5 ms·

It isn't about preference. It's well understood that refusing cash payments has an outsized impact on both the impoverished and underrepresented classes. One e

It isn't about preference. It's well understood that refusing cash payments has an outsized impact on both the impoverished and underrepresented classes. One easy way to keep the homeless from coming in to make purchases is to refuse cash payments. The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people. Businesses are also run by people. Everything is people. The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving. It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month. It would rather just write a rule, take the credit, and have someone else pay all the costs.
- LocalH 3y ago
  > The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving. Handling cash has been an accepted cost of business for over a century, but now it’s somehow an undue burden to continue doing so? Hogwash. > It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month. That sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Good luck at getting something like that implemented in the US.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Handling cash has been an accepted cost of business for over a century, but now it’s somehow an undue burden to continue doing so? Hogwash. Handling cash is a big cost. You have to store it, get it moved in and out, stop people stealing it, be insured against people stealing it, count it, make sure you have change available, etc etc. Yes people did it, and cash used to get stolen more. More importantly, this isn't about the cost of cash. It's the mandatory of adding this cost in to businesses that don't want to pay all that money to handle money. > That sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It's a solution to a very specific problem: cashless shops.
    - komali2 3y ago
      > It's a solution to a very specific problem: cashless shops. Why should the government be responsible for building out an incredible infrastructure project so that some businesses don't have to worry about handling cash? Cash is not a new concept, we've been using it since the inception of the nation. Suddenly some businesses find a way to save a buck by not handling it, but this also happens to segregate a portion of Americans, but oh well that's not their fault, if the government doesn't like businesses doing segregation, the government can just become a bank? And issues cards? Nah. In the USA if you want to do business you need to manage and handle cash. That's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Cost of doing business. You also have to track your revenue and file taxes. That's perfectly reasonable as well, right? Or should the government be responsible for auditing every single company and managing their finances to determine how much tax is owed? I mean it would save the company money, right?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Why should the government be responsible for building out an incredible infrastructure project so that some businesses don't have to worry about handling cash? Your post is pretty poor tone-wise, but I'll address this. It's the exact opposite of what you're saying. If the government wants something, it should pay for it. Business is not imposing anything on the government. Business pays the government money it earns, and the government decides how much, and how long to lock the owner in a box for if they don't pay enough. Why should businesses be financially responsible for things the government is paid to solve?
        komali2 3y ago
        I was replicating your tone, because the question seems silly: businesses have to do what governments say because governments aren't businesses, they're representations of the people's will and protectors of the people's wellbeing. Businesses are profit generating algorithms with singular purpose. They have no other concerns. Without governments, businesses would seek profit through horrifying means.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> The government's job isn't to cater to business preferences it is to look out for the well-being of the people. Businesses are also run by people. Everything is people. The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving. It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month. It would rather just write a rule, take the credit, and have someone else pay all the costs.

LocalH 3y ago
> The difference here is the government wants to impose cost on businesses to solve problems it should be solving. Handling cash has been an accepted cost of business for over a century, but now it’s somehow an undue burden to continue doing so? Hogwash. > It could solve them by issuing every homeless person with a credit card that gets topped up by X a month. That sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Good luck at getting something like that implemented in the US.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Handling cash has been an accepted cost of business for over a century, but now it’s somehow an undue burden to continue doing so? Hogwash. Handling cash is a big cost. You have to store it, get it moved in and out, stop people stealing it, be insured against people stealing it, count it, make sure you have change available, etc etc. Yes people did it, and cash used to get stolen more. More importantly, this isn't about the cost of cash. It's the mandatory of adding this cost in to businesses that don't want to pay all that money to handle money. > That sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It's a solution to a very specific problem: cashless shops.
  - komali2 3y ago
    > It's a solution to a very specific problem: cashless shops. Why should the government be responsible for building out an incredible infrastructure project so that some businesses don't have to worry about handling cash? Cash is not a new concept, we've been using it since the inception of the nation. Suddenly some businesses find a way to save a buck by not handling it, but this also happens to segregate a portion of Americans, but oh well that's not their fault, if the government doesn't like businesses doing segregation, the government can just become a bank? And issues cards? Nah. In the USA if you want to do business you need to manage and handle cash. That's a perfectly reasonable expectation. Cost of doing business. You also have to track your revenue and file taxes. That's perfectly reasonable as well, right? Or should the government be responsible for auditing every single company and managing their finances to determine how much tax is owed? I mean it would save the company money, right?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Why should the government be responsible for building out an incredible infrastructure project so that some businesses don't have to worry about handling cash? Your post is pretty poor tone-wise, but I'll address this. It's the exact opposite of what you're saying. If the government wants something, it should pay for it. Business is not imposing anything on the government. Business pays the government money it earns, and the government decides how much, and how long to lock the owner in a box for if they don't pay enough. Why should businesses be financially responsible for things the government is paid to solve?
      - komali2 3y ago
        I was replicating your tone, because the question seems silly: businesses have to do what governments say because governments aren't businesses, they're representations of the people's will and protectors of the people's wellbeing. Businesses are profit generating algorithms with singular purpose. They have no other concerns. Without governments, businesses would seek profit through horrifying means.