Forum: Site Announcements

I accept all main currencies in Cash

Yuan/renminbi? 🤪

I accept all main currencies in Cash. Euros and British pounds also accepted.

Darn, and I wanted to make a purchase in Venezuelan Bolivars. Just so I could laugh that a single US$1 book purchase cost me over 382 billion Bolivars.

Why not Paypal ?

They do NOT approve of 'adult' material, among other reasons. From their AUP:

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

(g) items that are considered obscene,
(i) certain sexually oriented materials or services,

I have always used my Visa Debit card.

A few years back, Visa changed their rules to allow Visa debit cards to be used at any Visa outlet, including those which previously only accepted credit cards using non-electronic means.

AJ

By Visa check card, do you mean it can be used to guarantee checks? That was stripped from UK debit cards before they were allowed to use any Visa outlet.

My current issue has an RFID chip so payments can be contactless as well as chip-and-pin.

AJ

If you go to the Visa and MC websites you will have a hard time finding the term "Check Card."

In the UK, a cheque card was a card that guaranteed a cheque up to £50 would be honoured. Then the idea of debit cards was introduced cheque cards served as debit cards as well. Big Finance has declared war on payments by cheques - most UK supermarkets no longer accept them - and the cheque guarantee card has been removed from debit cards.

AJ

Check Card is a brand name/term used by Visa/MC.

Here's a little credit card trivia.

When I joined American Express they had one card. It was green. Then we came out with the Corporate Card (which was also green). Then we came out with the Gold Card so we, employees, called them the Corporate Card, green card, and gold card, the latter two by color.

Visa and MC then came out with their own Gold Card. Amex said "Gold Card" was a trademarked name. The legal dept sent out a notice to all employees to never say green card ever again. We had to call it the "Personal Card" (vs "Corporate Card"). The reason was if we did call it the green card, we were referring to the card by color and therefore "Gold Card" was a color and not a brand.

Since Visa and MC continued to issue Gold Cards I guess it didn't hold up in court.

In the UK, a growing number of organisations - particularly small retailers and government institutions - refuse to accept credit cards.

The EU has ruled that the price of goods must be the same for both debit and credit card customers, but the extra overheads to retailers makes credit cards uncompetitive.

AJ

The EU has ruled that the price of goods must be the same for both debit and credit card customers, but the extra overheads to retailers makes credit cards uncompetitive.

I worked for American Express' Card Division for almost 20 years. Amex charged a higher discount rate than Visa and MasterCard so merchants were hesitant to accept it. A restaurant in France wanted the Amex decal in the window to attract people but had a sign on every table telling them not to use the Amex card. Amex told them to take the signs down. The restaurant refused. Amex dropped them. The restaurant went out of business and sued Amex. They lost. They went out of business because much of their clientele were business people who needed to use their Amex Corporate Card. When they couldn't, they couldn't go to that restaurant.

In the UK, a growing number of organisations - particularly small retailers and government institutions - refuse to accept credit cards.

The EU has ruled that the price of goods must be the same for both debit and credit card customers, but the extra overheads to retailers makes credit cards uncompetitive.

The same is true in Australia, and that's what's killed off the bulk of the general public not getting or using Amex or Diners Club cards - the great majority of those are now used by businesses for entertainment and travel as that's about the only places where you can use them now.

As to debit card vs credit card - with a debit card I do not have to take any action to pay the card each month as it's paid on each transaction. Also, if you draw cash on a credit card down here you start paying interest on the amount the next morning, but not on a debit card. A third point is the fees for drawing cash from another network's ATM is higher on a credit card than on a debit card.

As to debit card vs credit card

In the UK IIRC, debit cards can be used to place bets with bookmakers, but not credit cards - allegedly because that would be equivalent to withdrawing cash, not buying something.

AJ

For anything else, always use a credit card and pay it off monthly.

Pay it off monthly. That's the key.

And choose a no-fee card that gives you something back. I have a Visa with Fidelity Invesments that pays me back 2% in cash. I have to get the cash in my Fidelity account and then EFT it to my bank otherwise I only get back 1%. This month I got over $100 back. That's free money.

And with my Chase Visa credit card, they have quarterly merchant deals. Use the card with those merchants (this quarter it's Walmart) and you get 5% cash back. (If it's not the quarter merchant, I think you get 1.5% back. Not sure because I use my Fidelity card for those and get 2% back.)

And then there is float. You buy things now but don't actually pay for them until later. So you have the money in your pocket or earn interest on it.

But if you don't pay the balance every month, everything I said is useless because of the credit card companies' usury rates.

But if you don't pay the balance every month, everything I said is useless because of the credit card companies' usury rates.

Yep. You're basically talking about and doing what my wife and I do. Other than our vehicle loans, we've been on a cash basis for a long time. Several years ago, we got a rewards card and now we use those. I'm averaging about $50 per month back, and I always pay them off. Got the money in the bank to pay cash, but the funny thing is, the credit card cash back is a better rate of return than short term investments right now.

the credit card cash back is a better rate of return than short term investments right now.

And tax free.

And tax free.

Cash back rewards are considered by the IRS to be rebates, so those aren't taxable. Per the IRS:

"Consistent with prior practice, the IRS will not assert that any taxpayer has understated his federal tax liability by reason of the receipt or personal use of frequent flyer miles or other in-kind promotional benefits attributable to the taxpayer's business or official travel."

[Announcement 2002-18, Part IV, Items of General Interest: Frequent Flyer Miles Attributable to Business or Official Travel]

Of course, all it takes is greedy Congresscritters to make those 'rebates' into taxable income.

The only good reason to use a debit card instead of a credit card is if you're bad with managing your finances including credit.

That may be true in Canada, however, here in Australia there are very valid reason to not use a credit card. With credit card transaction there is usually a 'transaction fee' attached, but when you use a debit card from the same service the 'transaction fee' is not attached in the majority of cases. This means a savings between a few dollars to $30.00 depending on the transaction and the fee amount - which often varies with the organisation you're buying from.

One on-line store I regularly buy from has a 5% transaction fee for credit cards but no transaction fee for debit card from the same banking service. In some states the lack of fees on debit cards is due to the state laws, and I don't know why the variations in the other states.

But you're not exactly hurting the business if you use a credit card, businesses usually has the credit card fees built into the price.

That's the point. Buy something priced at $100.00 by debit card or cash and you pay $100.00 - - but buy the same thing where it says 5% credit card surcharge and you pay $105.00 - heck, one site even has 2% surcharge for purchase by PayPal, and some will charge a fee for debit cards as well as credit cards.

The Commonwealth government require that retailers show the full retail price on all goods and service sold / provided to include the relevant taxes (mostly GST). However, the businesses claim that is the cash price and any other method of payment you wish to use than cash makes the buyer responsible for all of the fees for using that service, and the government backs them up on that. So what used to be the 'merchant's fees' for Amex, Visa, etc. are now a surcharged the customer pays if they choose to pay with that method. Because a debit card is the same as a cash payment there is no merchant fee in many cases.

Wow, I'm old and I've never been in any situation where paying with a credit card incurred an extra fee for me.

Here's an article that explains it. I haven't finished reading it yet, but it seems like a good article: https://www.thebalance.com/credit-card-surcharges-315423

Yes, from the seller point of view, Debit is better than credit. Even in Canada. Even for SOL. SOL and Bookapy's card fees range between 4.2% and 7.3% depending on the card used (because of card absent environment).

But from the buyer's point of view, Credit is infinitely better.

Sometimes the seller passes the credit card charge to the buyer. I believe that's what Ernest is talking about.

So if you buy with a credit card, you are charged a transaction fee. I don't know if it's the same amount the seller pays the credit card company, but there is a fee.

I'll give you an example:

I pay my water bill to the city with a credit card. But I pay my electric bill with an e-check. Why? The City of Peoria (water bill) doesn't charge a transaction fee. Arizona Public Service (electric bill) does.

Sometimes the seller passes the credit card charge to the buyer. I believe that's what Ernest is talking about.

There's a constant to-and-fro struggle between retailers, who want to make the same profit from each transaction, and credit card companies, who don't want to be seen as charging for all the added security they provide, and governments are the arbiters.

At the moment, credit card companies have the ascendancy in the EU - it is illegal to charge different prices to debit and credit card customers. As a result, many smaller outlets dropped credit cards.

AJ

in the EU - it is illegal to charge different prices to debit and credit card customers.

It used to be like that in the U.S. but no longer. The article I linked to explains it.

@Dominions_Son: If that were true, then a similar situation would happen if you tried to spend a hundred dollar bill for a beer.

The term "Bitcoin" is a metaphor for one hundred thousand "satoshi's," the unit of account used by the bitcoin protocol/software.

SOL's Premier Service currently equates to $67.99 USD = 508,212 Satoshi = 0.00508212 BTC.

Sending that amount to SOL would cost you ~$0.03, and SOL would receive 0.00508212 BTC immediately in their Bitcoin wallet and within an hour or two have full confirmation where they could either spend it on bills, or be able to exchange it at current rates by one of the many ATM's located in Canada, and receive Canadian dollars for it, PLUS SOL would not have to be concerned about ANY third party(such as a bank or the US or Canadian governments) inflicting their moral opinions on your desire for your subscription.

Bitcoin is a border-less, permission-less, decentralized, portable, anonymous, unstoppable, and secure payment system which can't be inflated by printing presses.

I found a free, open-source, easy-to-use, server-based PHP solution on GitHub at the BTC-Toolbox repository. The people there can help get it set up for use.

I guess it all depends on how many beers you are buying, and how good the beer is, right?

Not really. A lot of gas stations around here won't take $100 bills, not even if you are buying $120 in gas.

The only place I know I could reliably use a $100 note is CVS. Even the places without signs limiting use to $20 notes (or smaller) can't reliably be counted on to accept $100 notes.

Just for comparisson, was watching Perry Mason (1957 episode, not the current HBO version) and someone handed Perry two $1000 notes for a retainer, then stated bring a $10,000 note to pay the legal fees if necessary.

I have handled a $1000 note, but not a $10,000 note.

And for completeness, there were $100,000 notes, but those were generally only used for inter-bank transfers.

Not really. A lot of gas stations around here won't take $100 bills, not even if you are buying $120 in gas.

What do they do if all you have is a couple of hundreds? They can't really syphon the fuel out, and the money is legal tender. By law it's a valid medium of payment.

What do they do if all you have is a couple of hundreds? They can't really syphon the fuel out, and the money is legal tender. By law it's a valid medium of payment.

I don't know of any sstations around here which are 'pump first'. You go to the clerk and pay for fuel then pump it. Until you pump the fuel, there has not been a transaction for which you need to pay.

Now, in a restaurant, they would likely have to take the bills, but you better not have smaller ones, as they are likely to call the police if they have a sign properly posted about payment. And even then, you can't count on the cops to know that once you've eaten, they have to accept the bills.

And yes, you can legally pay in coins, IF the instrument which created the debt does not prohibit it. Again, you might encounter a merchant who calls the cops, and you can never be sure how that encounter might end.

I don't know of any sstations around here which are 'pump first'. You go to the clerk and pay for fuel then pump it.

all the stations around here come in two types, the majority are where you pump the fuel then go and pay for it. A much smaller number, all of which are unattended stations, you pay for the fuel via a credit card by buying a set dollar figure then you pump it and at the correct dollar amount the pump shuts off.

all the stations around here come in two types, the majority are where you pump the fuel then go and pay for it.

Where, if I might ask? Haven't seen one like that in the Midwest USA in years (nor in major cities where I've rented cars when traveling).

Wisconsin. Outside of the border counties there are very few pay up front only stations.

Interesting. On my regular trips to Sheboygan, I've only ever seen pay first. :-)

A much smaller number, all of which are unattended stations, you pay for the fuel via a credit card by buying a set dollar figure then you pump it and at the correct dollar amount the pump shuts off.

That's the opposite of how it works in the U.S.

If you put a credit card or debit card in the pump, it keeps pumping and charging to your card until you stop pumping fuel (or the tank fills up). But if you pay cash, you go in and pay first. If you give them $20 the pump shuts off when it hits $20. If it shuts off before $20 you go back inside for your change.

How do you do that at an unattended station?

They vary. Some have the readers at the pump, and some have the readers at a secure station where you tell it the pump you're using. You set a dollar figure then it powers the pump, and then it cuts the power to the pump when you reach the figure. Most such stations are set up for after hours access in areas where they don't get much after hours business but the local still need some sort of service.

Your choices will be pay by some other means and sue the restaurant after the fact or get arrested for theft of services.

In most legal jurisdictions if you offer to pay with legal tender, they have to either accept it or issue with an account for you to pay by cheque at a lter date.

BTW: Legal tender does have limitations on how much is legal tender in regards to coins. After certain values they can legally refuse to accept a certain amount of coins, even down to so much of a specific denomination. That's why those stories of big bills being paid in pennies are usually bogus.

The US courts ruled long ago that point of sale retail transactions are not debts.

So what happens when you go into a store, there's no huge sign saying what they will and won't accept, you buy something, consume it, then you go to pay with a $100 note, and they say they don't accept hundreds but that's all you have. They have a choice to either accept the hundred or give you credit as they can't take back what you consumed. If there are good on the counter they can refuse the sale and put the goods away, but they can't do that with what you've eaten or put into the tank of your car.

So what happens when you go into a store, there's no huge sign saying what they will and won't accept, you buy something, consume it, then you go to pay with a $100 note, and they say they don't accept hundreds but that's all you have

The debt is created when you consume the product, BUT, if it is not a place where consumption is expected, it's usually theft of servics.

So, in a restaurant, they would have to accept the larger bills unless they could prove you knew about the limitation. That said, that's federal law and would not prevent a confrontation with the police.

In a grocery store, they could have you arrested and it would stick.

A deli counter in a grocery store where you didn't pay before receiving your sandwich would be open to interpretation of the local cop.

Given nobody in the US should seek encounters with police, all of whom are armed and ready to kill, I'd make sure I had $20 notes (or smaller) to pay, or use plastic.

BUT, if it is not a place where consumption is expected, it's usually theft of servics.

I'd let them charge me with theft or theft of services as I could make a fortune in a counter suit. To qualify as a crime of theft they have prove you intended to deprive them of the goods / services without paying for them,which is killed by you offer to pay for them and they refused your payment. Thus no charge of theft would hold up in court.

Yeah, but it's the USA where judgements are often based on political expediency rather than actual law. You might have to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Lawyers would be the big winners.

AJ

Under the laws of most US States (and this is a state law, not a federal law issue) this statement is false.

Note in the descriptions of theft below a requirement is to permanently deprive them of it and another is to take without permission. When you put goods on display for sale you are entering into the start of contract negotiations, when you have a price on that and I accept that price I'm accepting that contract, then it only needs me to pay for it. That's why theft from a shop doesn't occur until the moment a person leaves the shop with the goods without paying for it or making arrangements to pay for it. With no intent to leave without paying there is no intent to steal, thus no theft.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft

Definition from Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary

The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, when the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft" and a misdemeanor; but it is "grand theft" and a felony for larger amounts. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taking after entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as specific types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview.html

Legal Definition of Theft

Theft is often defined as the unauthorized taking of property from another with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Within this definition lie two key elements:

a taking of someone else's property; and

the requisite intent to deprive the victim of the property permanently.

The taking element in a theft typically requires seizing possession of property that belongs to another, and may also involve removing or attempting to remove the property. However, it is the element of intent where most of the complex legal challenges typically arise in theft-related cases.

DS,

I suggest you look into contract law a bit more as a contract starts with the offer and it can be verbal or in formal contract or in a sign or an advertisement. By putting goods on sale with a price on them the contractual offer is started, I can accept that offer or not. Once I accept the offer I have to pay for it. I accept the offer by either taking the goods off the shelf or asking the shop staff to get them for me.

However, you are missing the point in that the key aspect of the crime of theft is the 'intent to deprive' which is not there if the owner puts it up for sale and I intend to pay for it. Thus there is not intent to deprive, and no theft. basic criminal law, which is why there is so much emphasis on intent in criminal cases.

As to the grocer situation, as long as I accepted his offer of sale and I do nothing to diminish the value to pay, there is no issue with early consumption as long as I fully intend to pay full price. I say it that way as buying food where the final value is based on weight you would be altering the weight by consumption while in the shop, but where the price is by quantity as long as you acknowledge and pay for the full quantity there is no crime. Select 6 apples and place 5 apples with one apple core while paying for 6 is full payment, so would be opening a preweighted 2 pound bag of grapes to eat a few while shopping as the bag is marked and you'll pay for the full 2 pounds regardless of what's left. However, put an unknown quantity grapes which is paid for by the pound into a bag you have to leave alone until after it's weighed and that noted for payment.

I suggest you look into contract law a bit more as a contract starts with the offer and it can be verbal or in formal contract or in a sign or an advertisement.

That's not how it works in the US:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

Your intent, and your view of when the contract is formed does not match US Law. When you arrive at the register, you are making an offer to purchase. Until the business owner accepts your offer to purchase, there is no debt. He may set whatever conditions on purchase he chooses, including not taking large bills, not taking checks, not selling more than a certain quantity, etc.

That's how it works. It's been tested in court. I don't have access to Lexis/Nexis to get you the citations.

I'll go with the Cornell law school definition of a contract, since you didn't provide one. Note 1.(a) in offer and acceptance. By displaying the goods with a price the store owner is making an offer, by selecting the goods I'm accepting the offer.

As to what you quote about store policy in the legal tender, such policies have to be well displayed and easily seen by customers on entry so they are aware of the terms when they enter the store.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

Contract - Definition:

An agreement between private parties creating mutual obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.

Offer and Acceptance:

(1) Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language or circumstances

(a) an offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances;
(b) an order or other offer to buy goods for prompt or current shipment shall be construed as inviting acceptance either by a prompt promise to ship or by the prompt or current shipment of conforming or non-conforming goods, but such a shipment of non-conforming goods does not constitute an acceptance if the seller seasonably notifies the buyer that the shipment is offered only as an accommodation to the buyer.

(2) Where the beginning of a requested performance is a reasonable mode of acceptance an offeror who is not notified of acceptance within a reasonable time may treat the offer as having lapsed before acceptance.

I'll go with the Cornell law school definition of a contract, since you didn't provide one. Note 1.(a) in offer and acceptance. By displaying the goods with a price the store owner is making an offer, by selecting the goods I'm accepting the offer.

And that does not impact how courts treat purchases in stores. A perfect example - store accepts credit/debit cards; you intend to make a purchase with credit/debit; card system is down. You have zero recourse at law for them refusing to sell to you. Zero.

Ditto handing them a $100 which they refuse because the marker pen indicates its counterfit (even if it is not).

Ditto handing them a $100 for which they cannot make reasonable change.

You have NO recourse at law for any of those situations. Fundamentally, the courts treat situation such as that as you making an offer to purchase, which the merchant has no obligation to accept.

So long as they are not violating antidiscrimination laws, they may refuse to sell to you for any reason they wish, and you have zero recourse. Zero.

Actually, in most legal jurisdiction they get charged with unlawful use, and theft, but to prove the theft the prosecution has to prove they had no intention of returning the car. Mind you, some legal jurisdiction do have additional charges they can use for that situation where they don't charge them with theft at all.

I'd let them charge me with theft or theft of services as I could make a fortune in a counter suit. To qualify as a crime of theft they have prove you intended to deprive them of the goods / services without paying for them,which is killed by you offer to pay for them and they refused your payment. Thus no charge of theft would hold up in court.

And in most, if not all, US jurisdictions, you would lose. An offer to pay MIGHT be accepted by the retailer, and the police might even encourage him to accept your offer, but he can stand fast with the law on his side.

And in most, if not all, US jurisdictions, you would lose. An offer to pay MIGHT be accepted by the retailer, and the police might even encourage him to accept your offer, but he can stand fast with the law on his side.

Note in the descriptions of theft below a requirement is to permanently deprive them of it and another is to take without permission. When you put goods on display for sale you are entering into the start of contract negotiations, when you have a price on that and I accept that price I'm accepting that contract, then it only needs me to pay for it. That's why theft from a shop doesn't occur until the moment a person leaves the shop with the goods without paying for it or making arrangements to pay for it. With no intent to leave without paying there is no intent to steal, thus no theft.

If the shopkeeper has special terms on what he accepts for payment they have to be set out and visible on entry, not exit, otherwise the usual standard for payment is acceptance of the common medium of payment for that country.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft

Definition from Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary
The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, when the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft" and a misdemeanor; but it is "grand theft" and a felony for larger amounts. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taking after entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as specific types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-overview.html

Legal Definition of Theft

Theft is often defined as the unauthorized taking of property from another with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Within this definition lie two key elements:

a taking of someone else's property; and
the requisite intent to deprive the victim of the property permanently.

The taking element in a theft typically requires seizing possession of property that belongs to another, and may also involve removing or attempting to remove the property. However, it is the element of intent where most of the complex legal challenges typically arise in theft-related cases.

Um that would be theft of goods not theft of services.

Around here, if you leave the store with the item, it's theft of goods; if you eat it in the store, it's theft of services (similar to not paying in a restaurant). Retail gasoline theft is considerd 'theft of services'.

Other jurisdictions may vary.

Just because it is legal tender, a retailer is not legally required to accept it.

It's the same in the UK.

A number of stores have taken advantage of the false premise that handling cash is dangerous and have become cashless - pay by card or smartphone app only. Big finance is pushing us to become like Sweden.

AJ

I occasionally do shopping for my elderly self-isolating neighbours. They always pay me in cash. If Big Finance had its way, they'd have to pay me electronically with a transaction costing 15p (allegedly the overhead of a debit card transaction).

Big Finance wants to do away with cash without substituting something equivalent in cost and ease-of-use.

AJ

Grant,

if the retailer is placing a trading restriction they have to do so with a very prominently displayed sign at the entrance to the premises to establish it as a contractual pre-condition of entry for business or service. If they refuse when you go to pay and there's no big sign, they've not established a contractual pre-condition and must accept the money. I once had that out with a business many years ago, and they were angry that they had to go and buy a sign to put up, as I was the first person to challenge them applying the condition at the point of sale. The advantages of having done a by mail business course as part of my first job.

Go to your nearest casino and change them at the ATM, or put them in a slot, immediately remove the ticket, and then cash out. You'll get smaller bills.

Go to your nearest casino and change them at the ATM, or put them in a slot, immediately remove the ticket, and then cash out. You'll get smaller bills.

Casinos are rare items down here, and the ATMs only dispense money from your bank account, they do not change notes.

If they post a notice that they'll only accept payment in peanuts then you need to be able to make payment in peanuts,

With a major emphasis on the if and they have to post it where you can easily see it and read it on entry to the store. However, that doesn't mean you can pay with peanuts everywhere else, either.

BTW: Most countries outside of the USA the legal tender is just that, it's basically the USA that goes to odd extremes to limit general usage matters.

Even worse, some stores don't accept cash anymore. It has to be clearly posted though. I personally think not accepting cash should be forbidden.

I agree. However, some years back there was a spate of laws passed in Australia requiring registered companies to pay their staff through a bank account instead of cash. The reason was supposedly to stop money laundering, but it was really aimed at reducing the cash in the society.

Also aimed at companies that didn't pay payroll taxes because they used cash and the government couldn't tell what was being paid.

I don't know what it's like where you are, but it's been virtually impossible for a company to NOT pay payroll tax in Australia for many decades. The company accounts are open for review when they lodge their tax returns. It was, and still is, possible to understate their wages bill in the books and reduce their payroll tax, but they had to pay the industry award wages as a minimum and that was all most paid, anyway.

If you're paying your people in cash, chances are you do almost all your work for cash.

When I started work it was the law you had to pay people in cash unless they gave a written request to be paid by cheque or you were on monthly pay. For the first 20 years of my working life I worked for big companies, and all of them had a staff come around handing out pay packets with cash each week or fortnight which you opened, checked, then signed for. The first time I wasn't paid by cash was because the company, a small one, paid monthly into your bank account. Then I started working for the commonwealth government and they paid into the bank account. It was during this time that the law changed making it mandatory for all government payments of any sort to go into bank accounts, and for all wages to be paid into a bank account. Today payments to the government, at all levels, have to be via a bank account and most businesses insist on bank transfers oe credit card payments instead of cash.

Yes, there are still some small one or two person operations where they deal only in cash, but most of them are part-time workers looking for a little extra to get by on.

anonymous

From the casual observer, perhaps. From governments? Not necessarily. It's fairly straight forward to do traffic analysis and then apply a bit of state-level detective work to discover the owner of the account.

See, for example, the following article:

Bitcoin payments used to unmask dark web users

Easy? No. Possible for a state entity? Yes.

So, if you want to hide from the government, BTC is not for you.

True. I should have written, "pseudo-anonymous."

Still, the point is that there can be NO charge-backs and bank interference with a payment.

Still, the point is that there can be NO charge-backs and bank interference with a payment.

Yes, that's true, and it puts the individual making the payment at complete risk, which is the opposite of how it currnently works where the merchant (or the payment processor) assume the risk.

Not necessarily a bad thing, but it is different from how things currently work.

each part encrypted

Please tell me all the passwords and tokens are salted and hashed as well.

when I make a purchase outside of the US, there is often a transaction fee added to my CC bill labelled as a transaction fee.

I think all but Capital One do that.

If he's using the site, he can read English.

Maybe he's using his browser's translate the webpage function.