DC ban on cashless business

[Anonymous]

It's a policy which makes it easier to rob businesses. Cashless business can't be robbed.

Another ill-considered leftist policy which will provoke a backlash from Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Legal tender for all debts, public and private" baby

Debt. It's legal for a business to not allow cash for a purchase, but for a debt already incurred, they have to accept cash. That includes restaurants where you pay after dining

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

[Anonymous]

I would support a more targeted law that only required businesses that sell necessary items (grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, etc.) to take cash. Because your ability to buy food or medicine or diapers should not depend on your ability to get a bank card.

However I don't see the point in requiring all restaurants, bars, and retail businesses to take cash. Many of these businesses are not accessible to poor people anyway because they cost too much. Should a restaurant where the cheapest thing on the menu is a $20 appetizer be required to take cash in order to better serve poor people? It's comical. They aren't serving anything a person needs -- it's a discretionary item.

I personally cannot afford to eat at places like minibar, I don't see what the point is of making them take cash if they don't want to.

The axios article did say there were exempted businesses, though it also said they might change the law to expand the businesses covered.

I do think that if a businesses sells non-essential, discretionary items, they should get to decide for themselves. The market will determine whether they need to offer cash transactions. But yeah, a grocery store should have to take cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would support a more targeted law that only required businesses that sell necessary items (grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, etc.) to take cash. Because your ability to buy food or medicine or diapers should not depend on your ability to get a bank card.

However I don't see the point in requiring all restaurants, bars, and retail businesses to take cash. Many of these businesses are not accessible to poor people anyway because they cost too much. Should a restaurant where the cheapest thing on the menu is a $20 appetizer be required to take cash in order to better serve poor people? It's comical. They aren't serving anything a person needs -- it's a discretionary item.

I personally cannot afford to eat at places like minibar, I don't see what the point is of making them take cash if they don't want to.

The axios article did say there were exempted businesses, though it also said they might change the law to expand the businesses covered.

I do think that if a businesses sells non-essential, discretionary items, they should get to decide for themselves. The market will determine whether they need to offer cash transactions. But yeah, a grocery store should have to take cash.

You can pay cash at a sit down restaurant even if they don't accept it if you want to be an ass about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would support a more targeted law that only required businesses that sell necessary items (grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, etc.) to take cash. Because your ability to buy food or medicine or diapers should not depend on your ability to get a bank card.

However I don't see the point in requiring all restaurants, bars, and retail businesses to take cash. Many of these businesses are not accessible to poor people anyway because they cost too much. Should a restaurant where the cheapest thing on the menu is a $20 appetizer be required to take cash in order to better serve poor people? It's comical. They aren't serving anything a person needs -- it's a discretionary item.

I personally cannot afford to eat at places like minibar, I don't see what the point is of making them take cash if they don't want to.

The axios article did say there were exempted businesses, though it also said they might change the law to expand the businesses covered.

I do think that if a businesses sells non-essential, discretionary items, they should get to decide for themselves. The market will determine whether they need to offer cash transactions. But yeah, a grocery store should have to take cash.

I agree with this. I think businesses should be able to determine what tender they take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The government is doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable populations, who are not eligible for credit, and may not even have debit cards or even bank accounts.

I don't think they can legislate against apps, which obviously cannot deal in cash, but they can require that brick and mortars accept cash.

I support this.

Everyone has SNAP cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Need to put more cash out there for criminals to have "access" to.

No one has to carry cash now, I suspect this law will result in exactly zero businesses deciding not to accept credit cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government is doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable populations, who are not eligible for credit, and may not even have debit cards or even bank accounts.

I don't think they can legislate against apps, which obviously cannot deal in cash, but they can require that brick and mortars accept cash.

I support this.

Why cannot they legislate against apps doing business in DC?

Because it doesn't makes sense from a legal and public interest point of view. The goal is to provide services to all. Just because some people can only make purchases in cash, doesn't mean the rest of the population should be denied app-based services. Dealing with cash is a cost of doing business in a brick and mortar, and that will probably not change any time soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government is doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable populations, who are not eligible for credit, and may not even have debit cards or even bank accounts.

I don't think they can legislate against apps, which obviously cannot deal in cash, but they can require that brick and mortars accept cash.

I support this.

Why cannot they legislate against apps doing business in DC?

Because it doesn't makes sense from a legal and public interest point of view. The goal is to provide services to all. Just because some people can only make purchases in cash, doesn't mean the rest of the population should be denied app-based services. Dealing with cash is a cost of doing business in a brick and mortar, and that will probably not change any time soon.

You have not actually made an argument that makes sense. What is the difference between using an app to order take out or ordering over the phone?

What’s the difference between an Uber driver only accepting electronic payment via the app and a DC taxi driver being forced to accept cash if he doesn’t want to?

The app companies are “doing business in DC” and they can be regulated accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a policy which makes it easier to rob businesses. Cashless business can't be robbed.

Another ill-considered leftist policy which will provoke a backlash from Congress.

Fwiw, going cashless has not reduced crime in Europe. Sweden is cashless and is having problems with digital/cyber crime as well as with issues such as excluding the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government is doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable populations, who are not eligible for credit, and may not even have debit cards or even bank accounts.

I don't think they can legislate against apps, which obviously cannot deal in cash, but they can require that brick and mortars accept cash.

I support this.

Everyone has SNAP cards.

I only accept cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/12/16/cashless-ban-business-exemptions-bars-restaurants

I'm having trouble grasping the legality of this. Why can't the businesses just accept payment how they want to? Does the DC government really have jurisdiction over this?

Wow the DC government is doing something positive and correct!

[Anonymous]

There are a ton of prepaid cards out there, including some with zero fees that can be loaded with cash for free at walmart and other locations. Lots of people choose to use cash not because they don't have a card (many of them do have cards), but because they don't want anyone to be able to track their under-the-table or illegal income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a policy which makes it easier to rob businesses. Cashless business can't be robbed.

Another ill-considered leftist policy which will provoke a backlash from Congress.

Fwiw, going cashless has not reduced crime in Europe. Sweden is cashless and is having problems with digital/cyber crime as well as with issues such as excluding the poor.

DC stores should have a policy where only credit cards are accepted and you need to scan them in order to enter the store. Voila, theft problems solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The government is doing its job of protecting the most vulnerable populations, who are not eligible for credit, and may not even have debit cards or even bank accounts.

I don't think they can legislate against apps, which obviously cannot deal in cash, but they can require that brick and mortars accept cash.

I support this.

Agreed. The US dollar is legal tender and should be accepted. And beyond adults who can't get credit or a bank card, kids and tweens should not be left in the lurch.