The idea of having different prices for different types of transactions is a discussion without a 'right' answer, and I've seen the balance go both ways. Right now, the most common ploy is to have a minimum sale for a card transaction- though such policies are said to be a violation of the merchants' agreement with the card company.
Changes in the ways banks operate have really put the kibosh on the use of checks. It appears that the financial industry would just as soon see checks go away.
Likewise, various IRS policies have created a bias against cash transactions. As I have commented in the "safety" forum, it seems to be all about 'documentation.'
The simple fact is that each type of transaction has its' expenses ... and those expenses have to be paid.
For the ordinary citizen, market forces work to answer the question. For those insulated from the market, decisions are made based upon something else; the market - meaning the customers' desires- is simply not relevant. That's why government can't help but act the way they do.
Getting back on topic .... perhaps we need to explore ways to introduce market forces to the whole code / permit / inspection issue. I question whether the current arrangement has achieved its' intents- and whether tightening the noose would help.
Missouri has been able to introduce some 'market accountability' to its' DMV operations, with some success. Perhaps they have some lessons we can build upon. Indeed, Missouri has (perhaps accidentally) also introduced a very minor amount of 'competition' in the issuing of Masters' licensing. I will be interesting to see how that turns out.
