[pclmulqdq]

Really? Using $10,000 in cash is like doing a very specific math problem?

A lot more people have used large quantities of cash for non-criminal activity. The few times I have used huge quantities of cash, it has been for stupid reasons: someone doesn't take credit cards or bank transfers, and won't trust a check until it clears, so it's easier to just use a pile of cash. By the way, I keep plenty of cash around so I can still pay for stuff even if the internet goes out regionally.

Also note that this does not really stop criminals or rich people from moving money around: there are plenty of ways around these laws.

[stev-0]

Explain a single scenario of how one acquires large amounts of cash that:

1. Isn’t easy to provide provisions for.(which is how cash payments can be made legal). 2. Doesn’t require criminal activity in Europe.

I think a lot of people are thinking about this with the US tax system in the back of their minds.

The tax system in many European countries is very different. We pay WAY more income tax. That means that the incentives for tax avoidance are much greater. As a result tax avoidance is a European pastime.

I think that a more transparent financial system is a great thing to strive for. Less financial privacy is is likely to lead to. 1. less money going toward lobbying. 2. Less tax avoidance 3. Less hidden wealth. 4. Less/more expensive money laundering.

It might someday even lead to successful taxation of wealth instead of income.

[purerandomness]

> someone doesn't take credit cards or bank transfers

That will change with this law, finally. Or put them out of business. That's a good thing, don't you agree?

> so I can still pay for stuff even if the internet goes out regionally

If you having to pay transactions >10k frequently enough that network outages block you, I'd wager you're doing exactly the kind of something this law should prevent.

> there are plenty of ways around these laws.

Sure, but now there's an instrument in the toolbox which wasn't there before. Or are you arguing that outlaws gonna outlaw no matter what, so why even try?

[helloworld11]

>That will change with this law, finally. Or put them out of business. That's a good thing, don't you agree?

Or here's a novel idea: Try not to support coercive laws and rules that seek to stamp out the possibility of people having unorthodox or somewhat unusual voluntary payment preferences, just because you don't personally like them.

>If you having to pay transactions >10k frequently enough that network outages block you, I'd wager you're doing exactly the kind of something this law should prevent.

Because somebody has cash and payment needs, or levels of preparedness that your own narrow thinking doesn't digest isn't a good reason to automatically assume that they're probably a criminal who should be targeted by invasive and authoritarian controls. Frankly, it's something of a sick mentality to immediately treat with suspicion of criminal activity those who support or personally prefer conducting their financial affairs differently from how you do.

As for your final comment, People wanting to transact privately aren't nuts and bolts to be removed from the scene by some nasty, dirty little toolbox of edicts by politicians who regularly protect corruption on larger scales. It's absurdly malicious, or at least plain ignorant to think that way. There are much more fundamental and obvious reasons underpinning the fight against parasitic, invasive financial laws. Read a little about both modern politics in much of the world and modern history even in Europe itself to at least slightly understand the basis for resisting these rules on cash.