What cheeses me off

[anat0l]

At the end of the business day our secretaries have to take cash to the bank
It would not take a smart robber to realise that routine
The security of the secretaries is paramount. Do we pay for cash handling business to take the cash?
There is no upside to cash payments for our business.
There is also no upside to cash payments for the customers either. they have to drive to the office, pay for parking, come up the lift and pay. How is it cheaper to pay by cash.

It is so much easier to pay electronically. So we try to discourage cash payments. BPay, and CC and NO transaction fees

Clearly, to a non-trivial number of people, they care very little about your secretaries' safety. They want cash payments and it shouldn't be second class to card payments; your encouraging non-cash payments over cash renders you as an a-hole to those people (of course, they are free not to use your business, too).

Can you imagine if cash payments were surcharged to pay for some sort of security or secure methods for people to carry said cash to the bank safely.

Ironically, are we really the crowd to be pushing for cash? We're a FF forum who have a whole section dedicated to exploiting credit cards, comprising of members who I assume are all those who pay off the balance every month studiously. The practice(s) have certainly paid for several of our travels for many of us.

 

[Quickstatus]

So why do we have to pay 1.5% to make it easier for business and banks?

Because there is a cost to any transaction handling even cash.
Just because cash is "free" in the minds of the customers spending and receiving cash, it is actually incorrect to say that cash handling is free.
The problem is that historically cash transactions have been Free ie without surcharge. The problem is cash handling is very expensive - printing the notes, transporting the notes, holding the notes,. transacting with notes and the cost of such handling was just bundled into the price of goods and services.

Should we put a surcharge on handling cash - say to employ a security cash handling agency - Armaguard for example? . They generally only handle large amounts of cash. Do we store the cash on premises until it reaches that threshold amount and then run the risk of breakins?. I can guarantee the cost would be exorbitant and more than 1.5%

your encouraging non-cash payments over cash renders you as an a-hole to those people

Actually our bad debt rates plummeted with electronic transfers.

Some will still bring in cash but currently it is in the order of less than 0.5% of total transactions.
I don't know why someone would drive to our office, (use petrol), pay to park and then pay $100 in cash. Then the secretaries would have to take that $100 to the bank and the bank counts it. Tell me in what world that is free.
I suspect those people also have a cash business and incurring such costs are much better than paying tax.


My barber only transacts in cash until I started paying him in Woolies gift cards. i give him a $300 gift card and he debits each $30 haircut against that ledger.

 

[Quickstatus]

your encouraging non-cash payments over cash renders you as an a-hole to those people

Actually our bad debt rates plummeted with electronic transfers.

Some will still bring in cash but currently it is in the order of less than 0.5% of total transactions.
I don't know why someone would drive to our office, (use petrol), pay to park and then pay $100 in cash. Then the secretaries would have to take that $100 to the bank and the bank counts it. Tell me in what world that is free.
I suspect those people also have a cash business and incurring such costs are much better than paying tax.

My barber only transacts in cash until I started paying him in Woolies gift cards. i give him a $300 gift card and he debits each $30 haircut against that ledger.

 

[Scarlett]

Taxis.

Of course.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Because there is a cost to any transaction handling even cash.
Just because cash is "free" in the minds of the customers spending and receiving cash, it is actually incorrect to say that cash handling is free.
The problem is that historically cash transactions have been Free ie without surcharge. The problem is cash handling is very expensive - printing the notes, transporting the notes, holding the notes,. transacting with notes and the cost of such handling was just bundled into the price of goods and services.

Should we put a surcharge on handling cash - say to employ a security cash handling agency - Armaguard for example? . They generally only handle large amounts of cash. Do we store the cash on premises until it reaches that threshold amount and then run the risk of breakins?. I can guarantee the cost would be exorbitant and more than 1.5%

That’s exactly my point.

Cash handling is far more expensive for business and the banks.

So why should consumers be paying 1.5% surcharge for electronic transactions?

It should be the other way around… 1% *discount* for electronic payments.

 

[DejaBrew]

So why should consumers be paying 1.5% surcharge for electronic transactions?

It should be the other way around… 1% *discount* for electronic payments.

You say that like electronic payments/transactions are free of charge for businesses or banks....

Perhaps you'd feel better if businesses accepting cash started to explicitly identify that the cash price was $X for the product/service + $Y for the payment fee (i.e. to cover the cost of handling)?

 

[Quickstatus]

So why should consumers be paying 1.5% surcharge for electronic transactions?

Because there is a cost for electronic transactions. Now The RBS has said it is aiming to ban CC surcharge fees but no interchange fees. Likely all that does is to fold the costs back into the cost of the goods and services - but the cost is still there.

The whole point of payment methods is that it should be the most efficient and cheapest for the entire system. Cash is definitely not the most efficient and cheapest. Whether the costs are hidden or transparent, it all costs everyone eventually.

It should be the other way around… 1% *discount* for electronic payments.

Sure, then make the cost of handling cash transparent then take 1% off that for CC payments. Would that be more or less expensive than cash?. I think it is erroneous to assume cash is cheaper.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Because there is a cost for electronic transactions. Now The RBS has said it is aiming to ban CC surcharge fees but no interchange fees. Likely all that does is to fold the costs back into the cost of the goods and services - but the cost is still there.

The whole point of payment methods is that it should be the most efficient and cheapest for the entire system. Cash is definitely not the most efficient and cheapest. Whether the costs are hidden or transparent, it all costs everyone eventually.


Sure, then make the cost of handling cash transparent then take 1% off that for CC payments. Would that be more or less expensive than cash?. I think it is erroneous to assume cash is cheaper.

No, I’m agreeing that cash is more expensive.

Businesses and banks wear the cost of handling the more expensive cash option.

If electronic payments are fast, easy and negate all the handling expenses, why should customers pay a surcharge for it?

Completely understand that electronic banking costs businesses. But cash handling overall costs more. So businesses and banks should absorb the electronic costs because overall it’s cheaper for them.

Businesses should have it both ways… saving the costs of cash AND charging for the fast, easy and simple electronic handling. It’s a win-win for business and loss to the customer.