Cheques being phased out in Australia by 2030

[TimFox]

Similarly here in the US, when going to the real-estate transaction "closing", where all papers are exchanged between parties, the required payment (from me, the purchaser) had to be a "certified check", where the bank certified that sufficient funds were in my account, and sequestered them until the check was presented for payment.
They told me to bring one written for a certain value, and then gave me a normal check for the relatively small amount owed back to me.
A "cashier's check", on the other hand, is one that I buy from the bank, which issues it against its own account.
Both are valid on their face, and difficult to fix if you should lose it.

[coppice]

I used cheques in the past when buying or selling a house.

The cheques are authenticated by the respective bank, warranting that the respective funds have been captivated.

Paying in cash is not allowed for payments over 2000 Euro (here in Portugal) and hence these cheques are the only real secure way of transfering funds against a signature in the ownership papers.

Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.

For big amounts a direct account to account transfer seems to be the usual thing these days. Most people with on-line banking can do that directly from their phone. In the UK you now get alerts from your bank for big amounts, to confirm its really you, and that you aren't taking this action under duress. Then it goes through on the spot, and you can check with the other party that it arrived.

[SiliconWizard]

Again contrary to cheques, direct bank transfers are always limited in amount per transaction or per day (depending on your bank and conditions). This amount varies *a lot* depending on the bank, freakingly so even. For my 2 banks, the default max is from 1 to 10. Yeah.  Sure you can always ask to get a higher max, permanently or temporarily, but this is often not modifiable via your bank app (contrary to your cards for which you can now do this with most banks within at least a certain range). So you have (usually) to call your banker. Very nice.

This is something you usually don't realize until you, precisely, need to transfer a "big" amount.

[coppice]

Again contrary to cheques, direct bank transfers are always limited in amount per transaction or per day (depending on your bank and conditions). This amount varies *a lot* depending on the bank, freakingly so even. For my 2 banks, the default max is from 1 to 10. Yeah.  Sure you can always ask to get a higher max, permanently or temporarily, but this is often not modifiable via your bank app (contrary to your cards for which you can now do this with most banks within at least a certain range). So you have (usually) to call your banker. Very nice.

This is something you usually don't realize until you, precisely, need to transfer a "big" amount.

The daily limits are usually adjustable. I set my daily limit on line to an extremely high value in preparation to buy this house. At the right time I transferred hundreds of thousands of pounds to our solicitor, without any other preparation. It was immediately in their account. I then set the daily limit lower, to reduce the risk of anything bad happening.

[SiliconWizard]

Again contrary to cheques, direct bank transfers are always limited in amount per transaction or per day (depending on your bank and conditions). This amount varies *a lot* depending on the bank, freakingly so even. For my 2 banks, the default max is from 1 to 10. Yeah.  Sure you can always ask to get a higher max, permanently or temporarily, but this is often not modifiable via your bank app (contrary to your cards for which you can now do this with most banks within at least a certain range). So you have (usually) to call your banker. Very nice.

This is something you usually don't realize until you, precisely, need to transfer a "big" amount.

The daily limits are usually adjustable. I set my daily limit on line to an extremely high value in preparation to buy this house. At the right time I transferred hundreds of thousands of pounds to our solicitor, without any other preparation. It was immediately in their account. I then set the daily limit lower, to reduce the risk of anything bad happening.

That sounds nice. Your bank is probably better than mine. I bet there is a significant difference depending on the country anyway.

[jfiresto]

... Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.

Has it been so lately? When I push electronic transfers from one German bank to another, it just takes a few seconds for the money to appear in the receiving account – even without paying for a real time transfer. U.S. transfers seem to wait until the next batch job runs. Combine the two and you can watch banks create and destroy money – and be electronically wealthier for a few hours.

[coppice]

The daily limits are usually adjustable. I set my daily limit on line to an extremely high value in preparation to buy this house. At the right time I transferred hundreds of thousands of pounds to our solicitor, without any other preparation. It was immediately in their account. I then set the daily limit lower, to reduce the risk of anything bad happening.

That sounds nice. Your bank is probably better than mine. I bet there is a significant difference depending on the country anyway.

There are probably country specific regulations affecting this, which may or may not have caught up with current technology.

[coppice]

... Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.

Has it been so lately? When I push electronic transfers from one German bank to another, it just takes a few seconds for the money to appear in the receiving account – even without paying for a real time transfer. U.S. transfers seem to wait until the next batch job runs. Combine the two and you can watch banks create and destroy money – and be electronically wealthier for a few hours.

He might be talking about international transfers. If you make a SWIFT transfer to a bank account in another country its usually constrained to only go out during the working hours of the source bank, and only appears in the target account during working hours of that bank. So, they are often a 24 hour operation for accounts across time zones.

[Dan123456]

... Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.

Has it been so lately? When I push electronic transfers from one German bank to another, it just takes a few seconds for the money to appear in the receiving account – even without paying for a real time transfer. U.S. transfers seem to wait until the next batch job runs. Combine the two and you can watch banks create and destroy money – and be electronically wealthier for a few hours.

He might be talking about international transfers. If you make a SWIFT transfer to a bank account in another country its usually constrained to only go out during the working hours of the source bank, and only appears in the target account during working hours of that bank. So, they are often a 24 hour operation for accounts across time zones.

In Aus it often can take a day or two to transfer between banks domestically!

The common reason I hear for this is that the banks hold the funds in their own account so they can make money on the interest of it or what not but not sure if that is just a conspiracy theory 

[Halcyon]

... Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.

Has it been so lately? When I push electronic transfers from one German bank to another, it just takes a few seconds for the money to appear in the receiving account – even without paying for a real time transfer. U.S. transfers seem to wait until the next batch job runs. Combine the two and you can watch banks create and destroy money – and be electronically wealthier for a few hours.

He might be talking about international transfers. If you make a SWIFT transfer to a bank account in another country its usually constrained to only go out during the working hours of the source bank, and only appears in the target account during working hours of that bank. So, they are often a 24 hour operation for accounts across time zones.

In Aus it often can take a day or two to transfer between banks domestically!

The common reason I hear for this is that the banks hold the funds in their own account so they can make money on the interest of it or what not but not sure if that is just a conspiracy theory 

That's old-school. Most banks now connect to NPP either via Osko (or there is another system which I forget the name of). Inter-bank transfers are usually instantaneous these days. There are still a few banks out there dragging their heels with the old system. Even between my bank (Macquarie), that doesn't use Osko to a bank that does, it takes seconds.

[Dan123456]

... Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.

Has it been so lately? When I push electronic transfers from one German bank to another, it just takes a few seconds for the money to appear in the receiving account – even without paying for a real time transfer. U.S. transfers seem to wait until the next batch job runs. Combine the two and you can watch banks create and destroy money – and be electronically wealthier for a few hours.

He might be talking about international transfers. If you make a SWIFT transfer to a bank account in another country its usually constrained to only go out during the working hours of the source bank, and only appears in the target account during working hours of that bank. So, they are often a 24 hour operation for accounts across time zones.

In Aus it often can take a day or two to transfer between banks domestically!

The common reason I hear for this is that the banks hold the funds in their own account so they can make money on the interest of it or what not but not sure if that is just a conspiracy theory 

That's old-school. Most banks now connect to NPP either via Osko (or there is another system which I forget the name of). Inter-bank transfers are usually instantaneous these days. There are still a few banks out there dragging their heels with the old system. Even between my bank (Macquarie), that doesn't use Osko to a bank that does, it takes seconds.

Indeed!

Maybe their banks have caught up in the last few years but know in the past when my mum would send me money at Christmas or if my ex would transfer cash or what not it could often take a up to a day or two 

I always figured it was because we were with different banks as transferring between my own accounts online has always been instant!

[Bicurico]

... Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.

Has it been so lately? When I push electronic transfers from one German bank to another, it just takes a few seconds for the money to appear in the receiving account – even without paying for a real time transfer. U.S. transfers seem to wait until the next batch job runs. Combine the two and you can watch banks create and destroy money – and be electronically wealthier for a few hours.

In Portugal, for private consumers, the bank only offers "next work day" transfers.

Transfers done on an ATM can be cancelled within a given time window (not sure how to do it), so I was advised to never rely on just the receipt of the person send me the money.

In fact, here in Portugal, I am not aware of any other secure form of payment in a transaction between two persons, other than a bank certified cheque or cash money.

All other forms of payment require some degree of trust.

EDIT: We do have instant payment forms, but those are limited in the amount of money you can transfer.

[CatalinaWOW]

I have seen a lot of "I like this, so it is better" in this thread.

Example:  Those advocating smartphone apps for payment over smartcards and the like, citing speed and ease of use.

I personally don't see how authorizing via the smartphone is faster than tapping a smartcard on the reader.  Unless you have set up the app to just authorize any requested payment within the nearfield zone, which is a security nightmare.

With respect to the original topic, I started out many decades ago writing checks and using cash for most transactions.  Credit cards existed, but were mostly used by gas stations and restaurants, at least at my end of the income distribution.  I used them primarily as an interest free short term loan.  Back when interest rates were in double digits that actually made sense.  As Visa and Mastercard grew I used them more often, but in the first decade or so they weren't faster than checks, since the vendor had to drag out their imprint machine, impress the embossed information on the card on the multi-layer carbon receipt and then get them signed by the borrower.  Credit card processing grew faster over time as the magnetic strip began to be used in POS terminals.  Then slowed back down big time when the chip cards were introduced.  For reasons unknown to me those took a long time to process.  Finally better coms and better software speeded those up and today's "Tap" cards are faster than even cash.  Particularly with younger cashiers who have little clue how to make change.   Somewhere in this process my check usage dropped to paying monthly charges, particularly on the credit cards.  Then switched most of those monthly charges to electronic transfers from one of the credit cards to take advantage of the cash back privileges.  I (actually my wife, since she holds the checkbook) write a small number of checks a month to pay the credit card bills.  We have chosen not to handle those payments electronically for two reasons.  First, we still don't fully trust the system to be error free, or at least fully recoverable from errors.  And perhaps more important, it forces us to look at these bills monthly.  It would be very easy to ignore the balances if everything was auto-payed.  And writing a check is less annoying than going through all of the security verifications required to do the transfers electronically manually.  I am quite sure of this because occasionally when we are on holiday we have to do it.

Checks are now processed much differently than before.  When I started they were obviously processed manually with rubber stamps from both the recipients bank and my bank on the checks which were returned after processing with the monthly statement.  Later those stamps disappeared as more of the processing process was automated.  My guess from looking at the returned checks was that the recipients bank still manually read the written information on the check, and that information was then printed (in magnetic ink in one of the machine readable fonts) on the back where the rubber stamps used to go.  All subsequent processing automated.  Still later, the banks stopped sending the processed checks back, instead sending only photographs.  The photos are done by machinery.  All this explanation to support my opinion that the costs of processing checks is minor, and mostly a sunk cost.  Even maintenance costs should be minimal for quite a while since the declining volume of checks allows malfunction machinery to be retired rather than repaired.  The checks I use were once freely supplied by the bank.  That ended long ago.  So that cost isn't an issue for the banks.

There has been much argument about transaction costs.  Here in the US the best evidence of these costs come from gasoline retailors, who routinely advertise two prices for their products, one when paid cash and one for those using credit cards.  The difference is typically between three and four percent.  Some retailers do the same with similar percentage costs indicated.  My banks have never charged for cashing checks payable to me.  In the last few years I can do that via my smartphone, no need to visit a bank.  It is common for banks to be reluctant to cash checks for non-account holders, mostly because of the fraud exposure.  Sometimes that reluctance takes the form of a fee, more often just a refusal to perform the transaction.   The checks that I still use cost me about three cents.

I do a minor amount of selling both locally and on line.  I have looked into what it would take to accept credit card payments.  Various options are available.  None I found were free, and at my sales volume I never found it worthwhile to sign up.  There are many direct transfer options, and I have both used them and received payments via them.  None of them were free.  The costs are generally higher than the cost for me to write a check.  The check, envelope and stamp to mail it cost under a dollar, so it doesn't take a very large transaction to make the cost of the e-transaction higher. 

There are still use cases beyond preference for check usage.  In rural areas internet service is intermittent or non-existent.  Having commerce shut down when the internet goes out makes no sense for the merchant or for the consumer needing a tank of gas or milk and diapers for the baby.  Maybe Starlink will fix this, but it hasn't closed all the gaps yet.

I will echo others on this thread.  I use checks less and less, but still find them appropriate for some cases.  I would dislike losing them as an option, but the world wouldn't end for me.  And I don't see why those who are all in for various e-transfer methods are in favor of removing the option.  Excepting those who will profit from that elimination of course, but I doubt if many on this thread are in that class.

[tggzzz]

I have seen a lot of "I like this, so it is better" in this thread.

Too damn right. Often with "it is better for you too" stated implicitly or explicitly

...We have chosen not to handle those payments electronically for two reasons.  First, we still don't fully trust the system to be error free, or at least fully recoverable from errors.
...
Checks are now processed much differently than before.  When I started they were obviously processed manually with rubber stamps from both the recipients bank and my bank on the checks which were returned after processing with the monthly statement.  Later those stamps disappeared as more of the processing process was automated.  My guess from looking at the returned checks was that the recipients bank still manually read the written information on the check, and that information was then printed (in magnetic ink in one of the machine readable fonts) on the back where the rubber stamps used to go.  All subsequent processing automated.  Still later, the banks stopped sending the processed checks back, instead sending only photographs.  The photos are done by machinery.  All this explanation to support my opinion that the costs of processing checks is minor, and mostly a sunk cost.  Even maintenance costs should be minimal for quite a while since the declining volume of checks allows malfunction machinery to be retired rather than repaired. 

Yes indeed.

That's my presumption, and I have not seen anything to contradict it.

There has been much argument about transaction costs.  Here in the US the best evidence of these costs come from gasoline retailors, who routinely advertise two prices for their products, one when paid cash and one for those using credit cards.  The difference is typically between three and four percent.  Some retailers do the same with similar percentage costs indicated.  My banks have never charged for cashing checks payable to me.  In the last few years I can do that via my smartphone, no need to visit a bank.  It is common for banks to be reluctant to cash checks for non-account holders, mostly because of the fraud exposure.  Sometimes that reluctance takes the form of a fee, more often just a refusal to perform the transaction.   The checks that I still use cost me about three cents.

In the UK most personal current account banking transactions are free, including cash and cheques. Credit card costs are invisible, and debit card transactions are free.

From what I have seen banks charge businesses 2-4% for both cash and credit card transactions.

There are still use cases beyond preference for check usage.  In rural areas internet service is intermittent or non-existent.  Having commerce shut down when the internet goes out makes no sense for the merchant or for the consumer needing a tank of gas or milk and diapers for the baby.  Maybe Starlink will fix this, but it hasn't closed all the gaps yet.

I will echo others on this thread.  I use checks less and less, but still find them appropriate for some cases.  I would dislike losing them as an option, but the world wouldn't end for me.  And I don't see why those who are all in for various e-transfer methods are in favor of removing the option.  Excepting those who will profit from that elimination of course, but I doubt if many on this thread are in that class.

It is notable that

• the claimed "excessive" costs of cheques are never quantified, let alone compared with other costs
• where the allegedly "saved" money ends up is never mentioned. I rather doubt it will be in my pocket
• the irreduceable corner-case use-cases are ignored, and dismissed as rare and unimportant and luddite.  That's morally and ethically repugnant.

So, just where would all the savings end up?
So, what would the numerical savings be (absolute, compared to other costs)? Numbers, not adjectives.

[TimFox]

In the US for personal (non-business) checking accounts, it is very common that the bank charges no fee to customers that meet certain criteria, especially if they have a direct-deposit set up from an employer or pension.

[AndyBeez]

The raised numbers on payment cards are disappearing. They are no longer needed as the United States has finally ceased using carbon impression foils - remember them from the early 1980s? The same might happen for the magnetic stripe, but using PIN or RFID readers will cost the Ma & Pa stores far too many dollars to convert to these new fangled machines that don't have mice running around inside them. So card skimmers still have another 25 years.

Missing the raised numbers is actually rather unhelpful for people who are partially sighted or, just grew up with the texture and feel of a bank card. Another trend for trendy banks is to make all of their bank cards black. Not good in limited lighting or on bright days in wallets or handbags. Worse, there are no numbers on these 'hip' cards, instead there is a small logo and tiny text saying 'credit' or 'debit'. Clearly these are designed by millennial nerfs who just ask Siri to Apple Pay for everything.

[Halcyon]

I personally don't see how authorizing via the smartphone is faster than tapping a smartcard on the reader.

For me, it's less about speed (we're talking a second or two difference) and more about the convenience of not having to carry a wallet around anymore. Either way, I usually have my phone or card ready to go even before the cashier has pushed the "make terminal work" button. It's just less crap to carry around in my pockets, lose, forget, misplace, etc...

There are pros and cons to each approach. The phone is more secure for a start (no one can just pick it up and go spending without my password or fingerprint) and because I use Google Wallet, it uses a "virtual" card number (i.e.: My actual linked card number is never revealed). It also means it can't be skimmed, copied or read, even if I lost my phone.

Of course, cards don't require charging or power, and will continue to work even after they've been through the washing machine (my wallet as been washed a handful of times). That being said, because of my own habits, I've never been caught somewhere with a dead phone. Worst case scenario, I have a charger that lives in the car if I was desperate for a charge.

At the day, each to their own. Taking away cheque payments still leaves a handful of other options available for fast and secure payments. I'm the last person to push people onto "apps" when they don't want to.

[tggzzz]

There are pros and cons to each approach. The phone is more secure for a start (no one can just pick it up and go spending without my password or fingerprint) and because I use Google Wallet, it uses a "virtual" card number (i.e.: My actual linked card number is never revealed). It also means it can't be skimmed, copied or read, even if I lost my phone.

Of course, cards don't require charging or power, and will continue to work even after they've been through the washing machine (my wallet as been washed a handful of times). That being said, because of my own habits, I've never been caught somewhere with a dead phone. Worst case scenario, I have a charger that lives in the car if I was desperate for a charge.

My cellphone survives being in my trouser pocket next to my keys, and being dropped 20ft/6m onto concrete. Based on what I've seen with my daughter's smartphone and a tablet, I doubt any smartphone would survive a day with me.

I don't need to carry around a "heavy paperback book" with my cellphone either.

At the day, each to their own. Taking away cheque payments still leaves a handful of other options available for fast and secure payments. I'm the last person to push people onto "apps" when they don't want to.

Cheques USPs are unrelated to speed, so that's a strawman argument.

A contactless payment credit/debit card is sufficient for my fast/convenient payment needs. As is cash. Just come back from a week in Meereen; paid everything (that wasn't prepaid) in cash, didn't even need to use cards.

[Halcyon]

Cheques USPs are unrelated to speed, so that's a strawman argument.

It's not a strawman argument. I wasn't comparing the use of cheques for everyday payments to credit/debit cards, rather it's just a method to transfer money between accounts. My point was, if you got rid of cheques tomorrow, there is a handful of other options which could easily (and have for 99% of people and businesses) take its place.

[CatalinaWOW]

I personally don't see how authorizing via the smartphone is faster than tapping a smartcard on the reader.

For me, it's less about speed (we're talking a second or two difference) and more about the convenience of not having to carry a wallet around anymore. Either way, I usually have my phone or card ready to go even before the cashier has pushed the "make terminal work" button. It's just less crap to carry around in my pockets, lose, forget, misplace, etc...

That may work in your use case.  Here, I have to have my driver's license in my possession when operating a motor vehicle, health care providers require insurance cards, and there are a handful of other things that really make a wallet necessary.  If you can do without, great and good on you.  Again I have no issue with how others organize their financial lives, just don't want them organizing mine.

I am also like tggzzz.  My lifestyle is really hard on smartphones.  Over the last five years I have broken one badly enough to require repairs three times, and twice badly enough that replacement was necessary.  That is even with use of an bulky protective case.  An expensive accessory under these conditions, but I find it useful enough to be worth it.  I can't really depend on it for financial access though.

[nctnico]

You don't need a wallet for cards. Just something to store the cards in like a small card holder.

[CatalinaWOW]

You don't need a wallet for cards. Just something to store the cards in like a small card holder.

If you have the card holder the smart phone isn't an advantage.   Card holders are available which hold cash also (they are then a compact wallet, just missing the baby pictures and other cruft that wallets sometimes accumulate).  So now it sounds like not carrying a wallet was not a material benefit, just a justification.   Which is fine.  Again, you are living your life the way you want to.  No need to rationalize it.

[tggzzz]

Cheques USPs are unrelated to speed, so that's a strawman argument.

It's not a strawman argument. I wasn't comparing the use of cheques for everyday payments to credit/debit cards, rather it's just a method to transfer money between accounts.

So is cash.

Your point was, ahem, not clearly made when you wrote

At the day, each to their own. Taking away cheque payments still leaves a handful of other options available for fast and secure payments. I'm the last person to push people onto "apps" when they don't want to.

My point was, if you got rid of cheques tomorrow, there is a handful of other options which could easily (and have for 99% of people and businesses) take its place.

Not easily, for some people and uses. Your attitude of saying "tough shit" to those that really need cheques is morally and ethically repugnant. 99% of people aren't blind (or deaf, or...), so I presume you think it would be acceptable to remove expensive support given to them.

Please produce some figures about how much would be saved, and where the savings would end up (e.g. CEOs and shareholders).

[Halcyon]

Cheques USPs are unrelated to speed, so that's a strawman argument.

It's not a strawman argument. I wasn't comparing the use of cheques for everyday payments to credit/debit cards, rather it's just a method to transfer money between accounts.

So is cash.

Your point was, ahem, not clearly made when you wrote

At the day, each to their own. Taking away cheque payments still leaves a handful of other options available for fast and secure payments. I'm the last person to push people onto "apps" when they don't want to.

My point was, if you got rid of cheques tomorrow, there is a handful of other options which could easily (and have for 99% of people and businesses) take its place.

Not easily, for some people and uses. Your attitude of saying "tough shit" to those that really need cheques is morally and ethically repugnant. 99% of people aren't blind (or deaf, or...), so I presume you think it would be acceptable to remove expensive support given to them.

Please produce some figures about how much would be saved, and where the savings would end up (e.g. CEOs and shareholders).

It's not "my attitude", it's what the consumers are demanding. You've not demonstrated one scenario where there isn't a suitable replacement... not one. To say it's morally and ethically repugnant (without explaining why) is a bit of a cheap shot. Take a look at the figures yourself. Very few people use cheques in Australia, it's down in the noise. Secondly, explain to me how a blind person would write a cheque, or even cash one without going to great lengths? Seems like the perfect use-case for more modern systems if I ever saw one.

You're also mistaken that this move is being driven by the banks (and those fat CEOs), it's not. This is being driven by the Australian government. Most banks started phasing out cheques long ago because there simply isn't the demand for this method anymore. The cost to banks is negligible. I'm sure they spend more at their staff Christmas party than the fees they collect from customers.

If you'll also refer right back to the first post (and the purpose of this thread), it's specifically about consumer habits in Australia. It's not about "Why the US should give up cheques because the rest of the world is".

I think if we pander to your kind of mentality, we'd still be paying taxes to maintain the telegraph networks, and people would still be using leaded petrol.

[tggzzz]

Cheques USPs are unrelated to speed, so that's a strawman argument.

It's not a strawman argument. I wasn't comparing the use of cheques for everyday payments to credit/debit cards, rather it's just a method to transfer money between accounts.

So is cash.

Your point was, ahem, not clearly made when you wrote

At the day, each to their own. Taking away cheque payments still leaves a handful of other options available for fast and secure payments. I'm the last person to push people onto "apps" when they don't want to.

My point was, if you got rid of cheques tomorrow, there is a handful of other options which could easily (and have for 99% of people and businesses) take its place.

Not easily, for some people and uses. Your attitude of saying "tough shit" to those that really need cheques is morally and ethically repugnant. 99% of people aren't blind (or deaf, or...), so I presume you think it would be acceptable to remove expensive support given to them.

Please produce some figures about how much would be saved, and where the savings would end up (e.g. CEOs and shareholders).

It's not "my attitude", it's what the consumers are demanding.

Reallty? Customers are demanding something they don't use is removed? I think not.

You've not demonstrated one scenario where there isn't a suitable replacement... not one.

Several people have done just that, repeatedly.

To say it's morally and ethically repugnant (without explaining why) is a bit of a cheap shot. Take a look at the figures yourself. Very few people use cheques in Australia, it's down in the noise.

What figures? I haven't seen any stating the financial costs and savings. Percentages of something unspecified aren't sufficient.

Provide monetary costs (AUD is fine ), and I'll look at them.

Secondly, explain to me how a blind person would write a cheque, or even cash one without going to great lengths? Seems like the perfect use-case for more modern systems if I ever saw one.

I didn't make myself clear.

I was thinking about removing the requirements for braille signs, kerbs, tactile pavements, exceptions for guide dogs, etc. After all those are expensive and 99% of people don't use them.

There are analogous issue for deaf people, invalid / invalid people, etc.

You're also mistaken that this move is being driven by the banks (and those fat CEOs), it's not. This is being driven by the Australian government. Most banks started phasing out cheques long ago because there simply isn't the demand for this method anymore. The cost to banks is negligible. I'm sure they spend more at their staff Christmas party than the fees they collect from customers.

At last recognition of the lack of cost to the banks! That's a useful about-face.

I doubt that it is driven by the government; what business is it of theirs?

More likely the government sets regulatory requirements, and the banks have been quietly pushing for those requirements to be relaxed.

I think if we pander to your kind of mentality, we'd still be paying taxes to maintain the telegraph networks, and people would still be using leaded petrol.

Analogies often lead to more heat than light. Or is there some way that cheques are damaging childrens' brains?