Hacker News Reader

Comment by gunapologist99 | Hacker News Reader

It seems like advanced ACH tech could make checks fast and painless and actually lower Target's cost of settlement. This decision seems short-sighted, since many places already no longer take cash either, and all other forms of payment will include the interchange tax and further prop up credit card monopolies. That's bad for society.

I never pay with check and can't remember the last time I was delayed or even saw someone else pay with check, but this is a harbinger: once they take away cash as a form of payment, the only thing left will be non-anonymized.

View on HN

They already do -- if you're using a personal check, you could just sign up for a Debit REDcard (now known as a Target Circle Debit card). You even get the same 5% discount that their credit card holders get, and you can pull up to $40 cashback at checkout.

https://www.target.com/circlecard

That's very cool, because it still allows them to verify ID and everything but just do it once instead of at every register.

Target's "RedCard Debit" is an ACH transfer. You give them your routing numbers and they give you an account number.

You get 5% off everything when you use it. The ACH transfer is typically the next banking day.

By law you can settle debts with cash. If they refuse, leave the cash on the counter. They cannot refuse it. I’d take a picture as evidence as well.

This is largely untrue, and potentially dangerous advice in the United States, where there is no federal requirement for businesses to accept cash as a method of payment.

There are a handful of US states and municipalities which mandate cash acceptance, but you should definitely check the laws where you live before trying anything like that.

Actually you seem a little confused, let me clarify: It's true for debts already incurred, but not for transactions that haven't already happened. That's what legal tender means.

So this would apply to for example, a postpaid sit-down restaurant meal -- when the bill comes, you offer cash and if it's turned down your debt is settled. That's the law.

There is generally no requirement to agree to accept cash prior to making the transaction though, as at a counter service place where you pay as you get the food. They would be in their rights to refuse to hand over the food and ask you to leave.

And that's why you see a lot of cash free counter places now, but not sit down postpaid. It would be impractical to refuse to take cash once the food has already been eaten.

Hope this helps.

I don’t think that’s relevant, because the discussion was about paying for goods at Target, a department store.

Even so, there’s a good chance your opinion is incorrect; some legal experts state that if a sit-down restaurant posts signs stating they don’t accept cash, it can be viewed as a contact[0]. Cornell Law asserts the following (note the past tense!): “Federal statutes do not require a seller to accept cash as a form of legal tender for payment of goods or services that were rendered.”[1] Most likely, the waiter would get a manager, and they’d take the cash, but why go through all that trouble when you can just eat at a regular restaurant that does accept cash?

0. https://charlestonbusiness.com/legal-perspective-are-busines...

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_tender

No: "as at a counter service place where you pay as you get the food. They would be in their rights to refuse to hand over the food and ask you to leave."

This is exactly the same situation as at Target: you bring a bunch of goods to the cash register. You offer a check. The cashier is going to say "sorry we don't take checks anymore: do you have another way to pay [a Target card, a debit card, a credit card, cash...]. Either you present the alternative method of payment or leave without the goods.

The solution is to preauthorize cards before seating and finalize them after. It cuts down on dine and dash also.

I think that's more or less how Alamo Drafthouse does it: they run your card when you place your initial order, and bring out the final bill at the end to write in a tip. At least, I don't think I've ever noticed someone try to use cash there.

The solution to what? There's literally no problem that needs solving here. It's easy to accept cards and also easy to accept cash. Neither is particularly expensive or hard to deal with.

If you really want to accept just one and not the other, that's fine, too. If you occasionally get a confused customer who accidentally consumes your services and then only has cash to pay, that's not a big deal of course.

And the reverse is also no big deal -- if you don't accept cards, and the customer don't have cash, you just point them at the nearest ATM (often in the same store, since this is a common way to avoid credit card merchant fees)

Either way is just not that big a deal.

Lol, you are ridiculous wrong. Yes, for a debt, not a purchase, there's a difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com