[nemomarx]

> Banks are required to collect information through “know your customer” rules, but have pushed back against this plan. But Bessent told CNBC, “If Treasury and the banking regulators say it’s their job, it’s their job.”

Well I can't see this ending well. It's either more invasive KYC or it's a push towards debanking people out of favor with the government again.

[rsync]

"Well I can't see this ending well. It's either more invasive KYC ..."

I think there is an opportunity here for an elegant solution.

Banks, by definition, know quite a bit about you and aspects of your identity and this is not necessarily problematic nor dangerous.

Further, banks enjoy exorbitant privileges above all other business firms and organizations - privileges that the public rarely receives any upside in exchange.

For these reasons, I think we should consider concentrating KYC responsibilities with the banks such that they do the heavy lifting and the rest of the economy reaps the benefits.

Here is one small example:

A credit or debit card which, by virtue of the card number itself, identifies the user as being over 18 years of age. The bank already knows this information with very high confidence and now smaller, less resourced firms could make use of this to effectively age-gate with almost no investment and no fragmented intrusion into the private lives of their customers.

I don't see any world in which the banks don't have all of this information anyway - why not get some value out of it ?

[exabrial]

I would love to live in a world where I don't have to "send a pin to my cell" and instead this task is deferred to my bank.

[verdverm]

Perhaps Bessent has forgotten that Chevron Doctrine was overturned and now courts get the final say on this instead of the federal agencies. Double edged sword

[tantalor]

Came here to comment "Loper Bright". Glad you got here first.

[lazide]

A number of countries require this info already - it is a stretch for the US, but relatively common overall.

It’s probably both of what you’re worried about.

Notably, it’s likely a reaction to the original ‘no gun stores, no porn, etc’ rules which banks have defacto had for awhile.

[em-bee]

worse they are requiring this data on behalf of the US to assert that they have no obligation to pay US taxes.

[fakedang]

Incorrect, banks in other countries require this data solely because the US is the only country that taxes its citizens even outside its borders. Compliance with FATCA is the only reason why most banks literally have a checkbox in their application forms specifically to state that you do not hold US citizenship in any form. Some Swiss banks even outright forbid US clients. Dealing with FATCA is just another logistical nightmare for most banks.

[lazide]

Not just because of either - many countries tax and treat citizen/permanent resident accounts wildly differently than non-citizen and non permanent resident accounts.

India has a whole swath of different account types based on this criteria, with wildly different rules.

China too.

[fakedang]

NRI accounts are different in that they're localized. You don't have UBS in Switzerland asking me if I'm an Indian citizen or resident, like they do for the US.

[lazide]

Indian banks will absolutely demand the information we’re talking about.

[em-bee]

my bank specifically asked me a bunch of questions that they claimed they needed to send to the US. it wasn't just a checkbox that i am not a citizen. it's more complicated than that. non-citizens could have tax obligations to the US if they work there or work for a US company.

[fakedang]

They don't need to send your data if you're not working for a US company, or if you're not a US resident/citizen. That is, sending data to the US is not the default. Also yes, the checkbox wasn't just a single box but an entire page just dedicated to FATCA issues i.e. the banks are doing as much as possible to absolve themselves of any FATCA obligations and document it.

Anything remotely connecting a client to the US is kryptonite to banks.

[TacticalCoder]

It s the sheer horror we have to live with in the EU. The intrusiveness of banks is beyond this world. As soon as you re a little bit off the rails, say you lived in different countries or own real estate in another country, all he'll breaks loose. Endless KYC, banks rejecting you, making pointless snitch reports to the various IRSes you have to respond to (there are several if you live in one country but have revenues from a company or real estate in another), etc.

Endless waste of time, red tape, administratrivia...

All for exactly nothing.

[alephnerd]

EU banks mandate similar KYC as well like a passport or national ID (something we do not have but need).

[mrsilencedogood]

See that's the thing people are upset about though - the fact that the documents you need are either an original certified copy of a thin sheet of paper from whatever random backwater you were born in's local government (birth cert), or an expensive time-consuming document that needs to be renewed on top of that (passport).

In general, the people against these kinds of things aren't against the simple extra check of something that's theoretically already true (registered to vote / ID at voting place, citizenship at banks, etc). They're against forcing people to provide arcane, asterisk-ridden (including married women! a large demographic!) documents.

If we just had a normal federal ID system like a normal country, where you just got one mailed to you when your kid was born just like their social security card manages to do, then this would all be much more fine. But noooo god forbid we be normal for once. Much better to keep using random bullshit in place of a national ID.

[pjc50]

Having been through this in the UK, what people want is:

    - a rigorous secure biometric identity system
    - .. but not for citizens, only for immigrants.

(one of the weird consequences of this is that the final stage of naturalization was to send back / destroy your secure ID: https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-permits ; we now have a purely online "share code" system, which everyone is much more scared of because you have no way to contradict the computer)

[JuniperMesos]

Yeah the US should institute a normal federal ID system like a normal country. It might strictly be necessary to amend the constitution to do this, although plenty of other expansions of what the federal government does have happened without a formal amendment.

[lo_zamoyski]

Many Americans think mandatory ID is some kind of dystopian measure. It's part of an irrational cultural obsession with "government control" that believe that if something could hypothetically be used for oppressive purposes, then it will be and must be resisted. Never mind that in practice, you very often need to have a state-issued ID of some kind of do things.

Mind you, I am not saying gov'ts cannot misbehave. I am merely saying that this categorical opposition is imprudent and irrational. It's like the idea that you shouldn't leave your basement, because bad things might happen to you outside. What kind of life is that? Yeah, something could, but you aren't living life by remaining cooped up. And news flash: you're going to die eventually.

[saltcured]

The US cultural thing is really the opposite of cowering in your basement, at least in my generation and older.

We were steeped in propaganda about the "papers, please" police state in other parts of the world, versus our freedom to travel. It's this idea that you are not allowed to leave your basement without an exit visa which is horrifying.

There is also the religious angle, with some believing that a national ID would be the "mark of the beast" from the bible. Ironically, these days the US religious right seems excited by the prospects of fascist control, rather than rebelling against it. I'm honestly not sure if that is just hypocrisy or if, in their minds, they are gleefully accelerating us towards the "end times" now.

[lo_zamoyski]

> The US cultural thing is really the opposite of cowering in your basement, at least in my generation and older.

That wasn't the purpose of my basement remark. The point is that you can't argue against something simply because it can be abused or simply because it can have bad effects. There is a thread running through American culture that is absolutely paranoid about the slightest possibility of abuse. What I think more people realize today is that gov't is easier to restrain than corporations, because of their officially public status and the attending constraints, while corporations are in many ways at greater liberty to do whatever they want and attain power and influence that gov'ts don't have.

> There is also the religious angle, with some believing that a national ID would be the "mark of the beast" from the bible.

I don't know how influential this religious element is where IDs are concerned, but I would agree that dispensationalist Evangelical nuttery - a blatant Christian heresy - is a danger to the US. However, I think it is a danger, because it is nuts.

[array_key_first]

We are actively seeing the current US government shift towards malevolence and fascism. These fears of government control were very rational, evidently, as the government is currently abusing every possible system it can. I mean, a lot of this stuff is really being pushed to its limits and beyond.

And, all of those "unspoken rules" and relationships, due diligence, etc are finally coming home to roost. We have put too many trust-based systems in place.

Also, the US has a long history of abusing government power. The last time we required ID for voting we did it to prevent black people from voting. So now, people are rightfully scared of voter ID. Um... whoops.

[_DeadFred_]

I mean one of the uses for something like this is to make it easier to de-bank people. That is, make it impossible for them to function financially. That sounds super dystopian to me and a power the government shouldn't have.

They call it 'collateral damage' so that it fall outside of the constitutional protection/requirement that all punishments need to stem from a conviction and then a judge's determination the punishment is directly proportional to the conviction so it's also un-American.

[jltsiren]

As a citizen of a small country with decently long democratic traditions, I've always found American attitudes like that weird. From my perspective, if you live in a free country, any government you have by definition reflects the will of the people. If you're afraid of what the government might do, you're really afraid of what your fellow citizens might do. Afraid that your fellow citizens don't share your values, or those of the constitution.

When it comes to de-banking, the bigger threat seems to come from the banks than from the government. Your bank might choose to de-bank you, because it doesn't like you. Because you are too risky or too unpleasant, or because the computer says so. So if you're afraid of de-banking, you might want to pass a law that makes it illegal for a bank to refuse to offer basic services to you, unless one of the exceptions listed in the law applies.

[pjc50]

.. and some also refuse to do business with Americans because of the additional reporting requirements!

[fudgybiscuits]

That's due to US regulation imposed on them under FATCA in not additional check due to EU rules.