> unless you can prove a corporation will pay for you by swiping your payment card
and I don't want the state’s unsanitary and cocaine-laced notes for payment. see we can frame all options any way we want
They started doing this long before the pandemic. It's not about that.
So for the loophole experience, I would need you to show if thats a viable loophole in the areas where cash payment is mandated
There are very real risks a food truck faces in accepting cash: fomite diseases, counterfits, armed robbery. I'm guessing you're fine enforcing the truck owners bear these risks.
For balance we all know that there are [other] risks associated in accepting card payments.
We should also note that the card payment system is not "free", not available to everyone, and does not operate without collateral damage, not least that it excludes vulnerable groups in society.
> I'm guessing you're fine enforcing the truck owners bear these risks
Enforcing following the rules (particular not wriggling around them using legal loopholes) should - one might think - be a fairly mainstream view?
I grew up in an area where Canadian currency often made it into the money supply and most vendors would just accept Canadian quarters at the US rate without a fuss. I remember the weird looks I got the first time I tried to do the same in a state further south. I feel like both are reasonable approaches but I would hesitate to legally mandate one approach because they are context dependent.
"There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise"[1]
The long standing way food trucks work is you order, wait, receive food, then pay. Now, to get around this law, food trucks have switched to pay, order, wait, receive food.
I don't think your central premise holds, however. You may be reading too much between the lines or giving too much credence to a colloquial (and perhaps incorrect) interpretation.
"when a debt has been incurred by one party to another, and the parties have agreed that cash is to be the medium of exchange, then legal tender must be accepted if it is proffered in satisfaction of that debt. However, otherwise the selling party may set the medium of exchange to be anything they choose: dollars, bananas, precious gems, feathers, whiskey, etc. They may also choose to accept cash payment only via alternative forms (e.g., credit/debit card, check, money order) rather than currency itself."
At least in NYC, it's standard for street vendors and smaller businesses (like delis) to take only cash (or to have a purchase minimum for a credit charge, usually $10 or higher).
I've heard lots of reasons for this, all of which I find plausible: it's more profitable (credit processing fees are effectively a regressive tax), it allows vendors to pass on savings to their customers (my local coffee shop gives me a discount if I pay in cash), and it allows them to dodge their local sales tax.
it is against the merchant agreement to have any purchase minimum and vendors have absolutely no leverage on this reality (as this is per payment network, this can change per network at any time, but my understanding is that merchants can't have card minimums - this also applies to bars where much higher card purchase minimums are also commonplace)
of course, the sympathetic approach is to realize that its more profitable for the credit card network to have no mininum. but as you don't really experience this concept of card minimums outside of NYC, there's no reason to follow along with those merchant's rationale just because they told you why and you feel sowwy for them.
when I think about every thing that threatens low margin businesses, I just notice that a different one will take their place and a few owners will have to do something else to exchange time for food and shelter just like everyone else, so no need to keep them on life support
This is a recurring misconception: merchants have been allowed to set a credit card minimum of up to $10 since Dodd-Frank[1]. Even before that, entire industries have had merchant exemptions (utility and rent collection come to mind).
The rest of this response is bizarrely cynical: I don’t feel “sowwy” for them; I like saving money on my coffee and I’m happy knowing that my payment method is more sustainable, since it means I don’t have to worry about changing my routine.
[1]: http://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/new-rules-ele...
Yes very cynical
And while they may think it's worthwhile to sell you a fountain drink for $1 on the card, it's too complex to break it up like that.
The reason there's a minimum is that the Federal government forbade credit card companies from mandating acceptance for all charges. That was done in the consumers' interests, but it came from the top down, not the beneficence of Mastercard and Visa (who, prior, were more than happy to take 2-3c on every $1 card purchase.)
that ship has long sailed
we’re at the bottom of the slippery slope
try to enjoy yourself
Your social network and everything else you look up and do
Even if you’re a ghost, the ghost profile is accurate enough
Yeah, there are probably fairly accurate ghost profiles on me. But they aren't going to figure out when I spend cash at a food truck. At least I really don't see how. Like, how would they know which food truck, or that I went anywhere. It's not like they know how much cash I have in my wallet.