Big Brother bans cash transactions

Hmmm. The few greenbacks in my wallet still say "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDERE FOR ALL DEBTS , PUBLIC AND PRIVATE."
 
You better check the spelling on those bills again, samclem. I think they may be counterfeit.
 
There is no law that says stores are required to accept cash. Stores can demand to be paid only with debit cards, credit cards, or gold coins, if they so choose.

As a corollary, there is thus no law prohibiting states from passing laws banning cash for certain transactions.

The text on the paper notes themselves are basically just self-legitimizing the bills. It doesn't actually mean anyone has to accept them as payment for anything. It's a common misconception that all businesses are legally required to accept cash. In fact, they're free to decline it (for example, they may believe it's counterfeit).
 
Good news for pawn shops. They can set up a "money order business" right next to their pawn shop cash registers. Pay customers with a money order, then cash it immediately afterward. Charge an extra 5% fee for money order purchases or redemptions. :)
 
This is one of those items of local interest that we have been talking about for some time, but didn't think was of much national interest. Obviously the state supreme court is going to say it's unconstitutional. How could they do otherwise. This sort of thing happens all the time in Louisiana, when politicians are seeking re-election, and then gets knocked down in the state supreme court.

F. is a ham, and we were concerned that it might be a temporary problem at local hamfests (= ham radio swap meets).
 
There is no law that says stores are required to accept cash. Stores can demand to be paid only with debit cards, credit cards, or gold coins, if they so choose.

As a corollary, there is thus no law prohibiting states from passing laws banning cash for certain transactions. ....

I'm not sure one leads to another. I suppose I am free to specify what payment I want to receive (two goats rather than $100, or whatever), and you are free to take your business elsewhere.

But that seems far different from telling me that I am not allowed to choose to accept the legal tender of the US.

-ERD50
 
Seems this was another one of those laws that you have to wait until it is enacted to find out what is in it.

Lawmakers love making laws, never mind the outcome.
 
I'm not sure one leads to another. I suppose I am free to specify what payment I want to receive (two goats rather than $100, or whatever), and you are free to take your business elsewhere.

But that seems far different from telling me that I am not allowed to choose to accept the legal tender of the US.

-ERD50
+1 A person deciding not to accept cash is one thing, the state telling him he can't accept cash is another.
 
Good news for pawn shops. They can set up a "money order business" right next to their pawn shop cash registers. Pay customers with a money order, then cash it immediately afterward. Charge an extra 5% fee for money order purchases or redemptions. :)
Very tidy, bravo. I think every rule intended to prohibit voluntary transactions between two parties creates discontinuities that can be exploited for profit.
 
I've got a really bad record on predicting SCOTUS results (wrong on Kelo, Raich, Bong Hits 4 Jesus, and many others), but I just can't see how this one will be upheld when challenged.
 
It doesn't actually mean anyone has to accept them as payment for anything.
As I interpret the Wikipedia entry for Legal tender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, once a store has sold something, it must accept cash as payment of the debt. However, the store could refuse to sell, if it knew cash was all that would be offered:
The right, in many jurisdictions, of a trader to refuse to do business with any person means a purchaser cannot demand to make a purchase, and so declaring a legal tender in law, as anything other than an offered payment for debts already incurred, would not be effective.
And
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
 
Anyone interested in reading the law can find it here.

The intention, of course, is to deter theft and resale of stolen industrial and precious metals, which are untraceable when melted or processed and represent a growing problem for communities, residents and law enforcement around the country. Telephone lines, rail tracks, industrial plumbing and wiring are common targets, as is jewelry. To require dealers purchasing these things to use bank checks is probably not unconstitutional, but to disallow businesses from accepting cash when they sell may be. Pawn shops are exempted because they are already subject to strict record keeping requirements. Flea markets are among the unintended causalities that may find this law unenforceable. I would imagine a superior court would say that if congress and law enforcement feel licensing pawn shops is considered adequate to deal with theft issues the same would apply to dealers of second hand junk (their term).

Dealers cannot set up money order shops or stations. That business is subject to rigorous federal banking regulation to prevent money laundering.
 
As I interpret the Wikipedia entry for Legal tender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, once a store has sold something, it must accept cash as payment of the debt. However, the store could refuse to sell, if it knew cash was all that would be offered:
And


But I think this from Wiki is important....

"However, restaurants that do not collect payment until after a meal is served would have to accept that legal tender for the debt incurred in purchasing the meal."

IOW, from what I read, if the debt already exists then the other person can not refuse to accept cash for that debt... However, I have heard that there is a law that the person does not have to accept coins for debt over some amount... you do not have to accept $10,000 in pennies if you do not want... but $10,000 in bills you would...
 
Dealers cannot set up money order shops or stations. That business is subject to rigorous federal banking regulation to prevent money laundering.
Gift certificates. Next register: buy a stick of gum with your $329 gift certificate, get your gum and change (in cash).
 
:D When I moved there - (1974-2005), people who lived 'off the books' will work for cash, were a significance part of the economy. Barter and cash transactions were also common.

heh heh heh - sounds like with the current high unemployment that sort of thing may have picked up a tad'. :greetings10:

You got dat right, Unclemick. :greetings10:
 
Does Louisiana have a sales tax? Is this just for Pawn shops? What about your local girls of the evening? Your garage sales? Is this an attempt to make sure all transactions are traceable to collect more tax revenue? I would guess the result will be to drive more transactions underground.
 
Yes, we have a state sales tax (about 4%) as well as local sales taxes (about 4.75% in my parish). You make a good point, and also we have such an overwhelming crime problem in New Orlean that perhaps this would help in stemming the flow of stolen goods being sold as used items. It is still just political maneuvering, IMO, and will quickly be shot down in supreme court as have so many crazy unconstitutional laws in the past, here.
 
Last edited:
The intention, of course, is to deter theft and resale of stolen industrial and precious metals, which are untraceable when melted or processed and represent a growing problem for communities, residents and law enforcement around the country. Telephone lines, rail tracks, industrial plumbing and wiring are common targets, as is jewelry. To require dealers purchasing these things to use bank checks is probably not unconstitutional, but to disallow businesses from accepting cash when they sell may be. Pawn shops are exempted because they are already subject to strict record keeping requirements. Flea markets are among the unintended causalities that may find this law unenforceable. I would imagine a superior court would say that if congress and law enforcement feel licensing pawn shops is considered adequate to deal with theft issues the same would apply to dealers of second hand junk (their term).

Dealers cannot set up money order shops or stations. That business is subject to rigorous federal banking regulation to prevent money laundering.

I think the stated reason is what you show above. I believe the real (or at least equally important) reason is related to what Uncle Mick said. A way to make sure sales taxes are collected on all transactions. When times get hard, economies go underground. As governments tighten down, people find other ways to accomplish what the people want. If LA goes through with this, I wouldn't be surprised to see non-governmental units of trade popping up, similar to BerkShares or any of the Barter Network currencies already in existence. Squeeze one end of something too hard and stuff will pop out in another spot.
 
A way to collect sales tax. That never occurred to me, but now that unclemick (and others) brings it up, it wouldn't surprise me if that were the real intention. As they say

"Más sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo"

or, poorly translated,

the devil knows so much more not because he's the devil, but just because he's old and been around ...

and that seems to define unclemick pretty well (and a few more of us that prefer a lower profile:).
 
Back
Top Bottom