Another state stops the cashless botnet in its tracks

Just change it to exact change only. Same effect.

15 million adults + ~80% of children (out of 74) without bank account. Aka ~25% of US population.

based

Stallman wins again.

>excluding online transactions
Simple. They are no longer stores and just places that fulfill online transactions on the spot. You go in pick up the stuff you want, sign into their online app pay though that and you’re good to go

Amazon doesn't want to make locations like that.

that would still open them up to a whole host of additional regulations that they aren't prepared to undertake.

I wish there was a law that meant stores had to accept card. Looking at you, tax avoiding Asian stores.

I don’t understand why people can’t just refuse to patronize stores when their respective policies disagree with the consume. Don’t like a cashless store; don’t shop there. Why are you forcing your will on others and reducing overall choice?

>another state intentionally creates useless jobs for the sake of protecting a small minority of people incapable of using a credit or debit card.

Ok

I dig it. Have to go through banks to buy things at local stores is silly.

B-but cash basis accounting is so based. Please stop auditing me irs.

You have exactly as many choices with this law in effect.

Someone who wants to rely on the actual legal tender of his place of residence should be able to use it.

Because the number of stores in a given area are finite, and it's a major inconvenience if even a few major stores decide to stop allowing cash.

now make them allow cryptocurrency purchases

serious question regarding "botnet" with cards..
Ik generally it's meme but some people are serious about this..

a lot of people say they only pay with cash, but you still need a bank account..? So how tf does that work u guys pls explain lmao

I'm not someone who only pays in cash, but the bank only sees you withdrawing cash, and that's assuming you're getting all your cash from bank withdrawals. The actual transactions you're making outside of just taking money out of your account is still not being traced.

Because they're trying to prevent unstaffed stores and all the jobs that come with moving cash. Its purely a muh jobs thing. Only line holding up faggots and tax dodging retards pay in or expect cash only.

good. smash the bots, butlerian jihad now

>Only line holding up faggots
What's the rush?

Attached: 1544064654667.png (724x611, 129K)

Unmanned != cashless, and the cashless laws aren't targeting Amazon's useless Go experiment.

Childish shit.

Yes, it mostly does. If you accept cash on site, you'll still need to have a bonded armored truck pick the shit up and send it to a bank where it will probably be ACHd to Amazon's actual bank electronically.

Getting some fags to go in and stock shelves plus armored pick up is a waste of their money.

Like most boomer laws and boomerisms. It's just sad.

>Oh no, how will the CC companies make it now?
There's a lot of, clearly retarded, people advocating for big banks ITT.

And what about stuff like online purchases? Especially sites that doesn't offer payment by cryptocurrency? Ontop of that ordering stuff to your house, like Amazon. You have to put in an address, unless you use PO box, but that still will require to have your name down and everything.

And then even if you are paying by cryptocurrency, it's still obvious that you are transferring money to a cryptocurrency service (They obviously don't know what you're doing with the crypto but they still know it's being transferred)

This is in regards to normal brick and mortar stores, not online stuff.

People need to stock the shelves anyway, and you're not going to get rid of armored vehicles by allowing a few cashless stores.
If you want to get rid of jobs so badly, you'll be much better off supporting driverless cars than cashless stores.

No I understand that, but I'm saying in general, the same people who try to only pay in cash in public, if they want to stay anonymous online it's even harder. I'm just curious how it's working.

I can't speak to that since I'm not someone who does that stuff. It's not an all-or-none thing. Having some of the things you do be anonymous is still better than none.

You know that that is the exact same argument against allowing cake shops to not serve gays right, literally the exact same.

Replace "stop allowing cash" and "serving gays".

the difference is one is an argument over whether or not fake and gay credit takes precedent over actual legal tender, vs annoying homos that nobody likes

the "poor" are nearly exclusively card users, they didn't get into debt using cash