The end of cash?

[nil_desperandum]

I'll take the 2 pound and 1pound coins.over the pennies though.... never really understood why shops dont round every thing up to a pound though to be honest,that really is lost on me.

This may not be correct, but my understanding is that historically shops charge "something and 99 pence" because the overwhelming majority of people want the penny change. This means that whoever is working the till has to open the till to put the money in and take one penny out. This means that they can't just keep skimming notes and pounds off into their pockets.
As I say, that may not be the reason, and it's obviously irrelevant if paying by card.
Maybe someone else has also heard this and can confirm?

[Stayingup]

I don't use cash now. Contact less is far easier when going out for a few drinks than scratting around for change.

Cash is dirty and a health risk, whilst we have the virus cash should be banned

And when your abroad?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Well I'll go with Darwin then.....change it Is then. I'll take the 2 pound and 1pound coins.over the pennies though.... never really understood why shops dont round every thing up to a pound though to be honest,that really is lost on me.

It's a sales ploy.

99p sounds more appealing than a £1, that's why.
People are more inclined to buy stuff priced that way.

[dsr]

This may not be correct, but my understanding is that historically shops charge "something and 99 pence" because the overwhelming majority of people want the penny change. This means that whoever is working the till has to open the till to put the money in and take one penny out. This means that they can't just keep skimming notes and pounds off into their pockets.
As I say, that may not be the reason, and it's obviously irrelevant if paying by card.
Maybe someone else has also heard this and can confirm?

Good point.

I always been lead to believe that the reason was that £7.99 makes people subconsciously think of the price as 7-something, rather than 8. But a control over the staff makes sense too.

[TVC15]

This may not be correct, but my understanding is that historically shops charge "something and 99 pence" because the overwhelming majority of people want the penny change. This means that whoever is working the till has to open the till to put the money in and take one penny out. This means that they can't just keep skimming notes and pounds off into their pockets.
As I say, that may not be the reason, and it's obviously irrelevant if paying by card.
Maybe someone else has also heard this and can confirm?

Historically the main thought behind this is that it is a sales ploy / psychology type reason. People read from left to right so making something £4.99 they think it’s four pounds and something rather than five pounds and something.

That’s the main theory people say it started but most big places stopped pricing their products in this way a few years ago.

[nil_desperandum]

Good point.

I always been lead to believe that the reason was that £7.99 makes people subconsciously think of the price as 7-something, rather than 8. But a control over the staff makes sense too.

It seems that I wasn't just making it up. It's referred to in this FT article.
https://www.ft.com/content/d4428c0e-b09 ... 144feabdc0

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I'm not in the mood for being confrontational, and there aren't many threads that I post on nowadays, but I think I did give you the reason why unless things changed significantly.
The reason being that according to my research there are something like one million people within the UK who - for one reason or another - can't open a bank account. I guess that they would have to have some kind of pre-loaded cash card to get around this

Pretty much anyone can have a bank account as of 2016.
A basic one was created to ensure everyone can have access to a bank account, especially as many companies will only pay wages into an account under the same name as employee.

The only reasons someone wouldn't have a bank account would be if they can't prove who they are, have a conviction for fraud or they're an undischarged bankruptee

If a million people don't have a bank account then I'm going to suggest a number of them actively don't want one, not because they can't get one.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/e ... k-accounts

[Dy1geo]

Cash transactions will naturally decrease, prior to this I was a cash man I drew out a set amount once a week but since this I haven’t drawn money out once and even used contactless at local corner shop. I once asked my daughter when was she last used cash and she said she hasn’t used it in over 12 months.

I don’t think the government will mandate an end to cash but it will die a natural death and this epidemic will speed it up.

[tim_noone]

Cash transactions will naturally decrease, prior to this I was a cash man I drew out a set amount once a week but since this I haven’t drawn money out once and even used contactless at local corner shop. I once asked my daughter when was she last used cash and she said she hasn’t used it in over 12 months.

I don’t think the government will mandate an end to cash but it will die a natural death and this epidemic will speed it up.

Two sides to every coin so to speak. And I havent used a bank card in 11 years.

[Rileybobs]

And when your abroad?

I use a card when on holiday in Spain. I usually withdraw a couple of hundred euros when I’m there to use on the rare occasions when I can’t use a card, and also for tips. All restaurants, bars and even taxis accept card payment.

Obviously if I was going to Thailand or somewhere less developed then I would need cash. Having said that, I don’t need British currency to be able to get cash in other currencies.

[Loyalclaret]

Pretty much anyone can have a bank account as of 2016.
A basic one was created to ensure everyone can have access to a bank account, especially as many companies will only pay wages into an account under the same name as employee.

The only reasons someone wouldn't have a bank account would be if they can't prove who they are, have a conviction for fraud or they're an undischarged bankruptee

If a million people don't have a bank account then I'm going to suggest a number of them actively don't want one, not because they can't get one.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/e ... k-accounts

If you ever meet someone without a bank account-ask them if they've tried to get one. I think you'll find many have tried.

The banks first credit check them, tell them that unfortunately they do not fit the criteria for their bank account. They do not usually mention their basic bank accounts, very rarely will you see litertaure/adverts for an account/account holder that realistically will not bring a penny in. Many times they are sign posted to another financial organisation, where the sending bank know they probably will not fit the criteria or a place to wash their hands of the 'worthless' applicant.

[tim_noone]

If you ever meet someone without a bank account-ask them if they've tried to get one. I think you'll find many have tried.

The banks first credit check them, tell them that unfortunately they do not fit the criteria for their bank account. They do not usually mention their basic bank accounts, very rarely will you see litertaure/adverts for an account/account holder that realistically will not bring a penny in. Many times they are sign posted to another financial organisation, where the sending bank know they probably will not fit the criteria or a place to wash their hands of the 'worthless' applicant.

I reckon the "worthless" applicant is actually quite valuable to banks tbh. How many people have you heard of being charged for unofficial overdrafts when not having sufficient funds in? There cant be anyone who doesn't know someone.a great money making scam by the banks for the poor.

[TVC15]

If you ever meet someone without a bank account-ask them if they've tried to get one. I think you'll find many have tried.

The banks first credit check them, tell them that unfortunately they do not fit the criteria for their bank account. They do not usually mention their basic bank accounts, very rarely will you see litertaure/adverts for an account/account holder that realistically will not bring a penny in. Many times they are sign posted to another financial organisation, where the sending bank know they probably will not fit the criteria or a place to wash their hands of the 'worthless' applicant.

Spot on.
I think it was only Barclays, Coop Bank and Clydesdale who were part of the agreement to offer the Basic Bank account. They were under no obligation to accept accounts either and could still decline these or request closure - and the latter happened a lot as the accounts were often badly ran or small businesses were trying to use them (self employed cash businesses trying to avoid bank charges etc)
The accounts were a big loss maker for the banks too so you are right they are not advertised.
And as someone had already pointed out many people still didn’t want a bank account and were under no obligation to apply for one.
I know it’s hard to believe how many people don’t have a bank account in this day and age but it’s a fact. And as said the number of people who are members of credit unions in the UK is further evidence that they can’t get bank accounts (or credit) or don’t want them.

[Loyalclaret]

I reckon the "worthless" applicant is actually quite valuable to banks tbh. How many people have you heard of being charged for unofficial overdrafts when not having sufficient funds in? There cant be anyone who doesn't know someone.a great money making scam by the banks for the poor.

These people don't usually qualify for over drafts Tim official or unofficial as far as I am aware

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If you ever meet someone without a bank account-ask them if they've tried to get one. I think you'll find many have tried.

The banks first credit check them, tell them that unfortunately they do not fit the criteria for their bank account. They do not usually mention their basic bank accounts, very rarely will you see litertaure/adverts for an account/account holder that realistically will not bring a penny in. Many times they are sign posted to another financial organisation, where the sending bank know they probably will not fit the criteria or a place to wash their hands of the 'worthless' applicant.

Banks failing in their duty, unsurprisingly, and people not looking up their rights isn't anyone else's fault but theirs.
The banks aren't even required to use a credit check for the basic accounts as shown in the link.

My dad was able to get a basic bank account with no hassle and he was a bankruptee.
I think it was still his only bank account when he passed away.

[nil_desperandum]

My dad was able to get a basic bank account with no hassle and he was a bankruptee.
I think it was still his only bank account when he passed away.

I bet he was able to prove his ID and permanent address though - and sadly many can't.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I bet he was able to prove his ID and permanent address though - and sadly many can't.

Ah yes the age old ID argument that appears when we discuss voting on here.

Many jobs now require ID to prove right to work and an address, as do benefits etc.
I needed ID to work in Tod Road Spar to prove I was eligible way back in 2006.

A birth certificate is usually easy enough to get hold of.
Then from there it's easy to get ID, but again the part about people being able to afford ID thus being excluded from society will be trotted out as a defence on here.

[nil_desperandum]

Ah yes the age old ID argument that appears when we discuss voting on here.

Many jobs now require ID to prove right to work and an address, as do benefits etc.
I needed ID to work in Tod Road Spar to prove I was eligible way back in 2006.

A birth certificate is usually easy enough to get hold of.
Then from there it's easy to get ID, but again the part about people being able to afford ID thus being excluded from society will be trotted out as a defence on here.

ID is an issue that can be resolved but having a permanent address is the issue I was focusing on, and a far greater problem for many - and that's the part of my post that you chose to ignore

[Garnerssoap]

If cash goes they’ve got you. We’re all going to hell in a handcart anyway but this just puts the burners on. Open your eyes man.

[Loyalclaret]

Banks failing in their duty, unsurprisingly, and people not looking up their rights isn't anyone else's fault but theirs.
The banks aren't even required to use a credit check for the basic accounts as shown in the link.

My dad was able to get a basic bank account with no hassle and he was a bankruptee.
I think it was still his only bank account when he passed away.

What duty are the banks failing on?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

What duty are the banks failing on?

To offer people bank accounts when they're asking.

A bank account was specifically designed and created for those in need of one but with poor credit etc and banks are refusing to allow people access to it.

When we live in a world where a majority of employers only pay into an account under the name of the employee and benefits are the same then people need an account or face additional hardship.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

ID is an issue that can be resolved but having a permanent address is the issue I was focusing on, and a far greater problem for many - and that's the part of my post that you chose to ignore

I agree that it's an issue for homeless people.
That's something that with a bit of luck will be resolved after Covid.
There are plenty of people who register their accounts at an address they don't live at, like their parents etc.

[TVC15]

To offer people bank accounts when they're asking.

A bank account was specifically designed and created for those in need of one but with poor credit etc and banks are refusing to allow people access to it.

When we live in a world where a majority of employers only pay into an account under the name of the employee and benefits are the same then people need an account or face additional hardship.

A lot decide not to though. There is nothing in law that they have to...many will not have jobs. But employers or the state have to find an alternative to pay them wages or benefits.
A lot of this demographic are also credit union members now where there is not the functionality of a normal bank account but they can still save and also borrow money. Many of these members still prefer to manage their spending in cash - it’s often a way of budgeting and they don’t have a debit card either.

As for the basic bank account it’s up to the government to push this out more and subsidise their banking partners if getting the population bank accounts is a priority for them - which I don’t actually think it is anymore. They seem happy that the majority of people do have bank accounts and getting that extra X% is too much trouble for them. It becomes diminishing returns on getting these things to 100% for what you would have to spend or regulate. We saw that with their idea to get rid of cheques and a lot more people use cash than have ever used cheques.

Decent article on basic bank accounts here. Helps explain why even with these accounts lots of the account holders will still use cash

https://www.which.co.uk/money/banking/b ... dj05l1236r

[Top Claret]

And when your abroad?

Use my credit card whenever I can. You get a better rate of exchange with the right card.

[claret2018]

If cash goes they’ve got you. We’re all going to hell in a handcart anyway but this just puts the burners on. Open your eyes man.

“They” aren’t as interested in you as you want to believe. Cash will disappear within a generation.

[Gordaleman]

Cashless? Just to make bankers even richer? No thank you.

Read this.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... hless.html

[TVC15]

Cashless? Just to make bankers even richer? No thank you.

Read this.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... hless.html

The Mail - says it all really.
They have spent the last 20 years tearing into Banks.
Banks shutting down branches is inevitable as more and more people use the online systems banks have invested billions to build.
They can’t afford to keep their branch networks at historical levels - because not enough people use them any more and because business rates have increased massively in the last decade.
The Post Office is doing the same thing - they have closed nearly half their branches in the last decade. More than any other individual bank has.
In terms of ATMs most of the ones that charge are nothing to do with Banks - they are third party companies who own them including an American company called Cardtronics who have thousands of ATMs over here - many of which charge. If the government were that bothered they would do something about it.

As for the Mail I wouldn’t read that sh-ite if it was free - which it isn’t.

[Gordaleman]

The Mail - says it all really.
They have spent the last 20 years tearing into Banks.
Banks shutting down branches is inevitable as more and more people use the online systems banks have invested billions to build.
They can’t afford to keep their branch networks at historical levels - because not enough people use them any more and because business rates have increased massively in the last decade.
The Post Office is doing the same thing - they have closed nearly half their branches in the last decade. More than any other individual bank has.
In terms of ATMs most of the ones that charge are nothing to do with Banks - they are third party companies who own them including an American company called Cardtronics who have thousands of ATMs over here - many of which charge. If the government were that bothered they would do something about it.

As for the Mail I wouldn’t read that sh-ite if it was free - which it isn’t.

Believe me, I don't read the Mail either but they make good points in that article.

Banks and Post Offices have shut branches to save money, not because we don't use them. That's why they are trying to force us into a cashless society.

Don't you realise that with low interest rates, (For the foreseeable future) the banks can't rip us off like they used to. So instead, they want a cashless system so that they can charge us for having money in the bank, instead of paying us interest like they used to.

[Rileybobs]

Don't you realise that with low interest rates, (For the foreseeable future) the banks can't rip us off like they used to. So instead, they want a cashless system so that they can charge us for having money in the bank, instead of paying us interest like they used to.

What does this mean?

[Gordaleman]

What does this mean?

Exactly what it says. Soon, if we have a cashless society, you will have to pay the banks if you want an account. No more interest, not that there's much now.

[Rileybobs]

Exactly what it says. Soon, if we have a cashless society, you will have to pay the banks if you want an account. No more interest, not that there's much now.

Why will we have to pay the banks to have an account? And why will there not be interest?

[Jakubclaret]

Exactly what it says. Soon, if we have a cashless society, you will have to pay the banks if you want an account. No more interest, not that there's much now.

It's been a developing trend for a good few years now with the NFC integrated into the smartphones & contactless vendor increases, almost feels strange now paying with cash, cash will be very very minimal in the future it's being phased out, the banks will charge for the services rendered on a monthly subscription, it'll just get automatically deducted from the bank.

[Gordaleman]

Why will we have to pay the banks to have an account? And why will there not be interest?

Are you blind? Interest rates are already low, and likely to go much lower. Rather than pay you interest, if rates are negative, you will be paying them. They can't do that with cash.

Once a cashless society is a fact, you will have to pay the banks to have an account with them and of of course, that charge will go up every year and you won't be able to do a thing about it.

Cash is King and always will be if the public has any sense at all.

Fine, use cards if they are convenient but be vary careful what you wish for.

[Rileybobs]

Are you blind? Interest rates are already low, and likely to go much lower. Rather than pay you interest, if rates are negative, you will be paying them. They can't do that with cash.

Once a cashless society is a fact, you will have to pay the banks to have an account with them and of of course, that charge will go up every year and you won't be able to do a thing about it.

Why would we be paying the banks? I don’t understand. And why could they do that if we were cash free but not with cash?

Your second paragraph seems like a wild prediction. Where have you got that idea from?

[TVC15]

Believe me, I don't read the Mail either but they make good points in that article.

Banks and Post Offices have shut branches to save money, not because we don't use them. That's why they are trying to force us into a cashless society.

Don't you realise that with low interest rates, (For the foreseeable future) the banks can't rip us off like they used to. So instead, they want a cashless system so that they can charge us for having money in the bank, instead of paying us interest like they used to.

Having worked in the industry all my life and mostly in roles where I understand exactly how banks make their money I do understand what you mean but think you are mixing up a few things....and getting a few things wrong too !

Cash - it costs banks a lot of money to process cash. They already charge customers for this in many circumstances (business accounts etc). It’s not down to the banks to get rid of cash - that will be a government / Bank of England decision. Which bank has ever said they want a cashless country ?

Branches - of course they are being shut to cut costs. What is wrong with that. But it is also a fact that the footfall in branches has reduced massively over the years. And that is largely because of mobile and internet banking which banks spent billions to develop and do not charge for. Have you walked down the high street lately ? It’s changed beyond recognition and it’s not just banks who have shut their premises - everybody has. It’s been a revolution in customers buying habits.

Interest rates - set by the government and been at historical lows for a decade now. Not sure how you work out banks rip people off - they work on margins above the base rate set by the Bank of England. Any money they make on deposits or lending is in relation to the margin not the actual rate. If base rate is 5% and they charge 7% for a loan then the in simplistic terms they make 2%. It’s a lot more complex than that but I won’t bore you with the technicalities.

As for banks charging customers to bank with them - it’s been happening for many years. Most business accounts charge, every bank has a package / benefits type personal account with a monthly fee etc.

[tim_noone]

Why would we be paying the banks? I don’t understand. And why could they do that if we were cash free but not with cash?

Your second paragraph seems like a wild prediction. Where have you got that idea from?

[dsr]

It's only in the last thirty of forty years or so that personal banking has been free. Even personal accounts used to have charges.

[TVC15]

It's been a developing trend for a good few years now with the NFC integrated into the smartphones & contactless vendor increases, almost feels strange now paying with cash, cash will be very very minimal in the future it's being phased out, the banks will charge for the services rendered on a monthly subscription, it'll just get automatically deducted from the bank.

What do you mean ?
Why do you think that once we have a cashless society banks will start to charge your monthly ?
It’s not the banks who will decide that society can’t use cash anymore - it will be the gov / Bank of England.
Banks are just one of the many parts to processing cash. It’s the most expensive payment transaction to process by a significant margin...and for most banks they lose money by processing cash.
If anything once cash disappears they will be less likely to charge customers for standard personal current accounts.

As per above banks are already charging for many of their current account products and have been for at least 20 years.

[Gordaleman]

Why would we be paying the banks? I don’t understand. And why could they do that if we were cash free but not with cash?

Your second paragraph seems like a wild prediction. Where have you got that idea from?

I'll try once more and then I'll give up.

If you have money in digital form, then there has to be a record of it somewhere. That would be in a bank account. If there is no other form of money (Cash) then the banks have you over a barrel. The can charge you if you want to open an account and they can charge you to keep your money.

Banks have ALWAYS ripped people off. Doing away with cash leaves you with no option but to have a bank account, no matter what the charges are.

[TVC15]

I'll try once more and then I'll give up.

If you have money in digital form, then there has to be a record of it somewhere. That would be in a bank account. If there is no other form of money (Cash) then the banks have you over a barrel. The can charge you if you want to open an account and they can charge you to keep your money.

Banks have ALWAYS ripped people off. Doing away with cash leaves you with no option but to have a bank account, no matter what the charges are.

Haha - I agree you should give up.

[Rileybobs]

I'll try once more and then I'll give up.

If you have money in digital form, then there has to be a record of it somewhere. That would be in a bank account. If there is no other form of money (Cash) then the banks have you over a barrel. The can charge you if you want to open an account and they can charge you to keep your money.

Banks have ALWAYS ripped people off. Doing away with cash leaves you with no option but to have a bank account, no matter what the charges are.

Don’t make out that I’m the one not understanding. You’re just not making any sense.

Do you think that your local branch has your savings as piles of cash? How many people actually keep significant amounts of cash anywhere but the bank?

So in that respect to your argument it makes no difference whatsoever whether there is physical cash in circulation or not.

[Gordaleman]

Having worked in the industry all my life and mostly in roles where I understand exactly how banks make their money I do understand what you mean but think you are mixing up a few things....and getting a few things wrong too !

Cash - it costs banks a lot of money to process cash. They already charge customers for this in many circumstances (business accounts etc). It’s not down to the banks to get rid of cash - that will be a government / Bank of England decision. Which bank has ever said they want a cashless country ?

Branches - of course they are being shut to cut costs. What is wrong with that. But it is also a fact that the footfall in branches has reduced massively over the years. And that is largely because of mobile and internet banking which banks spent billions to develop and do not charge for. Have you walked down the high street lately ? It’s changed beyond recognition and it’s not just banks who have shut their premises - everybody has. It’s been a revolution in customers buying habits.

Interest rates - set by the government and been at historical lows for a decade now. Not sure how you work out banks rip people off - they work on margins above the base rate set by the Bank of England. Any money they make on deposits or lending is in relation to the margin not the actual rate. If base rate is 5% and they charge 7% for a loan then the in simplistic terms they make 2%. It’s a lot more complex than that but I won’t bore you with the technicalities.

As for banks charging customers to bank with them - it’s been happening for many years. Most business accounts charge, every bank has a package / benefits type personal account with a monthly fee etc.

I am aware that governments set interest rates, even though we are now supposed to have an independent Bank of England. However, when interest rates are near zero, as they are now, interest in banks does not exist. It's likely that interest rates could soon go negative, (They already have in some countries.) and when that happens banks will have negative interest rates as well. In other words, we will be charged to have our money in the bank.

They can't do that with cash.

[Gordaleman]

Don’t make out that I’m the one not understanding. You’re just not making any sense.

Do you think that your local branch has your savings as piles of cash? How many people actually keep significant amounts of cash anywhere but the bank?

So in that respect to your argument it makes no difference whatsoever whether there is physical cash in circulation or not.

My argument makes a lot more sense than yours.

1. £200 in the bank with negative interest rates mean in a year you have less money.

2. £200 in cash at home will still be £200 in a years time.

[TVC15]

I'll try once more and then I'll give up.

If you have money in digital form, then there has to be a record of it somewhere. That would be in a bank account. If there is no other form of money (Cash) then the banks have you over a barrel. The can charge you if you want to open an account and they can charge you to keep your money.

Banks have ALWAYS ripped people off. Doing away with cash leaves you with no option but to have a bank account, no matter what the charges are.

Since the vast majority of customers and accounts do not use cash why don’t those nasty banks already charge everybody ?
Do you think they are burning all the cash in a big bonfire so that after hundreds of years their master plan to get rid of cash and finally charge people will be achieved - moooohahahaha !!

[TVC15]

My argument makes a lot more sense than yours.

1. £200 in the bank with negative interest rates mean in a year you have less money.

2. £200 in cash at home will still be £200 in a years time.

1) rates are not negative
2) who sets the level of base rate ?

Yes £200 in cash at home will still be £200 in a years time - round of applause

[Gordaleman]

Since the vast majority of customers and accounts do not use cash why don’t those nasty banks already charge everybody ?
Do you think they are burning all the cash in a big bonfire so that after hundreds of years their master plan to get rid of cash and finally charge people will be achieved - moooohahahaha !!

You really are poor at this. Banks don't charge us at the moment because we still have cash. We are talking about a scenario where there is no longer any cash. Then banks can do what they like.

[Rileybobs]

My argument makes a lot more sense than yours.

1. £200 in the bank with negative interest rates mean in a year you have less money.

2. £200 in cash at home will still be £200 in a years time.

So basically your argument is that we should withdraw our salary every month and stash the cash under the mattress?

[Jakubclaret]

What do you mean ?
Why do you think that once we have a cashless society banks will start to charge your monthly ?
It’s not the banks who will decide that society can’t use cash anymore - it will be the gov / Bank of England.
Banks are just one of the many parts to processing cash. It’s the most expensive payment transaction to process by a significant margin...and for most banks they lose money by processing cash.
If anything once cash disappears they will be less likely to charge customers for standard personal current accounts.

As per above banks are already charging for many of their current account products and have been for at least 20 years.

The banks & building society won't physically exist for you to visit, everything will be online, you can pretty much do everything now online with receiving & transferring & paying in, by 2030 no bank or building societies will be open, you still be able to use the post office for some banking services as you do now. If you are in a bank by 2030 you'll get a choice withdraw your funds or retain the membership by a monthly or annual fee, all banks & building societies will be exactly the same in terms of the framework layouts but the pricing structures may/will differ/vary.

[Gordaleman]

So basically your argument is that we should withdraw our salary every month and stash the cash under the mattress?

You just don't get this at all do you? Either that or you are just a wind up merchant.

This thread is about a cashless society which we don't yet have. If we ever do, then banks will charge us to open an account, charge us monthly fees, and if interest rates continue to fall (Highly likely at the moment) they will also charge us via negative interest rates.

That's why we should NOT go cashless.

Conversation over because if you don't understand now, you never will..

[TVC15]

You really are poor at this. Banks don't charge us at the moment because we still have cash. We are talking about a scenario where there is no longer any cash. Then banks can do what they like.

I’m poor at this ? You are putting up the kind of debate I would expect from a 4 year old - and I’m being a bit harsh on children there. Your knowledge of how banks work is embarrassingly little.

Why don’t you try and learn something rather than just make stuff up. I have already corrected you on I don’t know how many of the daft points you have made - but you just blindly ignore that.

Banks do charge customers. Stop making sh-it up to try and defend your stupid points and conspiracy theories.