[lotsofpulp]

> So basically, I think that asking "why should a business be forced by law to accept cash?" is like asking "why should a business be forced by law to provide wheelchair ramps and elevators?" If you don't think the answer is obvious, then you need to check your privilege.

If you don’t think the answer is the federal government should be providing the necessary infrastructure, then you want retail business operators to pay for fixing the problems taxpayers should be paying to fix.

[marssaxman]

Does the federal government provide wheelchair ramps and elevators? I was under the impression that the government simply lays out requirements in the building code, and business operators pay to fix their accessibility problems as part of the cost of doing business.

[lotsofpulp]

No, and that comes at a cost too. There are cities where infrastructure improvements like sidewalks do not get made because the accessibility requirements make them too costly.

It is a tried and true tactic for politicians to be able to claim they did something, but also keep taxes low. It really screws the smallest and poorest businesses/communities.

IDEA 2004 - Feds mandate each and every kid get an “individual education plan” and make it very hard and expensive for school leaders to expel kids who cause problems. And of course, Feds provide no money.

So what happens? Poorer towns with insufficient resources for paraeducators to manage problematic kids just let the kids stay in class and cause disruptions. Poorer students who want to learn get punished.

Richer areas that can afford complying with all regulations are even better off than before, except their residents get lower taxes and their leaders get to say they did something to help people.

Legislating a minimum standard is easy and cheap. Funding it and executing it is expensive, so everyone tries to avoid it.