Shouldn’t it be a function of the U.S. Dept. of Treasury?
You know… rather than having private entities taking a cut and being responsible for all that data?
If it comes down to a choice, I’d take my chances with private companies. If I don’t like one company, I can switch to another. Also, private entities can’t put me in jail.
But I doubt that the U.S, will go cashless anytime soon.
By cash, do you mean physical tokens such as coins and printed bills? If so, we are mostly cashless right now. Not much would change if we were totally cashless and everything was done with cards, mobile phone wallets, and the like.
You’d prefer the government having an incentive to raise funds via the transaction fee and having all that data?
Why does there have to be a transaction fee at all? And could not a system be developed with a minimum of data instead of having it by run by Apple or Google etc. who profit from selling our personal data?
Currently the Dept. of Treasury prints and mints cash and coins. Why couldn’t/ shouldn’t those resources be spent managing a cashless system?
Are you talking about the Federal Reserve? Assuming you are, then I’m good with the way it is, regardless of whether there are physical bills or cashless transactions (which is how most things are today anyway and going more and more that way in the future).
If you are talking about some other ‘private entities’ can you define what you are getting at?
Because someone needs an incentive to do the work, monitoring for fraud, keeping everything safe and secure. Certainly things aren’t ideal right now, but they are pretty good and getting better. Why do Credit Cards charge a fee for each transaction? Because they are ensuring that vendors get their money, fraud is rooted out, and commerce can happen. They’re not doing all that for free. If the US Government takes on that task it would just come out of our taxes, it wouldn’t be as flexible, or efficient.
Because those are fundamentally different activities.
Exactly! The OP apparently doesn’t know very many poor or lower class people, most of whom can’t afford a credit/debit card or the associated bank account or distrust banks.
Sweden is discussing this right now, and one issue is that a Russian invasion or terrorist attack could stop every financial transaction.
Don’t be so sure of yourself:
http://www.gettingfoodstamps.org/whatissnap.html
And I believe there are other examples of “poor or lower class” (?) people being provided a debit card of sorts.
The last major trips I have taken were to Sudan, Somaliland and Iran. All three are cash-only places were ATM and credit cards are useless. It’d be hard to go there is I could not get cash in advance.
Being issued something that is essentially a gift card for groceries is not the same thing as having a bank account or general purpose credit or debit card. Roughly 7% of Americans have no bank account at all.
I work in a grocery store and I know all about SNAP and their EBT cards which are not the same as a bank-issued debit or credit card, which is what I thought you meant. Beside that, SNAP has restrictions on how their cards are used.
Also agree with Ravenman.
No, we are not. I pay for everything with cash. I don’t have a bank account, a credit card, or a mobile phone wallet, and I have no intention on getting any of these things. I value my privacy much higher than any credit card rewards program.
QFT. To be fair, it’s not just the OP, lots of the posters on this board don’t appear to know very many poor or lower class people.
Without a bank account, how do you get paid from your job? Who will cash a check for you? Or do you get paid in cash?
How do you pay your electricity bill?
How do you pay your internet bill?
When I lived in Georgia (the country) I was paid in cash and used cash for everything. There were no ATMs anywhere in the country. It seems hard to do that in the US though.
I was talking about the U.S. And yes, most money exists electronically not as cash by an order of magnitude, even if some people pay for everything in cash.
Well, this seems to be straying far from whatever the hell the OP was asking, but it seems like if we were to go cashless completely that conceptually this would be how you’d do it, not that you’d use SNAP or current programs to do it. I mean, how hard would it be to have poor people sign up for government issued debit cards that could have whatever programs they are on allotted to them directly instead of giving them a check that they would have to take to a bank to cash (which also has issues)?
Not that it’s likely to happen any time soon, and my WAG is it will happen organically as it’s been happening, instead of by fiat or decree.
I get paid by check. By law (in Canada), the issuing bank of the check is required to pay you it’s value as long as you have ID. They usually charge a few bucks for the privilege. So I simply take my check to the issuing bank and get cash once per month.
As for my bills, I pay my bills mostly at the bank, though I have to pay for water at city hall. I give them the slip from the bill with cash, they pay it and give me change.
In Hong Kong lots of people use the Octopus Card issued by the MTR subway system for transaction in stores and restaurants as well as for transit. Works great. We used some cash, but I noticed even less use of cash than in the US.
The problem with a government issued card is credit, which it seems most people run on credit cards. But you could still have multiple card readers, like in Hong Kong.
You can put money on Octopus cards in transit stations and I assume other places, there are no fees, and since you spend money on the card no interest. No bank account needed. You can see where you spent money at, so the issuer keeps data on you.
Because most poor people work for most of their money, and there ain’t no goddamn way that the government will be allowed to set up checking accounts for those workers for all their wages. The banks would shit their pants and burn everything down if they ran into this kind of “competition” from Uncle Sam.
Besides, the first word of SNAP shows that it isn’t intended to pay for all the food someone might need in a month: “supplemental.”