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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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