No, I didn't, saying "If you have the option not to, wouldn't you opt out?" in reponse to your comment "are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?" is absolutely not a non-sequitur.
If there is a business cost you don't have to pay, if you have that option, why would you not take it?
> Asking about ...
You missed an option there - not generating the trash in the first place, so you don't need to pay a janitor. That's the analogy with not taking cash - deciding not to create the issue in the first place that requires the costs and hassle.
> Taking cards involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cards you don't need a card reader, you probably don't need internet, or have IT staff to manage all of that, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile sales, or pay processing fees..
As a small business you also don't need all of that, just a tablet and a reader. Everything else is already done.
We're also not talking about taking cash or taking cards, we're talking about the difference between taking both, or taking cards only, and whether that constitutes a reduction in hassle and risk.
Also this is not the same argument you were making before, which was that the burden was transferred to you the potential customer.
> The risks aren't gone. They're just moved.
The risks of taking cash are gone if you don't take cash. If you're taking cards anyway, deciding not to take cash is an absolute reduction in risk and hassle.
> If you have a problem with cash... well usually there _isn't_ a resolution so why bother trying?
By this logic it's better to die than break a limb. Dead is dead but getting something fixed is a huge hassle. More nonsense I'm afraid!
