The end of cash?

[freshapple]

It’s nonsense, though. There are bank charges for banking cash, just as there are bank charges for accepting electronic payment. Neither is necessarily greater than the other — it all depends what business bank account you use. Unless they’re suggesting that they never bank any cash at all, which is a whole other kettle of hassle.

It’s harder to pay people cash in hand if you don't have any cash.

 

[hash tag]

Presumably the people helping them do everything with tiny coins and notes could help get them a card with which they just need to touch it and do everything??

It is funny to think we will soon be explaining how people and businesses had to fiddle around getting different sized coins and notes and matching the exact amounts for everything… and now we just touch a card and it does it all instantly.

It doesnt work like that. By getting cash in their hands, they can go on to dole the cash out to whoever they want.

 

[pbsmooth]

Sure but there is just no logical argument that cash is somehow easier than contactless. It just isn’t. It’s ideal for elderly people the only barrier is if people or businesses don’t support them to change. e.g. my elderly mum now loves tapping her card having been struggling to use her purse and change as she got older.

 

[kabbes]

It doesnt work like that. By getting cash in their hands, they can go on to dole the cash out to whoever they want.

I guess that makes sense if absolutely everything is strictly hand-to-mouth, constantly on a knife edge. Most businesses aim to make at least a little profit, though, even if it’s just for a rainy day or to reinvest in the business.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

It’s nonsense, though. There are bank charges for banking cash, just as there are bank charges for accepting electronic payment. Neither is necessarily greater than the other — it all depends what business bank account you use. Unless they’re suggesting that they never bank any cash at all, which is a whole other kettle of hassle.

The only way to keep a 100% is to take cash. It's easier to avoid HMRC.

 

[Cerv]

The only way to keep a 100% is to take cash. It's easier to avoid HMRC.

Friend of mine who runs a shop was robbed a couple of nights ago and lost a lot of cash. I know what sort of payment system she prefers right now.

 

[Elpenor]

I guess that makes sense if absolutely everything is strictly hand-to-mouth, constantly on a knife edge. Most businesses aim to make at least a little profit, though, even if it’s just for a rainy day or to reinvest in the business.

Think hash tag is talking about service users not businesses. When I worked in care many years ago we used the term “people we support” but things may have changed.

 

[scifisam]

It doesnt work like that. By getting cash in their hands, they can go on to dole the cash out to whoever they want.

Which also has its problems for some people. Harder to track the money someone with dementia gave away in cash than by card.

My GF also supports people to go to the bank and withdraw money occasionally, as part of her job, and a lot of them would definitely be safer with a limited card, but they don't feel safer. And that's understandable, really.

 

[Idaho]

I work with older people and sometimes do shopping for them. The approved procedure is for them to give me cash, which I give them a receipt for. We aren't permitted to take their card and pay with it. I know why they insist on doing it that way, but it gets ridiculous when people aren't really able to leave the house to get that cash. Then we have to do all kinds of palaver.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

Is the cash thing just cranks finding a conspiro-grift that flatters the self assessed intellect of the 'i do my own research ' crew?

Or is there something more sinister behind, stirring it up?

Surely the only people who really benefit from the push to keep cash are big time organised criminals?

 

[LeytonCatLady]

Surely the only people who really benefit from the push to keep cash are big time organised criminals?

No.

 

[PR1Berske]

Is the cash thing just cranks finding a conspiro-grift that flatters the self assessed intellect of the 'i do my own research ' crew?

Or is there something more sinister behind, stirring it up?

Surely the only people who really benefit from the push to keep cash are big time organised criminals?

Not really. There's a branch of the grifting sector who are trying to make it part of their anti-everything tirade. I'm not part of that world, I'm just looking at this from a practical stand point.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Which also has its problems for some people. Harder to track the money someone with dementia gave away in cash than by card.

My GF also supports people to go to the bank and withdraw money occasionally, as part of her job, and a lot of them would definitely be safer with a limited card, but they don't feel safer. And that's understandable, really.

Yeah, I remember taking my mam to the bank after my dad had died, as he managed all the financial stuff. She'd never used a cash machine before so I had to patiently show her what to do - she got flustered and withdrew £200 instead of £20, so I had to take her straight into the branch to pay the surplus back into her account.

I suspect there are a lot of people who are wary of cards and online transactions, and even cash machines. So its important that cash (and bank branches or equivalent services like the post office) are still available around the country.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

No.

Sorry, I'm not talking about the general issues some people have with internet banking / bank accounts in general that are important and need consideration and mitigation when weighing up any substantial changes to the way we transact.

I mean people who just think it's wrong/bad to not have cash.

Seems to me to becoming a part of the anti ULEZ anti vax weird nostalgia boomer crank ecosystem.

 

[PR1Berske]

Seems to me to becoming a part of the anti ULEZ anti vax weird nostalgia boomer crank ecosystem.

I'm pro-ULEZ
I'm pro-vax
I was born in 1980

I just have wariness around the rush to extinguish cash.

 

[brogdale]

I'm pro-ULEZ
I'm pro-vax
I was born in 1980

I just have wariness around the rush to extinguish cash.

For very good inclusivity reasons.

But, it is obvious why those susceptible to conspiracy guff might well convince themselves that moves towards the cashless society represent some darker, controlling forces. But just because some cranks add that to their long list of conspiracy concerns, that shouldn't ever invalidate the concerns about inclusivity issues that the increasingly cashless society raises.

 

[DotCommunist]

taking the name of the luddites in vain are we, don't make me throw a hardback of EP Thompson at you

e2a last page

 

[Idaho]

taking the name of the luddites in vain are we, don't make me throw a hardback of EP Thompson at you

e2a last page

Yeah it annoys me too.

 

[PR1Berske]

For very good inclusivity reasons.

But, it is obvious why those susceptible to conspiracy guff might well convince themselves that moves towards the cashless society represent some darker, controlling forces. But just because some cranks add that to their long list of conspiracy concerns, that shouldn't ever invalidate the concerns about inclusivity issues that the increasingly cashless society raises.

Absolutely. They weaponise what they can because that's what conspiracy theorists do, find patterns on blank pieces of paper..

 

[Idaho]

Sorry, I'm not talking about the general issues some people have with internet banking / bank accounts in general that are important and need consideration and mitigation when weighing up any substantial changes to the way we transact.

I mean people who just think it's wrong/bad to not have cash.

Seems to me to becoming a part of the anti ULEZ anti vax weird nostalgia boomer crank ecosystem.

You are committing a category error. All birds have wings, but not all things with wings are birds.

 

[liquidindian]

Is the cash thing just cranks finding a conspiro-grift that flatters the self assessed intellect of the 'i do my own research ' crew?

Or is there something more sinister behind, stirring it up?

It's no one thing. There are people who would find a move to being cashless very difficult because of some kind of exclusion, they don't have a bank account, or a smartphone, or internet access. Then you have the full-on cranks who think that it's a way to control us and bring in a social credit system, or send the goons round if you haven't bought enough woke vegetables or something. The bigger problem IMO is the bigger group of people who see any change as bad, and in casting around for reasons to justify why change is bad, they might land on the genuine problems, or the conspiracies, or more likely a mix of both. The conspiracists are louder, so the genuine problems will go unheard, as it will inevitably become part of the "anti ULEZ anti vax weird nostalgia boomer crank ecosystem".

Sweden is looking to introduce access to cash regulation, but the language they're using is interesting. It's as much about "civil preparedness" and emergency use as protecting those who need cash.

 

[rasputin]

the rush to extinguish cash.

Is there a "rush to extinguish cash" though?

If you look at the data, the decline in use of cash appears to be consumer led, not pushed by the industry.

To take two data points. According to a report by the Payment Services Regulator, there has been a steady decline in the number of cash payments made in the UK since 2012. In 2009, more than one in every 2 transactions were paid for in cash. By 2019, only 1 payment in every 4 was settled in cash.

Compare that with data on the Link ATM website. Despite the decline in cash usage, the industry was continuing to grow the number of ATMs in the UK, which reached a peak in 2017 at over 54,000, five years after the decline in cash became evident. The number has been reducing ever since, but is still around 37,000, two thirds of the peak, even though the decline in cash is much more than that.

There is a minimum number of transactions needed for an ATM to be viable, so machines will inevitably be retired if they are no longer covering their costs.

 

[PR1Berske]

Crossposting:


The Royal Mint experimented with 25p coins:

Royal Mint's 'ultra rare' 25p coin sells for 60 times its face value

There are thought to be about 50 in circulation, with even fewer made from nickel brass.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[brogdale]

There is a minimum number of transactions needed for an ATM to be viable, so machines will inevitably be retired if they are no longer covering their costs.

Not necessarily. The FCA's new regulations regarding designated financial businesses and access to cash came in to force just 1 week ago. Quite clearly, if after 18/09/24 gaps in (free) cash access are identified, banks may be compelled to operate ATM services even if they are 'uneconomic'.

 

[brogdale]

More here on the FCA's access to cash regulations:

From 18 September, banks and building societies will need to:

• assess cash access and understand if additional services are needed, when changes are being made to local services
• respond to local residents, community organisations and representative groups, who will be able to request an assessment of whether there are gaps in local cash access
• deliver reasonable additional cash services, where significant gaps are found
• keep facilities, including bank branches and ATMs, open until any additional cash services identified are available

Sheldon Mills, executive director of consumers and competition at the FCA, said: 'Three million people continue to rely on cash, even as digital payments become more popular. And many small businesses still need somewhere to safely deposit their takings each day.

'That’s why we’ve acted quickly in response to new powers given to us by Parliament to ensure reasonable access to cash withdrawal and deposits is maintained.'

Gaps in cash access could be filled with a range of measures, including banking hubs, ATMs (including deposit ATMs) and Post Office facilities. The FCA's powers won’t prevent the closure of bank branches – but will have an impact where branch closures leave significant gaps in local cash access.

Fourteen banks and building societies have been designated by the GovernmentLink is external to deliver this new cash access system.

The FCA has made changes to the rules it consulted on, including extending the period for banks and building societies to carry out cash access assessments, giving local communities more time to make their case. Firms will also be able to review the provision of identified cash services after 2 years.

The FCA has also published research on who relies on cash. This found that being in a low-income household (less than £15,000 a year) and having low digital capability or access has the strongest association with reliance on cash.

 

[InArduisFouette]

Is the cash thing just cranks finding a conspiro-grift that flatters the self assessed intellect of the 'i do my own research ' crew?

Or is there something more sinister behind, stirring it up?

Surely the only people who really benefit from the push to keep cash are big time organised criminals?

exasctly that

it suits Organised Crime to keep a cash economy especially take aways, barbershops and car washes ...

add in the 15 minutue cities / NWO /WEF conspiraloons...

 

[InArduisFouette]

For very good inclusivity reasons.

But, it is obvious why those susceptible to conspiracy guff might well convince themselves that moves towards the cashless society represent some darker, controlling forces. But just because some cranks add that to their long list of conspiracy concerns, that shouldn't ever invalidate the concerns about inclusivity issues that the increasingly cashless society raises.

what 'inclusivity' reasons '

remember today's 80 year old retired in 2009

when vulnerable peopel get scammed it;s often untraceable cash they are scammed out of

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I'm pro-ULEZ
I'm pro-vax
I was born in 1980

I just have wariness around the rush to extinguish cash.

 

[smokedout]

Sorry, I'm not talking about the general issues some people have with internet banking / bank accounts in general that are important and need consideration and mitigation when weighing up any substantial changes to the way we transact.

I mean people who just think it's wrong/bad to not have cash.

Seems to me to becoming a part of the anti ULEZ anti vax weird nostalgia boomer crank ecosystem.

I don't think it's just conspiracism. Banks crash, IT systems crash, sometimes even countries crash (and you can lose your bank card/phone).

I can understand why people feel anxious about the current means of survival becoming dependent on a system that requires a complex set of economic, technical and political systems all working correctly to function. Cash requires that as well of course in the longer term but in the event of a major infrastructure disaster fivers will likely be more useful than apple pay. It's a safety blanket in uncertain times.

 

[kabbes]

I don't think it's just conspiracism. Banks crash, IT systems crash, sometimes even countries crash (and you can lose your bank card/phone).

I can understand why people feel anxious about the current means of survival becoming dependent on a system that requires a complex set of economic, technical and political systems all working correctly to function. Cash requires that as well of course in the longer term but in the event of a major infrastructure disaster fivers will likely be more useful than apple pay. It's a safety blanket in uncertain times.

Anxiety about this is understandable but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We’ve been over this. The Digital Operational Resiliency Act (DORA) now requires incredible levels of redundancy that guarantee customer access to digital financial services be interrupted only ever for very small levels of time. To break this would take the kind of international disaster in which nobody would be worried about direct debits or shopping. Something that cripples everything for weeks if not months on end. And in that case, how much cash are you actually planning to keep stuffed and untouched in a cupboard for such a reality? Two months worth? Fair enough if so, but I’m not. And even if you are, that’s totally separate anyway to your day-to-day payments, because the whole point of your disaster bunker cash is that you’re not spending it.