[DyslexicAtheist]

you're getting downvotes which is puzzling because a sibling thread laments the all too common overreach of law enforcement citing the "zwiebelfreunde/CCC" raid. It's perfectly consistent to be suspicious about paying by cash and also wanting to avoid leaking information to advertisers or taking care about security. Rejecting FinTech or traditional banking in a high tax country even as a law abiding citizens is not being a Luddite. It's good data hygiene for when they eventually come knocking and demand you explain yourself.

[ChuckNorris89]

>you're getting downvotes which is puzzling because a sibling thread laments the all too common overreach of law enforcement citing the "zwiebelfreunde/CCC" raid

Because just because people want CC/contactless payments to be accepted everywhere, doesn't mean they want cash to be banned, if you wish to stay anonymous.

So why should you deprive everyone of contactless payments if you wish to stay anonymous, when you can acomodate both.

My beef is a lot of places only take cash.

[the8472]

Once traceable transactions become widespread there's a push to limit cash payments - see reporting requirements for paying more than 10000€ in cash, the amount des not get inflation-adjusted, see other countries with higher percentages of cashless transactions. So the people who want to pay cashless enable a power-grab by law enforcement. Not intentionally, but through their own convenience. So while their preferences taken on their own are not harmful if you combine them with known dynamics they are in conflict with the preferences of those who want to pay cash.

And I think simple convenience (not having to carry a slightly heavier wallet) does not quite weigh (heh) the same as privacy.

So until we get the ratchet of increasing surveillance solved it is entirely reasonable to push back on cashless transactions.

[ChuckNorris89]

>see reporting requirements for paying more than 10000€ in cash

Why is that a problem? The bank is doing the reporting, not you and it's not like the government is stopping you from transferring over 10000€, electronically or in cash. You are free to do that. I transferred over 50k without any issues. And you can still use cash to buy weed if anonymity is what you wish, or use cash to pay some handyman to fix stuff around your house or piano lessons for your kids, without paying taxes.

The issue is with large cash sums, as believe it or not, money laundering and tax fraud is a real thing, and large cash transactions make this a breeze.

So, knowing how much tax money the taxpayers are loosing every year thanks to cash driven tax fraud, I'm all in favor of more scrutiny on large cash transactions and moving to more transparent wire transitions.

[the8472]

> Why is that a problem?

Because they're boiling the frog. It doesn't stop at reporting. And it doesn't stop at 10k€. And it often does not get inflation-adjusted, so the real limit keeps getting lower too even without regulatory changes.

[0] https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/shopping-internet/cas...

> So, knowing how much tax money the taxpayers are loosing every year thanks to cash driven tax fraud

I assume the bulk of tax fraud happen by corporations cooking their books, using legal loopholes and writing their own legislation, not by average citizens paying a car in cash. If it were about tax fraud they would have set the limit once, decades ago, and kept increasing it with inflation, not the opposite. Organized crime isn't something novel after all. So this reeks like a post-rationalization for more surveillance.

Also, tax reporting is the duty of the merchant for most transactions, private citizens shouldn't have their privacy voided just because others evade taxes. Instead make it mandatory to provide bills (with audit logs) and prosecute customers after tax fraud has been uncovered if they knowingly benefited from the tax fraud (e.g. by waiving the billing). Create bounties for people reporting billing evasion. I believe something like that has been implemented in greece. Search for privacy-compatible solutions instead of proclaiming that taxes and privacy cannot coexist.