Fuck banks. I’ve worked for too many to ever have a bank account. They are all slimy fuckers. All of them. I’d rather a check casher rip me off up front once and done than have a fucking bank with all sorts of hidden fees and fines and not giving me my money when I need it, then paying money I don’t have just to charge overdrafts. I pay bills by giving the wife cash to do it. Or by money order. I don’t buy anything other than food n booze n gas anyway.
Which is why I said that you wouldn’t use SNAP, merely use the structure of a card given by the government that can be used for payment. You could put SNAP INTO the over arching card along with any other benefits. Not sure why this concept is getting so much resistance, or such vehement resistance. Do you think poor people wouldn’t understand the concept? I really have no idea what the issue is here.
If you are trying to say that ‘most poor people’ work for cash only under the table, then I think you are wrong. I do concede that this one aspect would be an issue, but I don’t think it would be insurmountable.
As to the rest, clearly you don’t understand what I’m talking about. The government wouldn’t be in competition with banks. They could use banks if necessary, but I don’t think it would be an issue for 7% (your figure) of people to get what is basically a debit card issued by the government into which wages and benefits could be deposited for use. The government does this already with some benefits and I don’t see the banks howling or pulling on their beards or capitalist top hats in anguish over the lost revenue.
Anyway, clearly this is a sensitive subject to you, so I’ll just back away slowly and leave it there. It isn’t what the OP is asking, which seems to be why do we have a Federal Reserve and why doesn’t the government take direct control of the money supply…or something. Maybe we should go back to the gold standard while we are at it. Clearly this technology stuff along with new fangled ideas like the Federal Reserve have brought us to grief and ruin.
If the government established a program by which poor people could aggregate funds from various sources, like wages, government benefits, loans from family, whatever — that would be a bank account.
Maybe we are talking past each other? Most poor people work, period. They get cash or paychecks from their job. They are not wholly dependent on government assistance.
Again, if the government offers a system by which poor people can aggregate their money, that’s a bank account. I’m totally puzzled as to why you think it isn’t.
The government does not do such a thing. You can’t a paycheck deposited into your SNAP EBT card; in any case, that EBT can’t be used to pay for movie tickets or whatever.
I’m not angry, I’m just totally puzzled at how you think this would ever work.
Just because there are people like you who exclusively use cash, doesn’t mean we are not already “mostly cashless”.
Poor people get “debit cards” for SNAP, TANF, and WIC.
However, SNAP and WIC are only good for food items. People with just SNAP and WIC and no TANF are, in my experience as a cashier, about 50/50 if they pay for non-food items with card or cash.
There is a contingent of elderly people who are still mostly cash or check.
There are a small number of paranoid types who are cash only.
Foreign nationals are often cash only.
Then there’s a sort of random assortment of people who pay for their stuff in cash. Sometimes it’s a lot of singles - once had a gentleman pay for a $78 bill with just singles. Some of them have $50’s and $100’s. $20’s are most popular. Some of them are folks who get a lot of tips like waitresses and bartenders. Some are, apparently, rich people who walk around with a lot of cash in their pockets. Some have probably acquired their cash by, shall we say, shady means but that’s not something I feel a need to ask about.
Bottom line, there is still quite a lot of cash and cash transactions out there. I’d say about 1/3 of the transactions I handle every day are entirely cash, and some of the remainder a mix of cash/card/check/contactless
Some jobs still pay in cash (especially under-the-table or illicit work)
Some jobs will issue you a paper check and, at least in my area, you can go to a place called a “currency exchange” which will cash your paycheck for a fee.
For utilities you either go to a branch office and make a payment there in cash, or obtain a money order and mail it in.
It is getting harder to exist cash-only in the US but it is certainly possible to do so.
Depending on how you measure, around 90% of the worlds wealth exists electronically, so this statement is technically correct. However, I’m not talking about how wealth exists on paper, I’m talking about money as a medium for transactions.
7% of Americans do not have a bank account. From the same cite.
So roughly 27% percent of all American’s are by definition, not cashless. Your world might not change if the government did away with cash, but over 1 out of 4 Americans would have their financial world change.
It’s not just me. 32% of all retail transactions are cash. (Which agrees with Broomstick) I think you need more than 2/3 to qualify as “mostly.”
Furthermore, in a “mostly cashless” society, I would think it would be hard to pay cash for consumer goods, and businesses would not accept cash or keep cash on premises to make change. This is not even remotely the case. Cash Is Still The Most Popular Form Of Payment For Most Americans. “More than three-quarters, or 79 percent, of consumers said they made a cash purchase in the last seven days”
Now the trends are changing, and in a couple decades I will probably be viewed as an archaic dinosaur for my love of cash. However, as of today, I stand by my statement that Americans are not mostly cashless.
The best kind of correct!
Yes, my answer was a bit flippant and before I realized that the OP is basically (I think) a government takeover of all financial transactions. I thought it was just replacing the ‘cash’ portion with something and I was pointing out there is a lot more money out there that is not represented by our cash tokens.
And I don’t.
However, your post is now much better than your original that offered a single anecdote as a rebuttal to “mostly”.
Even if 2/3 of transactions are non-cash, I think a lot of people who spend mostly cash still like to have some cash on hand and use it for small transactions.
For certain things (like gas, or purchases under $20) I usually use cash. For big items, I usually use non-cash means. I think that pattern is fairly common these days, and it’s one reason for the persistence of cash - for small items it’s still the first choice of a lot of people.
Since the main impetus for the cashless society is the enormous transfer of monies from retailers to Visa and its associated banks; if the Treasury were to take it over, then the reason for it would go away. Granted, the USA Treasury would have its own reason: They love the idea of knowing where every single dollar is, and being able to freeze the assets of political targets around the world. They already do this to banks in other countries. Imagine them doing it to private citizens, everywhere.
Yes, like the scam that Nevada has where all unemployment benefits are issued via a debit card. Wells Fargo has made a fortune off the remainders that ATM’s cannot dole out.