So what you are really saying is “we have people who are poor and we want to help them. Let’s put that burden on every retail business in town and make them less efficient”.
This isn’t the only valid route. It’s arguably much more efficient to tax everyone equally and then spend that money to help the poor, getting them low end smartphones or a no-fee cash card or something.
Similarly, instead of rent control, the way you make housing affordable is you increase supply. Then offer assistance to those who can’t afford even the low rents in a city. Rent control distorts the market and puts all the burden of helping the poor on some landlords.
I think it’s discriminatory. I said as much when I called Mayor Kenney and urged him to sign the bill after it passed city council.
I do see a slippery slope. Not only will more and more businesses not accept cash, fewer Philadelphians (those who can afford smart phones and cards) will carry cash. If all you have are cards and smartphones, it’s impossible to give money to a homeless person who has neither.
There are several cultures and religions that require bare feet.
And, shoes are not needed for the airplane to fly.
. The airline could impose additional requirements for hygiene, etc.
Oh, I agree with the system you outline in paragraph two, but the stupid and cruel society in which we live does not appear to accept government acting in that role. See healthcare in the US for another example of how stupid and cruel the US can be.
I agree with bump. As long as cash remains legal, many people will prefer to deal in it, some because they are engaged in illicit activities, some because they are too poor to have a bank account, and some because they prefer it. When you have that large subset of people who deal in cash, you will have stores out there who will accept cash to cater to this trade.
I guess I just don’t understand the alarmist nature of some who support this. Why do some of you think that because a handful of boutique stores have gone cashless that this means that this will be a trend? I mean, Wal-Mart caters to poorer people. Why would they forego this business?
Has the city of Philadelphia determined how many businesses in Philly are cashless? I mean what sort of problem are they trying to correct? Or is this some sort of solution that makes the mayor or city council sound great, when in reality there really isn’t a problem that needs to be fixed. The five kiosks in Philly that don’t take cash were probably going out of business next week anyhow.
I’m not sure I understand your argument. If Philadelphia has decided it doesn’t want any cash-only businesses in its city, does it have to wait until they have opened up in order to ban them? Why can’t it say “Don’t come to our town, we don’t want you here”?
If a town doesn’t want any houses of ill-repute or saloons operating in it, does it have to wait until it is full of brothels to ban them?
What’s wrong with dealing with a problem preemptively?
And, yes, I understand that you think not wanting cash-only businesses is stupid, I agree.
Isn’t cash-only just as discriminatory? Many poor people do have bank accounts. I’ve noticed that a lot of cash-only businesses “conveniently” have private ATMs that charge the customer a significant fee for using. If you have money, it’s no big deal to keep some cash on hand. If you’re poor, trying to avoid ATM fees and overdraft fees, and it’s unfeasible for you to take frequent trips to a bank branch location, it’s much harder.
I was poor and living single for years. My paychecks were direct deposited. It would have been so much easier and cheaper for me if I could have just never needed cash, kept all my money in the one bank account, and used my card for everything. I tried not carrying cash for some time, and it was fine the majority of the time, but led to some incidents of massive frustration.
The need to carry cash is a barrier (not the sole one) standing in the way for the unbanked poor. Opening a bank account becomes more of a real option for them if it can replace their cash spending entirely, rather than needing to maintain both. Additionally, check cashing services cost money that poor people shouldn’t need to spend.
How would you know it’s a problem unless you have some data on the number of cashless businesses and how that compares to the ones that do accept cash?
Let’s say you fear it may become a problem and would rather stop it before it does. If no one is doing it or planning to do it, you aren’t harming anyone by banning it.
Again, do you have to wait for something to become a problem before doing something about it?
I would think the Philadelphia City Council would be busy enough dealing with problems that exist today, rather than spending time on hypothetical issues. But maybe I’m just weird.
Maybe heading off potential problems, rather than letting them become festering issues, will leave them with more time to deal with other problems? And I don’t think that dealing with problems that might exist today and heading off potential problems are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Do you live in Philadelphia? If not, what right do you have to dictate the Philadelphia City Council’s priorities?
I said no such thing. I merely gave specific amounts for the gerneric ‘fees’ you listed in your post because I happen to know them because of a work project. All I stated was that the fixed fee is a larger percentage of a smaller deposit.
Ok. I agree you didn’t say that. Implicitly, though, you were saying that high fees hurt the poor, which is true, and implicitly this thread is about a possible solution - forcing all businesses in town to accept cash. So I jumped to address that.
When my brother came to visit me in Philadelphia (2002), he was surprised to see long lines on several corners. “What’s all those people?”
“Payday loans and cashing checks. See those places with that thingee with the balls?”
“…yeah?”
“Those places give short-term loans at usurious rates and cash out checks. The people standing on line have been paid today (many people here get paid every two weeks) by check and can’t get a bank account. They are trying to either cash in the check for a hefty commission, pay off their latest loan, or both.”
Brother: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Americans don’t get paid every other Friday any more, but many people living in the US still can’t get a bank account.
Conversely, I’m still miffed at encountering a Swedish public bathroom which only worked with coins. The one time you may be in a hurry was the one time I needed coins! In a country in which getting a bank account is easy, expecting people to have one isn’t onerous. The whole thing reminds me of the difference between ID requirements in Spain (where photo ID is required but also free and easy to obtain and renew) and the US (where it is not required but also can be expensive and a bitch to get).