Austrian leader proposes enshrining the use of cash in his country’s constitution

Quote:Austria’s leader is proposing to enshrine in the country’s constitution a right to use cash, which remains more popular in the Alpine nation than in many other places.

Chancellor Karl Nehammer said in a statement on Friday that “more and more people are concerned that cash could be restricted as a means of payment in Austria.” His office said that the “uncertainty” is fueled by contradictory information and reports.

“People in Austria have a right to cash,” Nehammer said.

While payments by card and electronic methods have become increasingly dominant in many European countries, Austria and neighboring Germany remain relatively attached to cash. The government says 47 billion euros ($51 billion) per year are withdrawn from ATMs in Austria, a country of about 9.1 million people.

The chancellor’s proposal, according to his office, involves a “constitutional protection of cash as a means of payment,” ensuring that people can still pay with cash, and securing a “basic supply” of cash in cooperation with Austria’s central bank. Austria is one of 20 countries that are part of the euro area.

Nehammer said he has instructed Finance Minister Magnus Brunner to work on the proposal and plans to hold a round table with the ministries concerned, finance industry representatives and the central bank in September.

“Everyone should have the opportunity to decide freely how and with what he wants to pay,” he said. “That can be by card, by transfer, perhaps in future also with the digital euro, but also with cash. This freedom to choose must and will remain.”

Smart. We should do this.

Interestingly, the calls I've heard to mandate that businesses accept cash have all come from the progressive side. Due at least in part to structural racism, the poor and minorities disproportionately can't get credit cards and/or are "unbanked" and without debit cards (which have racist and anti-poor fee structures anyway), and therefore maintaining cashless businesses assaults their dignity. Or so the argument goes.

Here in the People's Republic of Chicago, the reason scooters (Lime, Bird. etc.) never took off is because the city mandated that every company maintain physical offices where people could theoretically go and pay cash to rent scooters, defeating the entire business model. (Poor people would never have spent on frivolities like scooters anyway.)

We have a couple Amazon Fresh stores, but they all have to take cash and thus have to pay cashiers (and Brinks etc. to haul it away), not part of the business model. Result: The groceries are the same price as a regular store.

Economic growth sacrificed on the altar of virtue signaling.

The conservative position on this would be to keep the government from imposing ridiculous and costly mandates, and let the market work, for Pete's sake.

I do think the government should always have to accept cash, though. Always tickles me when I hear a story about somebody dragging sacks of pennies into some government office to pay some dumb fine. (Not fun for the clerks, granted.)

(08-08-2023 04:04 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Interestingly, the calls I've heard to mandate that businesses accept cash have all come from the progressive side.

Interesting. Speaking of conversational opinion rather than legislative advocacy (about which on this topic I know nothing) , my impression here is exactly the opposite: it seems to be primarily liberty-conscious individuals (who perhaps tend to be conservative) who favor cash because it is traceable and does not require personal affiliation with some big institution, while "progressives" (who of course are the the opposite of liberty-conscious) are the loudest extollers of the virtues of cashlessness.

(08-08-2023 04:04 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Due at least in part to structural racism, the poor and minorities disproportionately can't get credit cards and/or are "unbanked" and without debit cards (which have racist and anti-poor fee structures anyway), and therefore maintaining cashless businesses assaults their dignity. Or so the argument goes.

It seems axiomatic that all fees are, by definition, "anti-poor".
But I wonder what makes a debit card fee structure "racist". How could the card possibly be affected by the skin color of the cardholder?

I don't see what skin color has to do with it either.

Still, there are few good non-cash options for people who can't afford minimum balances and don't have good credit ratings.

(08-08-2023 04:04 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Interestingly, the calls I've heard to mandate that businesses accept cash have all come from the progressive side. Due at least in part to structural racism, the poor and minorities disproportionately can't get credit cards and/or are "unbanked" and without debit cards (which have racist and anti-poor fee structures anyway), and therefore maintaining cashless businesses assaults their dignity. Or so the argument goes.

Here in the People's Republic of Chicago, the reason scooters (Lime, Bird. etc.) never took off is because the city mandated that every company maintain physical offices where people could theoretically go and pay cash to rent scooters, defeating the entire business model. (Poor people would never have spent on frivolities like scooters anyway.)

We have a couple Amazon Fresh stores, but they all have to take cash and thus have to pay cashiers (and Brinks etc. to haul it away), not part of the business model. Result: The groceries are the same price as a regular store.

Economic growth sacrificed on the altar of virtue signaling.

The conservative position on this would be to keep the government from imposing ridiculous and costly mandates, and let the market work, for Pete's sake.

I do think the government should always have to accept cash, though. Always tickles me when I hear a story about somebody dragging sacks of pennies into some government office to pay some dumb fine. (Not fun for the clerks, granted.)

I find it funny that the rule is 'you HAVE to take cash.'

But when you try and pay governmental fees with a tractor trailer load of pennies, they enact regulations against that.

I believe the "bank fees are racist" argument boils down to poor people being disproportionately black and brown because of structural racism. Ergo, bank fees, which (like all flat fees) affect the poor more than the rich, are also racist. It's not my argument so I don't feel obligated to vigorously defend it.

In my experience, no business that has the poor among its clientele ever goes cashless (gas stations, grocery stores, you name it). It would be economic suicide. Places that sell $8 tacos or $15 hamburgers, or other luxury goods and services, do go cashless, affecting exactly 0 poor people in practice. So a government-enforced mandate to accept cash is a solution in search of a problem.

Anyone who simply prefers to use cash for whatever reason, well, I don't see why they should have a special claim to the whole weight of the government to support their personal choices and against the personal choices of establishments that desire not to deal with cash.

I always heard that cash was "legal tender" and this meant that it had to be accepted. Apparently that is incorrect.

(08-09-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I always heard that cash was "legal tender" and this meant that it had to be accepted. Apparently that is incorrect.

For payment of debts, yes. Not for purchase of goods and services.

(08-09-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I always heard that cash was "legal tender" and this meant that it had to be accepted. Apparently that is incorrect.

I see more and more signs at businesses that say “ credit card or debit card only”
On a personal and purely observational note, I administer an estate that owns a restaurant whose clientele skews firmly blue-collar. The amount of cash in our receipts has dropped to 10-15% of the total. 18 months ago it was in the 30-40% range. We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

(08-09-2023 10:21 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I always heard that cash was "legal tender" and this meant that it had to be accepted. Apparently that is incorrect.

I see more and more signs at businesses that say “ credit card or debit card only”
On a personal and purely observational note, I administer an estate that owns a restaurant whose clientele skews firmly blue-collar. The amount of cash in our receipts has dropped to 10-15% of the total. 18 months ago it was in the 30-40% range. We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

Yeah, one of my doctors recently went to a "No Cash" policy. I was just wondering what "legal tender" meant these days.

My grandfather was a country doctor. My mother would talk about how he would hitch up the buggy and travel to a rural farm to deliver a baby,, and return two days later with a couple of chickens as payment. I guess chickens were both legal and tender in those days.

(08-09-2023 10:21 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

These days, I might be inclined to reconsider that decision.

(08-09-2023 10:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:21 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

These days, I might be inclined to reconsider that decision.

A head of lettuce is a head of lettuce, and can be used in a restaurant. Not subject to Bidenflation when used properly.

(08-09-2023 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:21 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I always heard that cash was "legal tender" and this meant that it had to be accepted. Apparently that is incorrect.

I see more and more signs at businesses that say “ credit card or debit card only”
On a personal and purely observational note, I administer an estate that owns a restaurant whose clientele skews firmly blue-collar. The amount of cash in our receipts has dropped to 10-15% of the total. 18 months ago it was in the 30-40% range. We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

Yeah, one of my doctors recently went to a "No Cash" policy. I was just wondering what "legal tender" meant these days.

You could, like, look it up:

legal tender
noun
: money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered

So, no, chickens are not legal tender by the dictionary or statutory definition.

(08-09-2023 11:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  So, no, chickens are not legal tender by the dictionary or statutory definition.

No, but he said that they were apparently at one point legal, and tender... lol

Some states have started minting 'gold backs' which are essentially gold leaf as currency. Though priced at around $4,000 per oz, their melt value is about $2,000 per oz...

Essentially you can have the ability to pay for smaller goods and services with gold, if someone will take it.

I am sure it is LEGAL for someone to take it.

(08-09-2023 11:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:21 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I always heard that cash was "legal tender" and this meant that it had to be accepted. Apparently that is incorrect.

I see more and more signs at businesses that say “ credit card or debit card only”
On a personal and purely observational note, I administer an estate that owns a restaurant whose clientele skews firmly blue-collar. The amount of cash in our receipts has dropped to 10-15% of the total. 18 months ago it was in the 30-40% range. We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

Yeah, one of my doctors recently went to a "No Cash" policy. I was just wondering what "legal tender" meant these days.

You could, like, look it up:

legal tender
noun
: money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered

So, no, chickens are not legal tender by the dictionary or statutory definition.

MUST be accepted? So the truckloads of pennies MUST be accepted?

My grandfather, I am sure, voluntarily accepted the chickens.

(08-09-2023 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  So, no, chickens are not legal tender by the dictionary or statutory definition.

No, but he said that they were apparently at one point legal, and tender... lol

Some states have started minting 'gold backs' which are essentially gold leaf as currency. Though priced at around $4,000 per oz, their melt value is about $2,000 per oz...

Essentially you can have the ability to pay for smaller goods and services with gold, if someone will take it.

I am sure it is LEGAL for someone to take it.

Barter isn't illegal in the U.S.

It's reportable income. That's where people can get in trouble. Plenty of it still going on, just more quietly.

(08-09-2023 11:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:21 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I always heard that cash was "legal tender" and this meant that it had to be accepted. Apparently that is incorrect.

I see more and more signs at businesses that say “ credit card or debit card only”
On a personal and purely observational note, I administer an estate that owns a restaurant whose clientele skews firmly blue-collar. The amount of cash in our receipts has dropped to 10-15% of the total. 18 months ago it was in the 30-40% range. We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

Yeah, one of my doctors recently went to a "No Cash" policy. I was just wondering what "legal tender" meant these days.

You could, like, look it up:

legal tender
noun
: money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered

So, no, chickens are not legal tender by the dictionary or statutory definition.

MUST be accepted? So the truckloads of pennies MUST be accepted?

My grandfather, I am sure, voluntarily accepted the chickens.

It's very specific to payment of debt, not services rendered.

(08-08-2023 04:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:04 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Interestingly, the calls I've heard to mandate that businesses accept cash have all come from the progressive side.

Interesting. Speaking of conversational opinion rather than legislative advocacy (about which on this topic I know nothing) , my impression here is exactly the opposite: it seems to be primarily liberty-conscious individuals (who perhaps tend to be conservative) who favor cash because it is traceable and does not require personal affiliation with some big institution, while "progressives" (who of course are the the opposite of liberty-conscious) are the loudest extollers of the virtues of cashlessness.

Yes, some issues do produce strange bedfellows, and this is one of them. The truly hard left (not just the typical city-dwelling affluent liberals that you and I probably encounter most) believe in radical egalitarianism to the nth degree, to the point that they are in favor of mandating that every business accommodate the unbanked (regardless of whether the unbanked would have patronized them in the first place), and the anti-corporatists (who used to just come from the left but now increasingly from the right) are for anything that diminishes the influence and role of banks. We can leave for another day the question of whether and to what extent there is also some antisemitism behind both groups' thinking.

Restricting the gambling industry is another strange bedfellow issue, as it animates both the paternalistic left and the social-conservative right (where I usually reside but not on that issue). But I digress.

I have no problem with "liberty-conscious individuals" who favor cash but if they want the government to enforce their preference on everybody else, that is most decidedly anti-liberty. The "new right" has a dismaying trend toward seeing no problem with growing and using governmental power.

(08-09-2023 11:32 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:21 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I see more and more signs at businesses that say “ credit card or debit card only”
On a personal and purely observational note, I administer an estate that owns a restaurant whose clientele skews firmly blue-collar. The amount of cash in our receipts has dropped to 10-15% of the total. 18 months ago it was in the 30-40% range. We accept all forms of payment. Except livestock and garden produce.

Yeah, one of my doctors recently went to a "No Cash" policy. I was just wondering what "legal tender" meant these days.

You could, like, look it up:

legal tender
noun
: money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered

So, no, chickens are not legal tender by the dictionary or statutory definition.

MUST be accepted? So the truckloads of pennies MUST be accepted?

My grandfather, I am sure, voluntarily accepted the chickens.

It's very specific to payment of debt, not services rendered.

So, if you render me a service, such as heart surgery, don't I owe you a debt?

(08-09-2023 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:32 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 11:02 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yeah, one of my doctors recently went to a "No Cash" policy. I was just wondering what "legal tender" meant these days.

You could, like, look it up:

legal tender
noun
: money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered

So, no, chickens are not legal tender by the dictionary or statutory definition.

MUST be accepted? So the truckloads of pennies MUST be accepted?

My grandfather, I am sure, voluntarily accepted the chickens.

It's very specific to payment of debt, not services rendered.

So, if you render me a service, such as heart surgery, don't I owe you a debt?

No, you owe me payment for services rendered.

Hence the signs, "Payment is due at time services are rendered" or words to that effect. It becomes a debt if you fail to pay me promptly.