Bill Overview
Title: Payment Choice Act of 2022
Description: 2 This bill requires retail businesses to accept cash as a form of payment for on-site sales of less than $2,000, and it prohibits them from charging cash-paying customers a higher price compared to customers not paying with cash. Such businesses are those engaged in the business of selling or offering goods or services at retail to the public that accept in-person payments at a physical location. The bill provides for enforcement through preventative relief and civil penalties.
Sponsors: Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who prefer or are required to use cash for transactions
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The legislation addresses payment methods, specifically ensuring cash payment acceptance.
- Globally, cash remains a popular form of payment, though its usage is decreasing in developed nations.
- In developing countries, cash is predominantly used due to lack of access to banking and electronic payment systems.
- The legislation impacts individuals who prefer or can only use cash for transactions, often including the unbanked or underbanked.
Reasoning
- The Payment Choice Act primarily affects the unbanked and underbanked population, which includes about 6% unbanked and 16% underbanked individuals in the U.S. as per Federal Reserve data. This translates to a significant portion of the population mainly using cash for transactions.
- The budget allocated for this policy suggests that enforcement and educational outreach are crucial to its success over the long term. Given this, the policy should realistically impact individuals by making cash transactions more accessible, particularly in areas where digital payments are either inaccessible or impractical.
- People who are likely to be impacted by this policy include lower-income households, older adults, people in rural areas, and those who experience barriers to opening a bank account due to financial instability or mistrust of banking institutions.
- The degree of impact will vary, with some individuals experiencing significant improvements in their financial freedom and accessibility to goods and services, while others may see little to no change, especially those who already use digital payment methods extensively.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will greatly help people like me who use cash all the time. More places accepting cash means I can shop without worries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Consultant (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prefer digital payments, but it's nice to know that if I ever need to use cash, I won't face any issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Bismarck, ND)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm happy about this new law. It ensures businesses will take my cash, just like in the old days.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't change much for me, but it's good to know businesses can't refuse cash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is good for customers, but I hope it doesn't increase my costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think accepting cash is fair, not everyone is tech-savvy or has a bank account.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Home Health Aide (Miami, FL)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know I won't have to change my way of budgeting and spending.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farm Worker (Rural Kansas)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law helps ensure I can pay with cash without hassles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Freelancer (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a practical law. You never know when you might need to use cash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Macon, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is important for people like me who find it safer to use cash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23000000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Federal and state compliance costs, potentially affecting annual budgets.
- Potential operational costs for businesses currently not accepting cash, especially small to medium enterprises (SMEs).
- Distributional effects on lower-income populations who predominantly use cash.