You'll be downvoted, but to answer this question with all honesty:
1) Disallowing a third-party in every single transaction you make, especially as
1a) Inflation means 3k now might be quite low in 20 years
1b) Banks themselves have been shown to be scummy
1c) Banks are a rare institution to allow outsiders into.
2) Bank accounts themselves are not actually all that accessible; it's quite common for people to be ineligible for a bank account under random (but common) circumstances. -- an interesting loop you can get into is that you need to pay a utility bill in order to get a bank account, yet you can't pay a utility bill without a bank account.
3) Cash is the only fiat currency that actually exists, I know it's trendy to think that lines in a database are meaningful- but if you have physical cash you know what it's worth and it can't be hacked or seized. (though a good counterpoint is of course that you can be robbed or it can get destroyed).
I live in Sweden and we're very far down the path of "cash is dead" - there's a considerable number of stores and fast food joints that do not even accept cash. However, when I moved to this country I couldn't open a bank account and without people accepting cash at that time I would have paid exorbitant fees on each transaction.
So with that in mind I'm not in favour of restricting cash, I'm aware of the drawbacks of large fiat currency transactions; but It gives the central banks even more power than they currently have (which is a lot, which you'd know if you were on the wrong side of a policy or get into one of their loops) and we're not sure that they are going to continue to be fair into the future.
Note: you cannot hold a bank account with the central bank that actually issues currency. You are voting for a middle-man.
> Bank accounts themselves are not actually all that accessible; it's quite common for people to be ineligible for a bank account under random (but common) circumstances.
Not in the Netherlands. Any adult (18 or older) resident of the EU has the right to a bank account, by law.
> an interesting loop you can get into is that you need to pay a utility bill in order to get a bank account, yet you can't pay a utility bill without a bank account.
Why would you need to pay a utility bill to get a bank account? Those two things are completely unrelated. All you need is a valid ID (either ID card, passport or drivers license) and you are required to have that anyway.
You need proof of address too, it's not enough to have just an ID.
A passport is good, but you should also be aware that not everyone has a passport or drivers license. (for example: I didn't when I got my first bank account).
My first bank account was a deal my mother made with the bank where she acted as guarantor.
having a right to a thing is not the same as actually getting it; there is a lot of anti-fraud legislation that exists and must be complied with. The bank isn't just going to fully open an account with nothing but an ID. I can say that with absolute confidence after working in financial services (albeit briefly).
When I got a RealID-compliant driver's license a few years ago in my state in the US, an existing driver's license and passport were not sufficient. I needed some document to server as proof of my current address, such as a utility bill. I don't remember what all the options were but, yes, some people--including kids getting their first driver's license or people sharing an apartment who don't have their name on a lease--can run into issues.
In the Netherlands, the government already keeps track of everyone’s address. If you move, you have to register your new address with the municipality within a certain time frame. (IIRC 2 weeks)
> You need proof of address too, it's not enough to have just an ID.
Yes, but you don’t need a bill for that, you can just get it from the municipality where you are registered.
> A passport is good, but you should also be aware that not everyone has a passport or drivers license.
Anyone age 14 and up is required by law to be able to show an ID when asked. So yeah, everyone here has an ID.
> My first bank account was a deal my mother made with the bank where she acted as guarantor.
The rules for children are different. Once you turn 18 you need to ID yourself to the bank. If you don’t do this your account will be blocked. You will be informed of this shortly before you turn 18.
> having a right to a thing is not the same as actually getting it; there is a lot of anti-fraud legislation that exists and must be complied with. The bank isn't just going to fully open an account with nothing but an ID
You have a right to a basic account, not necessarily full service. You can send/receive money and get a debit card. Anything else, credit cards, loans, etc. are of course not included.
And sure, if you’ve been convicted of fraud or anything like that, that’s an exception.
> Yes, but you don’t need a bill for that, you can just get it from the municipality where you are registered.
You can't "just" get it if you don't have a fixed address, or if the address isn't eligible for registration (the rules for that are rather strict).
Netherlands is one if the hardest countries if you end up in an "exceptional" situation; you can work around "proof of address" (not always, but frequently), but it's much harder to work around the municipal registration.
Yes, there are rules for exceptions (e.g. "briefadres") and there's stuff like https://www.basisbankrekening.nl – but in reality people are so strict with this that it might as well not exist for vast swaths of people.
If you've never been in an exceptional situation you think it's easy and works grand, and it does, right up to the point it doesn't, at which point you're pretty fucked. People are unaware because they've never experienced it, but it's really awful.
Last year it took me 5 months and a lot of proverbial "banging fist on the table" to get a bank account in the Netherlands. It took me about 2 weeks in Ireland. Just sayin'
> Yes, but you don’t need a bill for that, you can just get it from the municipality where you are registered.
I don't know how it is in Sweden or in the Netherlands, but here in France, I needed a bill or some other "proof of address" to register to vote with the town hall. I had been living in the same apartment for years, and they never seemed to require any proof before sending me the papers asking for the local taxes.
> Yes, but you don’t need a bill for that, you can just get it from the municipality where you are registered.
Yeah, that's not how it works in all European countries. Which can get really "interesting" in some cases, believe me (I've lived through that).
I've also been requested proof of employment, which is also interesting when you're unemployed. In one of the countries, they said I can just give them proof of unemployment benefits... which I don't have, because I left my job willingly.
And then they told me: "well, in that case you can get proof of unemployment from the municipality". Except... that I'm not even living in your damn country and the municipality where I live doesn't even know whether I'm working or not (why would they?!).
But this does not even compare to all the problems I've had when I've not been living in the same place stably for an extended period of time. It has been an absolute hell in some cases, because institutions (governments, banks, lawyers, etc) simply do not account for this possibility. They all assume that you have a stable address of residence.
In some countries you can't even receive some types of registered mail unless it is addressed exactly to where you are staying at that moment.
> You have a right to a basic account, not necessarily full service.
I don't think that's how it works. The governments have created a legal requirement for banks to provide minimum banking services, yes. But banks still have to comply with many other very strict requirements and customers may not be able to fulfill them, which prevents them from opening bank accounts.
It varies wildly between banks. Proof of address isn't a systemic requirement, it's a soft credit check that unlocks profitable functions.
Many banks (Santander, HSBC just two I checked) have entry points for people who are genuinely homeless. And accepted ID can include simple government things like council tax or a driver's license, but also just a letter from your employer or school. Again these are soft checks.
> Not in the Netherlands. Any adult (18 or older) resident of the EU has the right to a bank account, by law.
For immigrants or foreign workers a process of getting EU residence status may take months and sometimes require an EU bank account, so it may become an infinite loop. We have to take worst renting deals in order to get required papers, for example.
> Bank accounts themselves are not actually all that accessible
If you have a way to prove your ID(which basically everyone do in Norway) then bank accounts are very accessible and free. I don't know how many banks I have accounts at, but it's more than 15, and all you need is your ID and a couple of minutes to create an account.
> If you have a way to prove your ID(which basically everyone do in Norway)
After going through the process of moving to Norway, I can say that unfortunately things are not that straightforward for foreigners. Even after getting your work permit, getting a personnummer can take up to several months after moving, not to mention getting an appointment with UDI can also take up to several months (in the meantime you'll feel like a lesser member of society, basic things like getting a library card are not accessible without it). After all there's a reason why this kind of service exist https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mpr_sua-techfasttrack-oslo-ac...
> then bank accounts are very accessible and free. I don't know how many banks I have accounts at, but it's more than 15, and all you need is your ID and a couple of minutes to create an account.
This only works when you already have a BankID. It takes at least 1 month to open your first account. Granted after that, everything is smooth, but oh boy how much time does it take.
ID and a decent credit report. I have been through times in my life where banks wouldn't give my spouse an account at all. No bank in Oregon or credit union would give her an account. To this day she still hasn't had a bank account in the last seven years. I can't even get a card in their name.
A bank checking your credit score just because you want to create an account would be a huge invasion of privacy.
Really? How else can a bank decide how much credit to extend you? Please bear in mind that allowing someone to have a bank account is part of the credit relationship.
All banks use a credit reporting agency, a seperate one. You never discovering this just shows you and those you surround yourself with have never had to deal with it. Thats nice, but also a privliged and ignorant position.
It sounds like we are getting a thin slice of the full story. What made your spouse's situation unusual such that she could not get a bank account. I am finding some of these posts hard to believe.
Bad credit rating and prior overdrafts is all it is. That's the complete story. Not even extensive overdrafts, like three a year before they lost their ability to get an account.
Depends on country a lot; in the Scandinavian countries there's a central identification database which links your entire identity including the registered address.
However, if I'm not from Norway/Sweden/Denmark then I'm not in that system yet.
> I live in Sweden and we're very far down the path of "cash is dead" - there's a considerable number of stores and fast food joints that do not even accept cash. However, when I moved to this country I couldn't open a bank account and without people accepting cash at that time I would have paid exorbitant fees on each transaction.
I came here to say something similar. We moved to the Netherlands in 2014 from the US and it was three or four months before our immigration stuff was far enough along that we could open a local bank account with an IBAN and get a chip and pin card (at the time, virtually no US banks would give you chip and pin cards). My partner couldn't even get paid during that time until she had a bank account. We lived off withdrawing cash from my US account at ATMs. That included paying our rent (we were lucky that our landlord, who lived in a different city, was OK with us just paying cash to their relative who lived nearby).
I think GP means “exists” as in “doesn’t require a third party to complete the value transfer.”
If you give me a $20 bill, I can immediately exchange it for a case of beer at the bodega with no extra steps. If you give me a money order for $20, I need to find someone who is willing and/or able to convert that money order into a $20 bill before I can buy my beer.
Funnily enough, paper currency originated as something akin to money orders in the first place, and merchants started accepting them directly because they were much more convenient to transport and secure than the equivalent amount of coins. That's why the formal term for paper money is "banknotes".
At least in NL there is no such thing as a 5 day hold on a transfer. Typically these are instant, at worst next business day, and if you use something like "payment request" or "tikkie" all it involves is sending the buyer a link or posting a QR code somewhere to allow them to send money directly, instantly, to your account.
No chance of making errors in the bank nr, you can pre-specify the required amount in the request. No chance of making an error counting out 3K or more in cash notes.
Within the NL banking/payment landscape I'd argue that large cash transactions are more bothersome for everyone involved. (well, unless involving a bank is bothersome to either of the parties, but if that is the case we're probably entering "dubious transaction" or "dubiously sourced money" territory..)
"Next business day" is a huge amount of time relative to the "instantly" that the value changes hands in a cash transaction. Cash also eliminates any need for prying into the background of the buyer: Their proof of ability to pay and payment itself is the stack of cash they have in their hand.
If the government wants to eliminate the requirement of accepting large amounts of cash, I can see that. If you're not equipped to handle being paid in a large cash sum, it can definitely be inconvenient. But making the exchange of large sums of cash between two consenting parties illegal is bold-faced tyranny.
How about handling a large transaction without internet access? Say you want to transact in the middle of space. What now? Wait until you get back to some connection?
As silly as it sounds, this system is not scalable.
The fact that it does not scale into a far far future where more than 0.00000000125% of the humans is in orbit/space does not mean that it is not a good system for today & the upcoming decades.
And that’s the point. If I sell you my used car and find out you paid with stolen funds, I’m not going to get cash clawed back, where I could realistically be out my car and money if someone used a digital payment.
Ease of payment? Paying with a card is much simpler and faster. Take your card, phone or watch and hold it to the terminal for one second and you're done. It's not normal for payouts to take 5 days. In Norway it's the next day.
But people usually do have a terminal to accept payment. If not, they usually just send you an invoice. Makes bookkeeping much simpler for the business too.
I have only paid in-person using NFC for nearly 10 years in Norway. I understand that the situation is different other places, but I'm literally not sure what our physical currency looks like now.
However, I walked into a store in Spain yesterday that was cash only. Now I have cash in EUR that I not only overpaid insanely for because of the ATM , but I also can't use it in Norway. If cash was no longer an option then it would be much simpler and cheaper as my bank does the currency exchange for me.
Digital payments are probably better in every way when it's the norm, except for privacy, and that's a big one.
I don’t know much about Norway, but how would you transact during a natural disaster when power or network services are down for an extended period of time?
> ow I have cash in EUR that I not only overpaid insanely for because of the ATM , but I also can't use it in Norway
Ha, well you'll have a heart attack when you look at your visa statement and realized that visa can charge even worse rates for currency conversion than ATM's do.
Plus visa charges the vendor a fee( around 2ish%) that has to be born by the buyer and seller. Cash doesn't have this built in tax.
Now I'll admit I have no idea bout Norway, so maybe you have some special way to pay with zero transaction fees and have the cash show up instantly with no holds on the payment ever, if so, good for you guys.
That's done through a SEPA transfer that shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to complete, last time I paid a contractor more than 4k€ it was in their account in seconds.
There's also the fee. When I bought a used van from a private party recently, I paid $8000 cash. No point in paying an extra percentage just to use a card.
Well, you can just turn off payments on the stolen device.
As for the phone, you need to unlock the phone for larger purchases. The card requires a pin for larger purchases. The watch needs to be unlocked to after being removed from the arm.
Maybe in Norway, but there absolutely is no pin check when making large purchases through at least Apple Card via Apple Pay. I made a $9800 US purchase a few months back and it was just face ID, which apparently can be fooled easily.
Freedom from government surveillance and potential overreach?
In reality, there’s hardly any 3,000 euros+ transaction where a business or individual will accept cash. That’s too much money to have on hand when a bank transfer is much more comfortable…still happens rarely though so I think this law is overreaching.
Disclosure: I’m not Dutch nor European so my opinion hardly matters here.
I think your second sentence/paragraph points out exactly why this restriction is needed: the only people who would ever in their right mind transact in that much cash are very likely to be either avoiding taxation (a.k.a. stealing from the common taxpayer), or keeping money off the books to hide illegal activity.
The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. They can easily hide all their daily transactions from the scrutiny of government and surveillance capitalism just fine.
This regulation only impacts the wealthiest people and/or the organized criminal.
I purchase, restore, and sometimes sell old woodworking machinery as a side gig to subsidize my own purchase of woodworking equipment for my shop.
I have had multiple cash transactions above $3,000 every year that I've done this. Not to avoid taxes, not to keep them off the books, but because one of the parties has either the unwillingness or inability to take electronic payments. Elderly people, those located in rural or otherwise isolated areas, those with a natural distrust of government for whatever reason, or those with a distrust of banks in general. These are all valid use cases.
This law would make it nearly impossible for me to do what I do (on the side).
Yea, assuming you're in the USA, I don't think a similar restriction would be workable here in America. Too many people are unbanked or for other reasons transact mostly in cash. And even for those who do have bank accounts, we don't have the nice, bank-based money transfer solutions that are commonplace in the rest of the developed world--we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal.
I wouldn't say I routinely do large (>$3000) cash transactions, but I do them often enough that I guess I'd be a criminal in the Netherlands.
A mechanic we used before moving had a strict no checks policy. He had a bad check for the repair of a church bus, from a church, framed in a fancy gold-painted frame, with "IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS PAY CASH" below it.
> The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
> Freedom from government surveillance and potential overreach?
With all due respect, the transactions above that rough amount is exactly those I would want the government to keep an eye on, while letting me buy stuff for a few hundreds freely and without having to report it.
There is pretty much no situation whatsoever when someone buys something for more than 3k€ where the absolute requirement to use cash is not linked to some shady reasons.
Like I said to the other poster. I transact often over that amount to purchase old woodworking equipment. The people I work with often do not want to transact electronically for multiple reasons. The tax is paid, it's on the books, but they want cash.
Because a 80/20 rule is much better than having to chose between "everything is controlled" or "nothing is controlled", and that's essentially the two choices we have.
It works just fine in most of europe since a very long time, and frankly people insisting to be paid in cash and then going out of their way to fully declare the taxes and source of the money is even weirded, why not take the easier shortcut.
Of course, maybe it's linked to how strange sending money seems to still be in some circumtances in the US ? Reading about Venmo and the likes is just surprising to me, a 10 minutes SEPA wire is free here, and as good as cash.
Yeah our electronic transfer methods suck. Even between my business and personal accounts, doing a regular bank transfer, it takes several days. Literally faster to withdraw cash and drive it over.
Meanwhile, if you have to do a wire transfer for a large sum of money, and the bank screws it up, they have around 30 minutes to recall it before the wire is permanently completed.
I'm not a european but I do have an example. A few years back I purchased a project car in cash. I don't carry checks, who does anymore? And my bank would have given me grief trying to transfer an amount that large at once. I had tried before and it would trigger their fraud detection and give me headaches. Its good its there but can be a barrier when I'm just trying to buy something. So going to branch and withdrawing the cash was the most convenient option.
I'm in Denmark, and the last car I bought was from a private seller on a Sunday, we met at a coffee shop and settled the (large, cars are expensive here) payment via an instant bank transfer that I initiated from my laptop. The money immediately showed in the seller's account and we transferred the title/registration via a government online service (which is free of charge).
In the US, it’s quite possible your bank may not exist tomorrow. This just happened with two banks here. Plus during natural disasters you won’t be able to load up your laptop to transfer money for groceries, or NFC for that matter. These things still need cash.
No need for people that understand and trust the systems you used. That doesn't mean everyone understands how to do what you said, but they can count cash just fine.
This seems a US centric problem. No one in Europe has carried checks since the 90s and large bank transactions are really a non issue as they resolve within a banking day and for a small fee you can usually do real time transfers too.
Or for free. One of the reasons Venmo and similar do well in the US but have almost no equivalent (and certainly not at scale) in the UK, for example, is that free, near instant transfer of cash from retail (i.e. ordinary people) bank accounts has been free for years. If I need to pay someone, I need their bank account number and their bank identifying number, and that's it; the money will be in their bank within sixty seconds, with no fee. I've told people mine so often to get paid that I've accidentally memorised it.
Even some people who historically took cash (such as household tradesmen) now often simply have the money transferred instantly on the doorstep, rather than have to carry cash around in their pockets all day. I imagine a similar story in much of the rest of Europe.
Idk about europe, but as an American I would have used a money order for this. Unless I'm buying up a friends junker. Gotten grief lately from local DMV when we don't have a paper trail for buying up cars out of state when it comes time to get them registered here. But if I'm buying locally it's easier to just call up a Notary friend and stamp a printed bill of sale while we hand over cash.
In NL, all transactions above 10k are monitored and tracked, if you want to collect larger than x-k from your bank in cash it is monitored and tracked (depends on the bank, usually less than 3k). Depositing large cash transactions is monitored as well. If you are staying within the law there is no real way to get around it since hardly any legal employer will pay you in cash.
If the banks actually track it or not is another question. Every now and then a report comes out mentioning a banks failure to do so.
To be clear, the ~10k USD cash limit before reporting is standard in all highly advanced countries for global money laundering agreements. You see these same restrictions when travelling internationally.
In the US banking system, that's called structuring. Which means that transactions of $10,000 or more are legally suspicious, and transactions under $10,000 are legally suspicious.
Logicians, please simplify the previous statement.
You are incorrect: "Transactions under $10k" are not legally suspicious, but rather, multiple transactions that are very large but under $10k but when added together are more than $10k. It's not that easy to end up under scrutiny for structuring unless you're running a cash heavy business without declaring it. Moreover, 99% of the time, the "scrutiny" is "fill out this paperwork"
I stand by my statement. Are banks required to scrutinize $10K+ transactions? Yes. Are banks required to scrutinize <$10K transactions to determine whether they're really $10K+ transactions? Yes.
Compare: in the US, you can be detained for driving over the speed limit. You can also be detained for driving under the speed limit, if police believe either that your slow speed is dangerous, or that you are driving slowly to avoid being detained. In all but the most egregious cases of abuse, a driver will have little reason to complain that they shouldn't have been pulled over.
You’ve got it backwards. You need a reason to restrict freedom, not to improve it. So, the questions are which problem is this solving, is there any other way to solve it, and is it worth it. In most places, this is done without real discussion and people don’t care because they “don’t use cash”. “Lol terrorism” is not the most convincing argument.
And you clearly want to carry 3000+ EUR in your pocket than paying by card? Europe is safe, but I will definitely not walk around with that much cash on my person.
> And you clearly want to carry 3000+ EUR in your pocket than paying by card? Europe is safe, but I will definitely not walk around with that much cash on my person.
I'd also rather pay the Macbook by card due to practicality, but I don't understand your second sentence. Why would you walk around with a Macbook worth 3k but not with 3k in cash? Nobody knows that you have 3k in cash with you, whereas everybody can see you walking out of the Apple Store with the Macbook.
You're arguing that it should be illegal for him just because you don't personally want to do it? We wouldn't be allowed to do very many things if "I don't personally want to do that today" was a good reason to outlaw something.
It's my choice, my money, and I want to keep my freedom to engage in legal business with my property without going through an intermediate party. This is an arbitrary restriction that gives way more power to the government than it provides safety for the individual.
Well yeah, why not? I’ve been mugged in the day exactly zero times (and don’t carry cash in night clubs, where I did get mugged once). It’s not exactly conspicuous, there is no way to know what’s in your bag or wallet.
I don’t do it often; last time was when I moved to the UK without a British bank account and did not want to pay any transfer fees, which are quite expensive for larger sums (I had to carry enough to live one month and pay a first month’s rent before getting my first pay check). Another one was when I had to buy a computer after having reach the 7-days ceiling in my debit card (now you can increase it on the bank’s app; it used to be more complicated).
It's not a problem. I regularly pay for four-figure items in cash. Lots of places offer cash discounts at that price point (no CC fees or risk of chargeback). I paid a doctor $5000 in cash once.
The first time, it feels a little odd, but then you realize that nobody at the bank bats an eye at you withdrawing a few grand, and $3k in 100s is about the size of a phone in your pocket.
Since nobody carries cash, nobody thinks that other people are carrying cash, so it doesn't make you a target. And I'm not anymore likely to lose my wallet with $500 in cash in it than I am my $1000 phone.
Well this works well until it doesn’t. My elderly father doesn’t carry cash, only card, but yet it would look like he has a large wad of cash in his front pocket. It is in fact a legally concealed handgun however.
This post is hysterical. Where and why did you pay a doctor 5k (I assume USD/EUR)? Any one from a highly advanced democracy is laughing to themself about paying so much for medical care. I can only assume US or expat in undeveloped country.
Speculating and then attacking where an individual comes from instead of engaging in the actual conversation is an interesting take and seems like you may have the wrong tab open (HN, not Reddit). There is a word for this. It's called Xenophobia.
I've been on this site for a long time, and as far as I can recall this isn't accepted.
Europe is not America, and they generally provide better services to their poor people. Someone else above pointed out a certain country has onramps into banking explicitly for homeless people.
The people I know going around spending cash for large purchases tend to not be people that are struggling. They just prefer using cash. It doesn't get any simpler than using cash.
When I was 20, my bank has a daily limit on what I can spend out of my own account electronically because of reasons that I was told were related to account protection. I do not trust cash transfer apps at all and will never link them to my identity. I like to keep a small target surface.
Why should I not be able to spend my own money how I feel? It's mine.
Used cars, rent, nicer computers, there's all sorts of relatively large purchases that could be reasonably paid in a stack of large bills. Cash has a nice permanence to the transaction, where I as a seller don't need to be too concerned with the purchaser's background, as their proof of payment is the physical payment itself.
Privacy? I don't necessarily want my bank and/or the state to know that I blew up 3k€ on PrettyOlgaBlueEyes in a night of loneliness, or that my hobby is to buy & restore old cars, or whatever else.
because my transaction is a legitimate one until proven otherwise (innocent until proven guilty principle), and i have the right to buy something without letting my bank know what or where i bough it.
I could or could not disclose that payment to my government depending on the laws and if there are fiscal benefits, it is my choice.
I should not be forced to use a middle man for those payments, even if this means i am open to be scammed or victim of fraud.
now, as other mentioned, what are some good reasons to FORCE ONLY electronic payments above 3000€ ?
I would flip the script and say why is it a good idea to let the government have that much influence in your life without probable cause and a warrant to know what your financial transactions are?
Why would you not accept legal tender over a certain amount? This isn't credit, it's physical money the government created. It should never be outlawed
I just recently bought a car for around 4000€ in cash. I even went to a ATM to withdraw money first.
Cash is, after all, the only instant and feeless transaction method. Why would I want to pay % fee or wait up to several days for a transaction like that?
Imagine I bought the car on Friday afternoon. The seller would get the money earliest on Monday. Why would the seller simply trust me? So how would I buy a car on a Friday afternoon otherwise?
> Cash is, after all, the only instant and feeless transaction method.
Bank transfers in the EU are instant, and there are no fees for personal accounts.
> Imagine I bought the car on Friday afternoon. The seller would get the money earliest on Monday.
No, the seller would get the money before they could even blink.
I have accounts at 2 unrelated banks. I have my online banking apps set up that whenever I get a deposit over a certain amount I get a push notification. When I use my online banking app to transfer money from my account at bank A to my account at bank B, I get an alert from bank B’s app to inform me of the money appearing in my account before the app from bank A has even shown me the confirmation screen that the transfer request was received.
Well Switzerland has SEPA but realtime SEPA transactions are usually only available within the same bank. And I havent heard of any bank solving any Sepa transactions on the weekend here
Banks are not obliged to open accounts to everyone. So there are people who can't use banks, even if they want to.
You must accept plenty of agreements between bank and you, and there are only so many banks, so it's very possible for some people to find bank terms to be unacceptable for them.
Right now those people have cash as an alternative. Making it illegal removes some freedom from those people.
because you don’t want the government to be able to delete you from the economy? do you use signal? what’s the difference between strong privacy for your text messages and strong privacy for your financial transactions?
Even when there are limit's its tough to enforce. A better strategy is to remove legal tender above $20. It makes makes hoarding cash a logistical problem for criminals.
If a million dollars in $100 fits in a briefcase, Then it's a suitcase or more for $20 etc. And then banking that money becomes tedious as well.
Anyway, without enforcement it's really just tokenism.
they famously called the 500 euro bills -bin ladens- for how hard they became to secure since all the unofficial transactions where mostly done with those high denomination bills
They seem to be of most use to rich people who want to hide assets from the tax man by carrying the cash across the border to Switzerland. Probably doesn't work as well as it used to anymore though. A few years back I talked to a guy from norther Italy who said most people had a second bank account in Switzerland to hide money from the government.
The libertarian-minded tend to think that this kind of freedom is necessary to prevent government overreach and oppression, but in reality the bulk of the people making large cash transactions are either avoiding taxes (ripping off you, the taxpayer) or participating in organized crime (human trafficking, weapons/drugs/counterfeit black markets, etc).
I would also argue that the only people making cash transactions that large are probably way wealthier than the average person and, again, are looking to launder their money.
Think about it seriously: in what scenario would you choose to use physical cash to make a transaction amounting in the thousands of dollars?
That's so insanely risky. You'd be a walking target. You could lose the money, someone could steal the money, it could be physically damaged.
It even puts you at risk during the transaction: why would the other party sell you the good when the money is right there ready to be robbed from you? There is no recourse because it's all under the table. I can't stop a check or have a paper trail to take to court if you just take my cash.
There is no situation I would be comfortable making a transaction with that much cash (unless I was in so insanely wealthy that this amount of money meant nothing to me).
> There is no situation I would be comfortable making a transaction with that much cash (unless I was in so insanely wealthy that this amount of money meant nothing to me)
That’s fine for you but why does that mean it should be illegal for everyone else?
Specifically the state likes to say "We need access to encryption private keys because of terrorists or to save the kids. If you don't have anything to hide, there's no reason you'd oppose this". [0]
So if a lot of bad people pay for things with big sums of cash, then why would you oppose this limit, unless you're a bad person. Meh.
Like taxes are fair... You have the freelancers and small business struggling badly in my country, yet the goverment spends millions on nonsensical programs.