[r0m4n0]

I think this writer focuses on the buyer side but on the merchant side, there are similar tradeoffs. People (employees, robbers etc) steal cash and it adds work to close out registers at the end of your day. Having no cash in your store solves those problems.

I run a non profit with membership dues and I have tried to just boot the 3% of our membership that pay w/ check or cash annually (I haven’t convinced the rest of the board so we haven’t done it yet). It takes so much extra time to follow it in real life, receive checks in the mail, and effort to deposit in the bank. It’s just not worth the time

[marssaxman]

I understand why people do it; but - there has to be some threshold beyond which you would not be considering this decision, doesn't there? Would you still be considering this if 5% of your members were paying in cash? 10%? There's a point at which it would be clearly worth it to you to accept cash.

All I can do is try to keep that share of cash users up through my own action, and talk about what I am doing to encourage other people to do likewise, in hopes that business owners will continue to see cash as a normal part of their operation worth maintaining, and not as an oddball nuisance.

[snypher]

Pretty scummy way to reject the people you rely on to fund your cause.

Do you get paid from this non-profit you run?

[r0m4n0]

No, I donate a lot of money on top of the time I volunteer for free. Someone has to spend maybe an hour every few months to deposit a single check for $50.

You got me on the rejection part because there are some benefits the members get (being able to attend social events, newsletters, etc) but if your donation is a net negative on an organization, I just don’t think they should donate at all. They don’t know it’s a net negative though and maybe would donate with an electronic payment but possibly don’t know? I think it’s mostly old people doing things the way they are used to

But TBH I’m not sure if much of this matters other than the ratio. Time is money and if there aren’t enough people utilizing something, it’s just not worth it to continue. If it’s a government org that’s possibly the only thing that needs to accept all forms of payment

[Robelius]

What’s scummy about this? Seems like the poster was giving a perspective where they are trying to maximize outcomes of the non-profit rather than maximize dollars raised.

[wrp]

It depends on the nature of the non-profit. If membership confers some benefit, then it would be deliberately denying that benefit to the class of people who can only pay by cash or check. That would be scummy.