Do you use cash (notes/coins)?  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you use cash (notes/coins)?

    • I used both
      28
    • Cash only
      1
    • Completely cashless (but use cash when I have to)
      20


Recommended Posts

Quote

The UK risks "sleepwalking" into becoming a cashless society with millions of people disadvantaged as a result, a study has concluded.

Banknotes and coins are a necessity for eight million people, according to the Access to Cash study.

The report, authored by ex-financial ombudsman Natalie Ceeney, said a cash-free society would create problems for those in debt or living in rural areas.

Last year, debit cards overtook cash as the UK's most popular payment method.

Source

 

So I assume that this isn't just an issue/change that's happening in the UK. What do our members think?

 

I keep a few notes in my wallet, but I tend to use cards (either credit or debit) for all of my transactions and even more so my phone. I can understand why in some places it would be an issue, but I think we need to push to solve those issues, rather than not embracing being cashless.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1377819-millions-will-suffer-without-cash/
Share on other sites

EFTPOS was introduced in New Zealand in the mid-80s, became available pretty much everywhere in the early 90s and was incredibly popular by the mid-90s. I've never really carried cash.

38 minutes ago, Vince800 said:

Cash is nothing but an inconvenience and it utterly annoys me if I shop somewhere which only has cash as an option. It's 2018 and in my opinion, cash shouldn't be a thing any more.

The more I move away from cash the more I agree with this, but I also see how it may not necessarily be a practical solution for everyone. 

4 minutes ago, Jim K said:

Still use cash for small purchases ... but mostly just swipe the credit card.  

 

Checks, on the other hand, need to die (in stores anyway).  :) 

Cheques are still a thing?!? Think I was posted a new book about 7/8 years ago that hasn't been touched

I also mostly use my card/phone to pay, but I also carry cash for convenience.

 

I wonder how much going completely cashless would affect charities. The collection tin at the register (or even in the street) would go away, and that's a big source of income for many smaller charities. Also tip jars at coffee shops?

2 minutes ago, dipsylalapo said:

Cheques are still a thing?!? Think I was posted a new book about 7/8 years ago that hasn't been touched

You would think they aren't...until you get in a grocery store line behind (usually) an elderly customer.

  • Haha 1

 

5 minutes ago, Slugsie said:

I also mostly use my card/phone to pay, but I also carry cash for convenience.

 

I wonder how much going completely cashless would affect charities. The collection tin at the register (or even in the street) would go away, and that's a big source of income for many smaller charities. Also tip jars at coffee shops?

Well I thought the same thing. Then I was in Bank Station in London a few months back. They had people collecting for Cancer Research and were waving around contactless terminals. They're catching up.

6 minutes ago, dipsylalapo said:

 

Well I thought the same thing. Then I was in Bank Station in London a few months back. They had people collecting for Cancer Research and were waving around contactless terminals. They're catching up.

That wouldn't be a small charity though. As far as cash goes, I most often use it when going out to a bar to keep from just running a tab at the bar, so I can keep up with how much I'm spending, and also so I have change for the pool table. And I don't know too many strip clubs that let you tip the dancers with a card. LOL

5 hours ago, dipsylalapo said:

 

Well I thought the same thing. Then I was in Bank Station in London a few months back. They had people collecting for Cancer Research and were waving around contactless terminals. They're catching up.

The thing is there is a world of difference between grabbing a bunch of change out of your pocket and dumping it in a collection tin, and typing out an exact amount. Many will do the former without thinking, but would baulk at the latter.

 

This isn't a reason to not go cashless, just one example of how a system will need to change and adapt.

On 12/19/2018 at 2:30 PM, Slugsie said:

I wonder how much going completely cashless would affect charities. The collection tin at the register (or even in the street) would go away, and that's a big source of income for many smaller charities. Also tip jars at coffee shops?

Beggars are now accepting mobile payments because we don't carry loose change anymore

 

On 12/19/2018 at 12:45 PM, Vince800 said:

Cash is nothing but an inconvenience and it utterly annoys me if I shop somewhere which only has cash as an option. It's 2018 and in my opinion, cash shouldn't be a thing any more.

Cash is freedom.

 

Spoiler

FROM: New United Nations HQ – Consumer Enforcement Division
TO: Winston Smith
DATE: 02/17/2025
SUBJECT: Revocation of commercial interaction license

 

Dear Consumer,

 

Our biometric detection division has confirmed that you participated in the protests at last month’s coronation of Hillary Clinton as Supreme Leader of the United States for Life. Your case was reviewed by our enforcement personnel and you were found guilty of unlawful dissent. As a result, all of your financial accounts have been closed, your carbon credit allowance has been frozen, and your consumer participation chip has been deactivated.

 

You have been downgraded from consumer to laborer. As such, you may proceed to the nearest Federal Emergency Management Agency labor camp to receive your work assignment. You will be provided a space in the dormitory and three meal credits per day.

 

All Hail the New United Nations, Praise Be to Secretary General Rothschild.

a debit card is no different from cash so there's really no reason to keep bills/coins around.

 

the whole rural/debt argument only really works when talking about cash vs credit cards but I don't see debit cards having the same issue. If you don't have a checking account that's really your own fault IMO.

 

physical money does nothing but waste resources and take up space IMO; we've exceeded the need for it.

  • 2 weeks later...

I really hate using cash, coins epecially. So im happy to use my phone or bank card for as many payments as possible.

 

Does anyone else think there is something shady going on when somewhere accepts cash only?

7 minutes ago, Daniel F. said:

I really hate using cash, coins epecially. So im happy to use my phone or bank card for as many payments as possible.

 

Does anyone else think there is something shady going on when somewhere accepts cash only?

I find that it's mostly smaller, older businesses that prefer cash only for one reason or another. I guess it's also to avoid paying the fees that are associated with each card transaction.

I too prefer to tip with cash. It does two things, first is less in fees the merchant has to cover and second, the server gets immediate (unaccounted) compensation. I'm also not worried by businesses that deal strictly in cash. Sure, there is the side that may say they are up to something but I prefer to think they are better respecting my right to privacy. When we pay in cash, there is no data to be tracked, sold or stolen.  

I don't use much cash anymore.

 

In theory I'd have nothing against removing cash but the problem is that, to be cashless you depend on banks and payment method providers, and none of those are guaranteed by society, they're all private companies. I think my government is supposed to provide me with a way to live in it, and cash is a part of it. If you remove it we need another way to pay stuff, and I don't want everything to depend on private companies.

 

Small businesses that deal only in cash ? Eh... I bet they have to pay the payment service provider somehow and just want to avoid that, but I'm not a tax inspector and I don't think it's up to me to check that they're doing their work right.

12 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

I’ve got the same 300 USD I put in my wallet months ago. I just don’t need to use cash under most circumstances (I tip with cash though). 

Obviouly not a very generous tipper then 😝  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
1 minute ago, Riggers said:

Obviouly not a very generous tipper then 😝  

I never go out to eat :D I can see how that looked LOL.

 

I mean I do, but haven't in a long time.

3 minutes ago, Brys said:

I don't use much cash anymore.

 

In theory I'd have nothing against removing cash but the problem is that, to be cashless you depend on banks and payment method providers, and none of those are guaranteed by society, they're all private companies. I think my government is supposed to provide me with a way to live in it, and cash is a part of it. If you remove it we need another way to pay stuff, and I don't want everything to depend on private companies.

 

Small businesses that deal only in cash ? Eh... I bet they have to pay the payment service provider somehow and just want to avoid that, but I'm not a tax inspector and I don't think it's up to me to check that they're doing their work right.

We have a small restaurant here that asks for cash over plastic to avoid service charges.

 

2 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

We have a small restaurant here that asks for cash over plastic to avoid service charges.

 

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. My boss handled that for some clients but I never paid much attention. I don't remember if they just pay the charges every time you pay, if they have to buy or rent the card readers, etc... I remember one also having to pass some security certifications linked to that... So yeah, it's not free. They still charge you 30$, but some of those have to go to the card people at some point.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!