We will regret it if physical money dies, says Lee Boyce

Contactless versus cash: in a few years contactless payments are about the same as those with physical money

Not so long ago you walked to stores, especially independent stores, and many were not so keen to make a card payment. Cash was the preferred method.

Now the tables have been turned around, made largely possible by the unremitting efforts to pay contactlessly.

The contactless revolution was fast. In a matter of years, millions of us are already familiar with transactions for less than £ 30 in various stores, cafes and other services, avoiding bank notes and coins.

Contactless versus cash: in a few years contactless payments are about the same as those with physical money

Contactless versus cash: in a few years contactless payments are about the same as those with physical money

Most banks now issue contactless cards in addition to payment accounts without an option not to do so.

It is convenient and leaves no room for the awkward need for physical cash. Last week, the Bank of England said that the case of removing 1p and 2p coins grew due to inflation. Six in ten buyers are only used once before they are missing.

The Royal Mint also said that the number of coins that it puts into circulation has been halved in four years.

But I believe that we – as a society – will regret it if we allow money to die altogether.

I saw some Halifax ads that recently pushed the contactless payment card. It is described as & # 39; cashbustingly easy & # 39 ;. Pretty strong language choice for a bank.

It goes hand in hand with a spoof of Ghostbusters television advertising in which a Halifax & # 39; Greg & # 39; indicates how much contactless contact there is with Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd).

Earlier in the month I ran through Marks and Spencer when a member of staff stopped me saying: "We only accept cash today, sir, our cards are empty."

And there is one of the biggest problems with just trusting card payments: technology. Glitches happen. Imagine someone without cash or quickly accepted.

I'm not sure that even Ray of Ghostbusters could help.

Whether it's a retailer with a card payment problem, or a bank (looking for your way TSB) or a publisher (Visa) that makes your money inaccessible, it can be a frustrating and scary experience.

Halifax: The bank is excluded on an advertising disk that describes contactless as & # 39; money loss easy & # 39; as spotted at my local train station

Halifax: The bank is excluded on an advertising disk that describes contactless as & # 39; money loss easy & # 39; as spotted at my local train station

Halifax: The bank is excluded on an advertising disk that describes contactless as & # 39; money loss easy & # 39; as spotted at my local train station

I was in Copenhagen on a trip with five friends – two of whom chose to come without any crown – when Visa's smelting took place at the beginning of June.

They had to borrow money from the three of us, because card payments did not go through.

Personally, I like a mix of payments. Some, usually larger, I make per card for the extra protection, but I also like that feeling of cash in my wallet and change in my pocket for smaller purchases.

I am also not at all comfortable with all my expenses to be documented.

Not that I do everything I can, but I do not like to give away my habits to the banks. Knowledge is power.

I love cash withdrawals and spend the whole week on transactions like in the pub or for lunch. Why? Well, I do not want the bank to see how I want to spend my money and where.

I am not paranoid. I would like to keep as much personal information as possible for myself in a world where data is a commodity, especially at the beginning of Open Banking.

In my opinion, the use of cash also makes it easier to budget. Contactless payment makes it easy to lose sight of what you have spent.

A decade ago, more than 60 percent of transactions in Great Britain were cash.

Now it has dropped to a third. Contactless accounts for one third of all payments. A great statistic.

We see the number of ATMs drop and there can be a lot more money if they do not remain profitable, that is to say that not enough people use them.

Reducing access to money excludes groups from society. Those in the countryside or the millions who do not even have a bank account for example.

Sweden is an example of a country where money died even faster than Britain. Only two percent of all transactions are now with physical money in the Scandinavian country.

Many restaurants, hotels and bars all have cash banned together. A large number of bank branches is & # 39; cashless & # 39; gone, meaning that customers can not deposit banknotes and coins on their account. Others ask for compensation.

That means they use incredible power.

One critic in Sweden says: & # 39; We are vulnerable when we have no money at all. Cash costs banks money to move, while they can charge costs on cards – it makes sense that banks have made it harder to use it. & # 39;

Another example is Zimbabwe. A mobile money app called Ecocash is the most important way to process and process money in the African country. But back to the technology can go wrong & # 39; point, a glitch hit the app in June and the economy of the country stumbled.

A recent survey suggested that one in three of us in Great Britain would like to live in a moneyless society. I really do not know why.

We live in a time when many children may not even know the true meaning of money because they may never see it. Money will just be a piece of plastic and some numbers on a screen.

If more of us quit cash, the pressure to get out of it will grow from established parties – so go to an ATM and start spending physical cash, or it can disappear faster than Slimer (the creep in Ghostbusters, in case you do not have the reference …)

.