[renhanxue]

I'm Swedish and if someone insists on doing a transaction using cash when Swish or card is available, I'd immediately start to wonder if it's for some kind of more or less shady reason, probably tax evasion at the very least.

[daneel_w]

You have to differentiate common purchases from "large" purchases in this discussion. I'm certain you don't think there's something shady going on, or tax evasion happening, if someone uses cash in the grocery store or at Pressbyrån, or to pay for some little gadget or whatever at Kjell&Co.

This is what people think of when someone "uses cash". Not hauling tens of thousands to buy a used car or to settle the bill for having your bathroom tiled, which would be cases I too would raise an eyebrow over.

[derefr]

I think they're talking about when merchants insist that you give them cash ("cash only"), not when buyers insist on giving cash. The usual assumption is that if e.g. a street-food cart is cash-only, it's not because they can't accept cards (it's rather trivial nowadays) but rather that 1. they don't want to pay the interchange fees, and more importantly, 2. they want to be able to cook their books when reporting revenue.

[dumbfounder]

There are businesses that attract people that use cards fraudulently and the business gets flagged demand eventually dropped. Gas stations in less desirable neighborhoods in the US have this issue and some only take cash.

[renhanxue]

Credit card fraud is not nearly as common in Europe as it is in the US.

Additionally, and specifically in Sweden, the fees that banks charge businesses for handling cash (picking it up and depositing it at the end of each business day) have increased significantly in the last decade or two. This has been a significant factor in driving businesses away from cash - it's just expensive for them to deal with.

[mercutio2]

Are you sure Europe has less credit card fraud? When is your data from?

The US has a much less secure system specifically because there was much less credit card fraud in the US than in Europe.

Chip and PIN was an attempt to combat the rampant fraud in Europe.

It may be true at this point, I haven’t been tracking recently, but it wasn’t in the past.

[jrcplus]

Another factor: I'm pretty sure it's more common that people have debit cards than credit cards in Europe, which equals less credit card fraud.

[Sammi]

As were discussing here, swedes almost exclusively use online card transactions. Don't see much card fraud because of this.

[bongodongobob]

Huh, interesting cultural difference. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not merchants I buy things from do their taxes correctly.

[riffraff]

Definitely cultural: Italy has a big tradition of merchants evading taxes, and there have been multiple steps over the year to mandate card payments cause those imply the merchant will pay taxes.

So if you are a law abiding citizen you can easily be pissed off that you get to pay taxes and they don't.

For a few years "we don't take card" was widely interpreted as a strong indicator the merchant would evade taxes, and "I won't go there anymore" was a common reaction from some people. These days it's technically illegal and yet you will still find _some_ shops that only want cash.

[what]

>they don’t want to pay interchange fees

That seems totally fair if they can’t pass that cost on to you for using a card. Why should they have to pay to accept your patronage?

[renhanxue]

A cheaper alternative to cards here is app payment via Swish (approximately like Venmo). Goes straight to the vendor's bank account at a flat rate of the equivalent of USD ~$0.15 per transaction.

[what]

Why don’t you pay the transaction fee every time you use your card or whatever then? Why should the merchant foot the bill?

[sebra]

That used to be semi-common for smaller transactions in Sweden but was made illegal. Not sure why, probably to fight tax avoidance.

At this point the cost of handling cash is way higher than handling cards and as no one in Sweden ever uses cash its no longer relevant at all anyway. Now many (maybe even most?) dont accept cash to avoid the cost of handling cash instead.

[renhanxue]

Having a cash register and handling cash costs money too, doesn't it? It's just a cost of doing business.

[immibis]

Note that Europe passed a law that limits interchange fees to something very low by US standards, like $0.20 or 0.05%, so it's not a reasonable excuse.

(The fact that credit card networks continue doing business in Europe proves they're still profitable and the US is getting ripped off by these fees)

[amarant]

Yeah there's that cash only bar in central Stockholm that's cash only. Everyone just "knows" they launder money there. I forget the name of the bar, it's on a barge near Tantolunden. it's the shadiest place I know where you can't barely find any shade!

[blurrybird]

FWIW I am Australian and we have a similar adoption rate of cashless payments.

If a merchant tries to promote cash options I immediately think they’re doing it for tax evasion reasons - not because of the touted reason that “card payments cost more to process” (they don’t once you factor in the cost of handling cash).

[tdeck]

I think the same thing in the US about small businesses that only take cash, but it's still pretty normal to use cash in the US.

[jhbadger]

People forget that the credit card companies charge businesses to process transactions. Some stores/restaurants even give discounts for paying in cash because of this.

[markdown]

In my country if you pay with credit card at a grocery store (or anywhere) you get 3.5% tacked on to your bill. Merchants don't eat the cost, and don't hide it in the listed price of goods; it's explicitly passed on.

[smegger001]

I know its not uncommon at small business to ad a surcharge for using cards on purchases below a certain dollar value rather than a discount for cash.

[swiftcoder]

This is explicitly forbidden by almost all card processing networks (and by the government, in many countries). If you report a business who is doing this to the card processor, they'll likely get their card processing privileges suspended.

[OptionOfT]

On the other hand, cash has its costs. You need to have a register, more training, more insurance, processing of cash at the bank, having it deposit cash at the end of every day, etc.

With credit cards you pay a fee, but you don't have to deal with all of those other things that people often don't consider.

[ajsnigrutin]

But they already have all this, there are very few merchants that don't actually accept cash at all.

[mercanlIl]

IME (in Canada), the cash discount is surprisingly close to 15%, which is approximately the sales tax in most provinces.

[jayknight]

Here in the deep (American) South, small businesses give discounts for cash because those global elites are trying to take away our cash and want to track us or whatever. To that mindset, cash is a way to resist a theoretical oppression.

[101008]

Same here in Argentina

[Theodores]

In the UK this was banned in 2018. The cash price has to be the same as the debit/credit card price, which is not exactly 'freedom'.

[fn-mote]

In the US a recent change was made in the other direction. Credit card surcharges are much more common now.

I believe it was part of an agreement with the card companies over anti-competitive behavior.

[throwawayq3423]

Yes, mostly to avoid paying taxes on their revenue.

[wbl]

It's the tax evasion. Nobody ever pilfered an interchange account.

[tdeck]

I know that this is true (I used to work in card payment infrastructure), but I've also talked to people who run cash businesses and deliberately under report their income. So I think it's not so uncommon.

[boringg]

And lets hope that never changes

[russelg]

If a tradie offers me a better price when I pay by cash, of course they're doing it to dodge tax. I'm still gonna take that discount.

[tossandthrow]

Here is likely not that much handling cost for an independent hairdresser just earning their own (quite meager) salary.

In the EU you can not charge a card fee on consumer transactions, so the merchant has the eat the cost.

If your revenue is - 2-3000 Eur a month, payment fees (and terminal subscription fees) can have a big impact.

[andrewaylett]

I, as a private individual, can accept card payments for 1.69%. I have a physical chip and pin reader (that pairs with my phone), it cost me £25, but I can take contactless payments using just my phone. If I didn't want to use my phone, I'd need the £75 reader that comes with a 4G connection (at no extra transaction or subscription cost).

If I were charging £3k/month, I'd be just above the threshold where paying £19.99/month to get a transaction fee of 0.99% saves money overall.

[swiftcoder]

I get the terminal directly from my bank here in Spain, it's something like €5/month + 0.02% of transaction. Is it much higher in other parts of the EU?

[xigoi]

0.2% of 3000€ is 6€. I’m not sure how big of an impact that is, considering the non-negligible costs of handling this much money in cash. If a business earns more money after accepting cash, it’s probably because they don’t pay taxes.

[Reason077]

> "FWIW I am Australian and we have a similar adoption rate of cashless payments. If a merchant tries to promote cash options I immediately think they’re doing it for tax evasion reasons"

I don't know about Australia, but in New Zealand many small retailers and restaurants add a card payment surcharge (typically 1.5%-2.5%) automatically when you pay by card. So you are somewhat penalised for the convenience of using a card. This never happens in Europe.

[inkyoto]

1.5%-2.5% card surcharges (both, debit and credit) are a commonplace in Australia as well.

Visa and Mastercard have successfully lobbied and conspired with local banks in both countries to bury EFTPOS, which were national debit card payment systems with a flat transaction fee ranging between 10 and 50 cents per transaction (depending on the bank).

A while back, Visa/MC realised that debit card transactions, being on the rise, were a highly lucrative market to tap into that they had been missing out on, so they set out on a war of attrition and conspired with the local big banks to phase out EFTPOS cards in favour of Visa/MC debit cards, where the cost of transaction was to be passed on to the card user. Tiered debit cards quickly followed (Platinum, etc.), that attracted higher fee percentages for Visa/MC – payment network commission fees are published on the respective payment network websites. Other than consumers, all parties involved (big banks, payment networks) became moist with excitement at getting a huge slice of the card transactions pie.

But there is the light at the end of the tunnel (other than the light of the oncoming train) – the RBA has moved to ban all card surcharges from July 2026.

[bobsmooth]

>I immediately think they’re doing it for tax evasion reasons

What's your opinion on that? In NA, for small businesses it's common to offer to pay in cash to avoid paying sales tax.

[normie3000]

Where is NA?

[gnabgib]

Mexico + USA + Canada.. North America

It's also not common (and illegal).. this account posts a lot of vague platitudes.

[phil21]

It’s quite common in the US everywhere I’ve lived. Every tradesman I’ve used outside of large companies will offer a large discount for cash if you ask about it. They will likely not be the first to initiate though at a certain level of customer, since the social expectations change at a certain level of wealth.

This is almost always in a portion of the invoice written up at around half the agreed amount, and the rest in cash. Or for smaller jobs just on the side with no paperwork involved outside of a firm handshake.

This is the norm for the lower end of the trades. If you’re dealing with a single owner company with a few employees I’d be very surprised if they would not be willing.

Yeah, once you get into “real companies” that are charging upper middle class rates on million dollar properties it changes.

I haven’t had trades work done in Mexico, but considering all my visits were effectively cash only transactions I’d be pretty surprised if it wasn’t at least as common as in the US.

[bobsmooth]

It's very common for small and independent businesses. You've likely never interacted with one.

[noduerme]

When you say "buying a used car"... do you mean from a dealership, or from a private party? In America, I almost can't imagine buying a used car from an individual without paying them in cash. Indeed, it's one of the few situations where a large amount of cash is almost always required. It's a pain to go to the bank and get that cash. However, this is not because of tax evasion or something ... it's to avoid any sort of dispute or reversal once the sale is final. I would take Bitcoin for a car, or a check I could cash before signing over the vehicle, but I'd never take paypal or some other method where the buyer could contest the charges.

[renhanxue]

We usually use an app for that (Swish, it's kind of like Venmo I guess, developed in collaboration between the six largest banks). We don't really do transaction reversals in the same way or as commonly as in the US.

Paying for a used car in cash would actually be difficult because handling an amount greater than the equivalent of around USD $1k immediately starts tripping KYC/AML flags at any bank if you try to deposit it, and it's hard to use in day to day life because few places other than grocery stores even accept cash anymore.

[noduerme]

Wow... depositing more than $1k would trigger AML. That's incredible. In the US it's not uncommon for contractors to pull $10k cash at the end of a week to pay their workers. Some of that may be due to tax evasion or, just as likely, the workers being in the country illegally. I suppose this is another major reason cash is still "tolerated" in the US, because the casual labor market depends so heavily on undocumented workers. No one besides a few ultra-nationalists would really want to enforce such a thing, as it would drive up construction costs. And the nationalists are paranoid and stock up on cash and gold themselves.

Honestly, that system sounds a bit Orwellian. But also, does that mean that you have to pay a bank transfer fee every time you buy anything?

[renhanxue]

Generally there are never any transfer fees for private individuals doing domestic transfers. The banks just provide that service for free and eat the cost. Businesses wanting to accept payments via the Swish app usually pay a flat rate of the equivalent of approximately USD $0.15 per transaction (exact terms depends on which bank you use).

It's also worth noting that credit card interchange fees are price controlled in Europe; there's a EU directive that caps the interchange fees at 0.2% for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards. Because of this, cashback on credit cards is pitiful in the EU; you can get 0.5% cashback but not much more than that.

[hashmush]

> But also, does that mean that you have to pay a bank transfer fee every time you buy anything?

No, not at all. The Swish rails are free to users. But I've never had to pay any transfer fees for domestic transfers anyway. They are just much slower than using Swish (instant transfers) and much more clunky (bank account number etc. vs. phone number/QR-code).

[SiempreViernes]

Not every time, very certainly less than on 5% of all normal transactions, and the actual fraction will depend more on whether you count currency conversion fees and how frequently the person you are asking is buying from outside the EES.

[cuban-frisbee]

I am danish so not quite as anti-cash as Sweden but if people use cash in grocery stores or just stores in general the general sentiment will be that its either because they are old , the cash they have is undeclared income or that it is income from illegal activities.

[mongol]

Not specifically shady, but I still react and wonder. Only a few weeks ago it happened when someone paid with bills at Lidl

[kl_r]

Same. If I see reasonably young person using cash I would assume they've bought drugs and had some cash left over.

[Findecanor]

Swish uses the proprietary "BankID" system, and the company behind it has let frauds go on for years and blaming the victims. Therefore I have chosen not to support them.

It didn't have proper two-factor authentication when you just had to tap a button on the smartphone to approve a log-in or a bank transfer (and users didn't always tell which was which). Now it requires reading a QR code — which it should have done all the time.

AFAIK it still does not use any secure key storage on the smartphone, so if your phone gets rooted by an attacker, the attacker could gain access to your bank accounts. So far, frauds have been much easier to pull off, so criminals have not bothered to hack it. (that we know of)

[lbschenkel]

I'm not an huge fan of BankID either, but a few corrections/clarifications:

1. BankID always allowed to have different settings for login and for signature. I have done that since forever. For example, I configured login to allow biometrics but not signature. If it's forcing me to enter the security code I know it is a signature, which forces me to pause. I cannot sign anything by mistake (like a transfer) because I'm forced to enter my long security code to complete it. And for the much more frequent scenario of pure logins, I can just use my finger.

2. I believe it does use the hardware-backed keychain if the device has one. I cannot prove it as the source code is not available, but I remember being curious and checking this on a rooted device.