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.

 

[dajop]

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

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

For a few businesses, cash is substantially less expensive to handle than electronic forms of payment. Not just by a few % points. either . Which is yet another reason to ban surcharging of electronic means of payment.

 

[RooFlyer]

In the 1980s, my father was the state manager of the Soccer Pools. On Friday afternoons he drove around the Hobart news agencies to collect the forms and the cash.

He would take them home and in his office there collate both the cash and the forms. The forms went air express to head office in Melbourne and the cash he stacked up on the table and later took it to the night safe thing in the local bank.

One Friday evening I flew in and went to say hi to him in his office to e met with possibly $5000++ in cash stacked in neat 50s and 20s on his table.

I didn’t know his routine then so he just told me he was going to put it in the car and take it to the bank like he always did. He was a bit of a personality about town and everyone knew him from the TV so his routine was well known and he was an absolute sitting duck.

Nothing ever happened – this is Hobart remember – but I now say thank God for cashless transactions. Unless individuals want to set up their own national money transfer system then it’s fair enough to pay someone a fee for using their system.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

For a few businesses, cash is substantially less expensive to handle than electronic forms of payment. Not just by a few % points. either . Which is yet another reason to ban surcharging of electronic means of payment.

But there is still the bank side to the cash handling? That costs cashier time. Between the banks and businesses, I reckon the consumer is getting the raw prawn!

 

[dajop]

But there is still the bank side to the cash handling? That costs cashier time.

Not for the businesses where cash is substantially less than electronic forms of payment. I bet a chunk of that cash never makes it way to the bank.

 

[mrsterryn]

@RooFlyer in the '80s I used to be the paymaster (?)of the pay envelopes for techs near Central in Sydney . I was a lowly Clerical Assistant but part of my duties was doing the distribution of the yellow envelopes of pay on alternate Thursdays(Commonwealth paydays ) I had a very old (to me ) security guard who had a gun to protect me , however of course the instructions were if someone wants the money just let them

 

[Quickstatus]

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

Sure that's why we don't surcharge a CC transaction, and I think the RBA is kocing to make Cc surcharge free.

(Except that electronic transactions do not negate all handling expenses- it's just that the charges are more upfront than cash)

I think the reason is because electronic transactions were never were considered like cash.

 

[jastel]

Saved $200 on a set of tyres by paying cash yesterday.

Got lunch in a small town the other day, while every other tourist was waving their phone in the air and standing on one leg trying to get signal during an outage.
Slap down a Lobster, get my pie and coke and walk out, shouda videoed their faces.

It works for some of us.
No harm in having both. Not all of us want our lives itemised on a Bank Statement.

 

[Flashback]

WCMO is the NHS being overly aggressive for a specialist appointment reconfirmation and also telling you to arrive at least 10 minutes early so you don't hold up the schedule.... for you to then arrive at one of the first appointments of the day, to discover they're already 45 minutes behind!

I lover a smaller trolley so much easier on the back (no.bending to place items) and plenty of room for everything i buy. The old school larger ones are too deep and just encourage you to buy stuff you dont need.

Ive not come across a trolley that needs a coin or token at coles or woolies for over 15 years, ime they all just have those mag wheel locks if you go beyond car park.

Thinking of it another way, £1 / $1 (¿?) is cheap to buy a trolley!

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)?

Whatever happened to the days where the cost of sales was simply built into the price... I suppose that's one side effect of the introduction of online sales where costs do tend to be carved out I.e., delivery. But then again, surely in a traditional transaction delivery would have been carved out anyway.

Not for the businesses where cash is substantially less than electronic forms of payment. I bet a chunk of that cash never makes it way to the bank.

Indeed.... also explains why I see so few people at Costco pay using card and they pay using cash instead. The mind boggles when I see the wads counted in front of me... 80%+ of the time.

Sure that's why we don't surcharge a CC transaction, and I think the RBA is kocing to make Cc surcharge free.

(Except that electronic transactions do not negate all handling expenses- it's just that the charges are more upfront than cash)

I think the reason is because electronic transactions were never were considered like cash.

BPay or EFT should indeed be treated the same, as they're more like cash. However, card transactions the card issuer is liable for the cost in case of chargeback so needs to account for that. Cash.... is a little bit harder to chargeback isn't it?

 

[RooFlyer]

WCMO. On a cruise through Indonesia and FNQ. Every stop has been hot and humid and every trip off the boat the exped crew have emphasised - hydrate, hydrate, hydrate; carry extra water, wear a hat and sunscreen. Always in French and English by the bilingual Exped leader.

Most stops have been medium-short walks, with frequent stops, so those not wearing hats or carrying water have gotten away with it.

Today, approx 4-5km walk return, no shade (advertised), hot and sunny (advertised, as above). Numerous French had no hat or at best, baseball cap. And one couple had no hat and no water with them. Broke down 1/2 way back, needing ship doctor, special water runs by exped crew, distress to Exped leader and delays for everyone getting back to ship.