5 ms·

Ridiculous. Why not also then force cash only businesses into taking card and mobile payments also?

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
Probably because the state has limited ability to compel business relationships, thank God, and taking card effectively means enforcing a business relationship with a duopoly.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Is that really any different from Netflix being card only? Or worse being online-only so you need a relationship to an ISP?
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    Personally I think Netflix should be compelled to offer a path to using cash as well.
    - em500 3y ago
      Many of the larger internet services, including Netflix, can already be funded with cash via gift cards sold in supermarkets.
      - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
        Makes sense. Although it should probably be more like other bills you can pay at say a post-office. But yeah, it's better than no solution.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      I'm not really sure how you could ever realize something like this without inventing prepaid cards which go through a card network anyway and are just ephemeral bank accounts backed by real banks. Any business that is large enough can get their gift cards in retail stores which would be fine. It would definitely create a moral hazard if Netflix had to provide a cash option like this because retail stores would suddenly have crazy amounts of leverage but w/e. But then naturally there would be market need for "accept cash payments for your online service" as a service for smaller businesses that can't just get partnerships with Target and Kroger and the entity providing that service would just be a bank issuing branded prepaid cards but using their own bespoke card network. Like you can't fight it, you always invent Visa. You could probably cut card networks out eventually with $as_of_yet_unlaunced_service backed by FedNow but that's not exactly cash and still requires a bank account.
      - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
        Well, a lot of bills are payable in cash at places like post-offices, and for some, service stations and convenience stores. You go in with your invoice, hand them cash, and get a receipt. No attack on you, but I feel like lots of people are suffering from not only a lack of imagination, but a serious lapse in memory for the days when they didn't always have a card and not every subscription was an online direct debit arrangement.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  The 10th amendment gives states nearly unlimited right to enact any law. Many states literally have emergency power laws which grant the Governor essentially dictatorial powers (to create and enforce laws himself; by decree), which was used for lockdowns and mask mandates. It's a common misconception that arises from state legislatures doing nothing for several decades, but the power is there.
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    I'm referring to "The State" not "the states". But otherwise, emergency powers are exactly that. At least in theory they are something that provides the state powers it would not normally have for a temporary period. Ideally with some checks against perpetual maintenance.
- farzinadil 3y ago
  If the state can compel businesses into taking cash, the state can compel businesses into accepting cards. For the record I don't support either and believe it's up to every business to decide what form of payments to accept.
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    Not necessarily. The State can compel cash because it is the state mandated and controlled medium of exchange. Cards are not controlled by the state and thereby compel a business relationship with a private company. Probably if the state controlled cards, then it would have a mandate to, uh, mandate them. I realise it begs the question a little, the state can mandate cash because it's the state's mandated and controlled medium of exchange, but state power often begs the question.
joegibbs 3y ago
Card payments are done through a middleman (Visa, MasterCard) and therefore require a surcharge that's going to a private company. They charge much more than it actually costs them, even including chargebacks etc, which is how they're able to offer things like credit card rewards. In my opinion it was justifiable back when it was new and not heavily used, but now that the economy revolves around it it's just parasitism, and governments should either cap their fees like the EU does, or, if they want a cashless society, provide their own EFTPOS system that doesn't charge fees to do business.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  A business can always choose to only accept debit to limit their card transaction costs to near zero.
  - havaloc 3y ago
    Debit isn't always cheaper. https://dharmamerchantservices.com/faq/visa-consumer-interchange/ https://dharmamerchantservices.com/faq/visa-consumer-interch... Scroll down and check out the debit rates. 22 cents a transaction for credit union debit cards isn't cheap.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Maestro is 0.3-0.4% in Europe, which isn't bad.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Agree that it’s still killer for small transactions. Which is why the US federal government should have long ago offered electronic money transfer as a utility where merchant fees were low even for smaller dollar amount purchases.
- olliej 3y ago
  So? Taking cash costs money as well: more security, more auditing, more cash transport, higher insurance costs, etc Even better, because of forced cash now every business incurs those costs even if the overwhelming majority of their transactions aren’t in cash. The solution to “discrimination against homeless” is not forcing people to take cash, it’s forcing banks to allow homeless people to open bank accounts.
bsder 3y ago
Because not taking card or mobile payments doesn't directly harm people. It's a little less convenient, but you can still carry out your business. By contrast, allowing direct businesses to not take cash harms a not small section of our society.
- farzinadil 3y ago
  If a high end retailer like Gucci decided to stop accepting cash, who exactly would that harm?
  - bsder 3y ago
    Nobody. Nobody cares whether Gucci accepts cash. Cash laws are about interacting with your grocery, your gas station, your local government, etc. However, I'm not going to be particularly worried that Gucci has to accept cash transactions to make sure that Walgreen's also has to accept cash. Somehow, I bet Gucci will be just fine.
    - farzinadil 3y ago
      Businesses understand their clientele. In a free market, businesses like Gucci might elect to go cashless, while grocery stores, gas stations, and local government will continue to take cash without being forced to since it is in their economic interest to do so.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Many cash only businesses are such because they aren't allowed to take credit cards (anything dealing with marijuana ATM).
jaza 3y ago
Cash is a free service provided by the government. Card and mobile payment is a fees-attached service provided by businesses. There is every reason to mandate acceptance of the former, and zero reason to mandate acceptance of the latter.
- farzinadil 3y ago
  Nothing about a business dealing with cash is free. From security, transport, accounting, etc. There are costs involved in dealing with both forms of payments.
phito 3y ago
They've just done that in my country. Every business is obligated to have a way to pay using card (bancontact, payconic, ...). Cashless is allowed and it seems like it's where we are unfortunately heading

Probably because the state has limited ability to compel business relationships, thank God, and taking card effectively means enforcing a business relationship with a duopoly.

Spivak 3y ago
Is that really any different from Netflix being card only? Or worse being online-only so you need a relationship to an ISP?
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  Personally I think Netflix should be compelled to offer a path to using cash as well.
  - em500 3y ago
    Many of the larger internet services, including Netflix, can already be funded with cash via gift cards sold in supermarkets.
    - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
      Makes sense. Although it should probably be more like other bills you can pay at say a post-office. But yeah, it's better than no solution.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I'm not really sure how you could ever realize something like this without inventing prepaid cards which go through a card network anyway and are just ephemeral bank accounts backed by real banks. Any business that is large enough can get their gift cards in retail stores which would be fine. It would definitely create a moral hazard if Netflix had to provide a cash option like this because retail stores would suddenly have crazy amounts of leverage but w/e. But then naturally there would be market need for "accept cash payments for your online service" as a service for smaller businesses that can't just get partnerships with Target and Kroger and the entity providing that service would just be a bank issuing branded prepaid cards but using their own bespoke card network. Like you can't fight it, you always invent Visa. You could probably cut card networks out eventually with $as_of_yet_unlaunced_service backed by FedNow but that's not exactly cash and still requires a bank account.
    - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
      Well, a lot of bills are payable in cash at places like post-offices, and for some, service stations and convenience stores. You go in with your invoice, hand them cash, and get a receipt. No attack on you, but I feel like lots of people are suffering from not only a lack of imagination, but a serious lapse in memory for the days when they didn't always have a card and not every subscription was an online direct debit arrangement.
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
The 10th amendment gives states nearly unlimited right to enact any law. Many states literally have emergency power laws which grant the Governor essentially dictatorial powers (to create and enforce laws himself; by decree), which was used for lockdowns and mask mandates. It's a common misconception that arises from state legislatures doing nothing for several decades, but the power is there.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  I'm referring to "The State" not "the states". But otherwise, emergency powers are exactly that. At least in theory they are something that provides the state powers it would not normally have for a temporary period. Ideally with some checks against perpetual maintenance.
farzinadil 3y ago
If the state can compel businesses into taking cash, the state can compel businesses into accepting cards. For the record I don't support either and believe it's up to every business to decide what form of payments to accept.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  Not necessarily. The State can compel cash because it is the state mandated and controlled medium of exchange. Cards are not controlled by the state and thereby compel a business relationship with a private company. Probably if the state controlled cards, then it would have a mandate to, uh, mandate them. I realise it begs the question a little, the state can mandate cash because it's the state's mandated and controlled medium of exchange, but state power often begs the question.

joegibbs 3y ago

Card payments are done through a middleman (Visa, MasterCard) and therefore require a surcharge that's going to a private company. They charge much more than it actually costs them, even including chargebacks etc, which is how they're able to offer things like credit card rewards. In my opinion it was justifiable back when it was new and not heavily used, but now that the economy revolves around it it's just parasitism, and governments should either cap their fees like the EU does, or, if they want a cashless society, provide their own EFTPOS system that doesn't charge fees to do business.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
A business can always choose to only accept debit to limit their card transaction costs to near zero.
- havaloc 3y ago
  Debit isn't always cheaper. https://dharmamerchantservices.com/faq/visa-consumer-interchange/ https://dharmamerchantservices.com/faq/visa-consumer-interch... Scroll down and check out the debit rates. 22 cents a transaction for credit union debit cards isn't cheap.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Maestro is 0.3-0.4% in Europe, which isn't bad.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Agree that it’s still killer for small transactions. Which is why the US federal government should have long ago offered electronic money transfer as a utility where merchant fees were low even for smaller dollar amount purchases.
olliej 3y ago
So? Taking cash costs money as well: more security, more auditing, more cash transport, higher insurance costs, etc Even better, because of forced cash now every business incurs those costs even if the overwhelming majority of their transactions aren’t in cash. The solution to “discrimination against homeless” is not forcing people to take cash, it’s forcing banks to allow homeless people to open bank accounts.

bsder 3y ago

Because not taking card or mobile payments doesn't directly harm people. It's a little less convenient, but you can still carry out your business. By contrast, allowing direct businesses to not take cash harms a not small section of our society.

farzinadil 3y ago
If a high end retailer like Gucci decided to stop accepting cash, who exactly would that harm?
- bsder 3y ago
  Nobody. Nobody cares whether Gucci accepts cash. Cash laws are about interacting with your grocery, your gas station, your local government, etc. However, I'm not going to be particularly worried that Gucci has to accept cash transactions to make sure that Walgreen's also has to accept cash. Somehow, I bet Gucci will be just fine.
  - farzinadil 3y ago
    Businesses understand their clientele. In a free market, businesses like Gucci might elect to go cashless, while grocery stores, gas stations, and local government will continue to take cash without being forced to since it is in their economic interest to do so.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Many cash only businesses are such because they aren't allowed to take credit cards (anything dealing with marijuana ATM).

jaza 3y ago

Cash is a free service provided by the government. Card and mobile payment is a fees-attached service provided by businesses. There is every reason to mandate acceptance of the former, and zero reason to mandate acceptance of the latter.

farzinadil 3y ago
Nothing about a business dealing with cash is free. From security, transport, accounting, etc. There are costs involved in dealing with both forms of payments.

phito 3y ago

They've just done that in my country. Every business is obligated to have a way to pay using card (bancontact, payconic, ...). Cashless is allowed and it seems like it's where we are unfortunately heading