·

This is a perpetuated lie based on half-information. It is technically correct. If you are comparing a place that only takes cash, and a place that only takes

This is a perpetuated lie based on half-information. It is technically correct. If you are comparing a place that only takes cash, and a place that only takes plastic. This place does not exist. This thing exists, is called a vending machine, and it is indeed cheaper for my bag of chips to be cashless. If a business takes both cash and cards, allowing cards In Addition to already taking cash, does not cost more. It costs a lot less. But don't take my word for it. Just look at how many places kept trying to offer discounts for cash, how hard and for how many decades the card companies lobbied against that, and how many places do that now since it became illegal for credit cards to force that into their vendor agreements. Let me give you an example of the logic used for the statement. A 5 ton truck is faster than a porshe 911. When the truck is cruising on the highway and the porshe is starting off a red light.

amscanne 3y ago
What is your argument here? I believe the oft-cited reason cash is more expensive is primarily due to shrinkage, which is on the same order as the credit card fees (unless you’re a family-run business or have only amazingly trustworthy employees). Cash-only discounts can be just as easily explained by the “flexibility” cash provides — you can’t assume the conclusion as a fact. The fact that most cash discounts are greater than 1% generally supports this idea, since a business offering a 3% cash discount definitely earns less than taking plastic. (But the accounting “flexibility” is worth more than that 3%.) Are you saying this is not true, and cash shrinkage is less than the fees?
- usernew 3y ago
  What I am saying, is what I said. Which has little to do with that to which you are replying. Please read it, and reply to that if you so choose.
  - amscanne 3y ago
    You just asserted it was a lie, but didn’t say why. I want to know how you are refuting the “cashless is cheaper” argument? All of the business owners I know value cash only for the ability to declare a bit less, the fees are a wash with the complexity of dealing with cash. If you are arguing that there is another reason it’s cheaper but not saying how — please tell us! Or are you talking about the every-day, minor tax fraud that makes it cheaper?
adrr 3y ago
Multiple restaurants around me only take card. Also airlines. I work for a dtc company and we would go cashless at our stores unless we are forced to by mall management. Cash is expensive to handle. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/15/cashless-restaurants-like-tenders-greens-rising-numberat-growing-number-restaurants-cash-no-longer-m/319618002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/15/cashless-res...
- usernew 3y ago
  Got it - I was wrong about that second part. The restaurants around you don't serve people who are poor, or people under 18. Smart choice. Several restaurants around you (I've never seen one, ever) being bigoted and rejecting business, does not mean your general statement is true. 99.(99999?)% of physical businesses also take cash. A blanket generalization, like the statement to which I replied, is based on - umm - the general case. a .0001% case of it being true doesn't make it true. Trees you see, don't grow on land. Because I saw one growing through the water in a shallow lake once. Here in the real world, the polar opposite of what was stated is actually true. In fact, I'll bet you a lot more businesses Only take cash than only take credit. Adding credit to a business that does cash (most businesses), is expensive. Adding cash to a business that does credit (count them on one hand) is also expensive. You seem to not understand that, so I do have more tree and fern examples - just ask. You'll have to wait a couple of days if you want other kinds of flora however, as my brain turns slowly.

amscanne 3y ago

What is your argument here? I believe the oft-cited reason cash is more expensive is primarily due to shrinkage, which is on the same order as the credit card fees (unless you’re a family-run business or have only amazingly trustworthy employees). Cash-only discounts can be just as easily explained by the “flexibility” cash provides — you can’t assume the conclusion as a fact. The fact that most cash discounts are greater than 1% generally supports this idea, since a business offering a 3% cash discount definitely earns less than taking plastic. (But the accounting “flexibility” is worth more than that 3%.) Are you saying this is not true, and cash shrinkage is less than the fees?

usernew 3y ago
What I am saying, is what I said. Which has little to do with that to which you are replying. Please read it, and reply to that if you so choose.
- amscanne 3y ago
  You just asserted it was a lie, but didn’t say why. I want to know how you are refuting the “cashless is cheaper” argument? All of the business owners I know value cash only for the ability to declare a bit less, the fees are a wash with the complexity of dealing with cash. If you are arguing that there is another reason it’s cheaper but not saying how — please tell us! Or are you talking about the every-day, minor tax fraud that makes it cheaper?

adrr 3y ago

Multiple restaurants around me only take card. Also airlines. I work for a dtc company and we would go cashless at our stores unless we are forced to by mall management. Cash is expensive to handle. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/15/cashless-restaurants-like-tenders-greens-rising-numberat-growing-number-restaurants-cash-no-longer-m/319618002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/15/cashless-res...

usernew 3y ago
Got it - I was wrong about that second part. The restaurants around you don't serve people who are poor, or people under 18. Smart choice. Several restaurants around you (I've never seen one, ever) being bigoted and rejecting business, does not mean your general statement is true. 99.(99999?)% of physical businesses also take cash. A blanket generalization, like the statement to which I replied, is based on - umm - the general case. a .0001% case of it being true doesn't make it true. Trees you see, don't grow on land. Because I saw one growing through the water in a shallow lake once. Here in the real world, the polar opposite of what was stated is actually true. In fact, I'll bet you a lot more businesses Only take cash than only take credit. Adding credit to a business that does cash (most businesses), is expensive. Adding cash to a business that does credit (count them on one hand) is also expensive. You seem to not understand that, so I do have more tree and fern examples - just ask. You'll have to wait a couple of days if you want other kinds of flora however, as my brain turns slowly.