Slashdot Mirror
Legal Tender? Maybe Not, Says Louisiana Law
First time accepted submitter fyngyrz writes "Lousiana has passed a law that says people may no longer use cash for second hand transactions. The idea is to make all transactions traceable, thus foiling copper theft, etc. This move has profound implications that range from constitutional rights to Bitcoin, Craigslist and so forth; I wonder if there are any Slashdotters at all that support such a move." On the list of exceptions: people who deal in used goods or "junk" less frequently than once per month, and (drumroll, please) pawn shops. That means a pretty big chunk of the population who post in online classified ads in Louisiana are probably already in violation.
Sorry Louisiana, you dont get to decide what federal currency can be used for.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
I'm thinking that this has less to do with trying to catch "criminals," and more to do with the state missing out on all that sales tax.
The first link in the summary contains the complete text of the bill. It does not ban cash transactions at all. Rather, it requires second-hand dealers to keep very thorough records of any cash transaction exceeding $25.
This is a terrible law, and would make business difficult for a lot of people, and (depending on how it's interpreted) could make garage sales more trouble than they're worth. But it does not ban the use of cash. I kind of wish it did, because then it would be struck down. As it stands, the law may pass constitutional muster, and become an enormous pain in the ass for a lot of people.
The only way a transaction does not involve "debt" is if the parties involved agree to it before hand. And if there is no debt for the transaction, I dont need to give you a traceable payment. If I do, then its debt and US currency is good for it. There are a bunch of federal trade and commerce laws out there to back this up and it could also be argued that it falls under the US Constitution. Having a legal requirement that the government can track all sales transactions violates a whole bunch o' stuff.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
To quote my $20 - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
In a technical sense, accepting goods places a burden of debt upon the recipient.
Sounds like something which will be brought to the Supreme Court, where a state claims rights in interstate (even if it is intrastate) commerce which supersede the domain of the federal government.
Interesting ambition, but flawed.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, in that case, the new law should be easy to circumvent: You don't sell the product for cash, but you give it on credit, and the debt is then immediately paid back using cash.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Apple did a similar thing a while back when they refused to sell iPhones for cash.
There's a big difference between Apple refusing to sell iPhones for cash and the government telling Apple it may not sell iPhones for cash.
Breakfast served all day!
Indeed. It strikes me that simply signing an IOU and then immediately paying it ought to take care of the direct cash payment angle. Just make sure you save the IOU along with any invoices and other source documents, and I don't think there's anything the state could do about it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It is legal tender, provided by the Federal Reserve (which isn't "federal" at all, it's a private bank).
Actually, the Federal Reserve System is federal. Let me contrast it with the company where I work so you can see the differences.
1. The FRS was created in 1913 by an act of congress. The place I work was incorporated in Delaware as a Delaware company.
2. The FRS is lead by the Chairman of the Board of Governers who is appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is lead by the Chief Executive Officer, who is appointed by the Board of Directors.
3. The FRS is run by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is run by the Board of Directors, who are selected by shareholders.
4. Congress has oversight of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
5. The government sets the salaries of the highest-paid individuals of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
6. By law, the FRS has to give any profit over 6% to the United States Treasury. In 2010, the FRS made a profit of $82 Billion. They paid the Treasury $79 Billion. The place where I work, not so much.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Indeed. It strikes me that simply signing an IOU and then immediately paying it ought to take care of the direct cash payment angle. Just make sure you save the IOU along with any invoices and other source documents, and I don't think there's anything the state could do about it.
And thus you defeat the point of using cash.
The IOU must be provided to the state, essentially upon demand, so they can track what you're buying and selling.
If you can't produce an IOU, or any similar document listing what was sold and for how much and what the terms of payment were, then you'll be hit with this law.
Why circumvent an illegal law. Yes Illegal. Currency is an issue that there is no doubt in the Constitution, it's a power expressly reserved to the federal government. It's exclusively federal precisely because they had so many problems with it during the articles of confederation where the US had several dozen different currencies that were all essentially worthless. The federal courts tend to take a dim view of any attempt by the states to circumvent federal currency and bank laws because the constitution is so very direct about that authority resting with the federal government.
Great point, sexconker:
If you can't produce an IOU, or any similar document listing what was sold and for how much and what the terms of payment were, then you'll be hit with this law.
Privacy keeps eroding towards no anonymity. This law does appear to restrict (and ultimately reduce) anonymous transactions.
What economic motive would provide an incentive to trace all second-hand transactions?
Tax motive: ideally taxes were paid on the first sale; are they required on all subsequent sales?
Raw consumption motive: discourages purchasing of "junk" to encourage more retail consumption?
Corporate motive: someone has to keep track of this data, a government contract winner would be excited for the data mining potential.
Other motive?