Slashdot Mirror
Austrian Minister Calls For a Constitutional Right To Pay In Cash
New submitter sittingnut writes: Bloomberg reports that Austrian Deputy Economy Minister Harald Mahrer has called for a constitutional right to use cash to protect their privacy. According to the report, Mahrer said, "We don't want someone to be able to track digitally what we buy, eat and drink, what books we read and what movies we watch. We will fight everywhere against rules," including caps on cash purchases. EU finance ministers at a meeting in Brussels last Friday urged the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, to "explore the need for appropriate restrictions on cash payments exceeding certain thresholds," " to crack down on "illicit cash movements."
Smart for them! Much smarter than today's geeks who want every penny tracked!
I don't respond to AC's.
If people can store cash in their mattress, you can't jack up negative interest rates and force consumers to spend like they should! The flow of money to the 1% would decrease slightly! Won't anyone think of the 1%?
I can't help but to see where a cashless society will only raise new black markets and increase crime. Nearly every form of prohibition brings additional criminal elements with it and a cashless society is a prohibitive society. Hopefully this gets real traction among other nations as well.
No we don't!, at least some of us object.
It has it right there, For all legal tender this bill must be accepted by penalty of death. Something like that. Besides, it's worth twice as much.
"Them terrists pay in cash? Let's ban cash! Dem terrists breathe air? Let's ban breathing! And air!"
Now if the European Commission only had any respect for its member nations' constitutions...
paypal is not a bank and they can take your funds at will. Now do you really want that to happen to you? to your store? to your business?
What is the current situation with prepaid SIM cards in Europe? Do you need to show identification to purchase them? In the US you don't (currently), not sure about Europe.
Its just words unless its enforced. Which is isn't. Try paying in cash for some online services. Good luck.
What if there is no debt, but simply an expression of desire to exchange goods or services? No debt has yet been incurred if a person has not received said goods or services, so the person who would otherwise get paid can refuse to accept it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This Note is Legal Tender for all Debts, Public and Private
Yep, still printed right there on all of my bills in my wallet. What is so hard about this to understand?
Ink on paper will not protect you from the later ink put on different paper that says the first ink isn't valid anymore.
Beware this practice as the landlord can still come after you if they didn't get the full amount from your roomate; and the roomate can say 'nope didn't get the money'.
Looks good. On paper at least.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What is so hard about this to understand?
If you too much cash in your wallet, the police might accuse you of being a drug dealer, confiscate your cash, and let you go without giving your cash back.
Still, I can understand a landlords concern on the matter.
Sounds like the real issue is crime. He should carry a firearm. His problem. Not yours.
Yeah, I have certain bills that clearly state that they do not accept cash as well. I always have to go and get a money order to pay that bill... stupid.
Luckily, my landlord allows cash payments.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Most online services are debts in the legal sense.
Good. And, more specifically, the right to pay for things anonymously, much like you have the right to speak anonymously.
It isn't about thwarting justice. It is about forbidding government the tools of tyranny, including the ability to filch through your stuff and activities at will until they find something they can tag you, uppity person, with.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Legal Tender Status
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
I don't think this is only about stopping terrorism. I'd bet it's actually a fairly small consideration in this. While I'm sure terrorists have an interest in money laundering, the issue is more broadly related to organized crime. An example would be if I'm a politician and accept a bribe. If I take the bribe in the form of cash, say a suitcase full of $100 bills, and then try to deposit it, there's a record of the transaction. If the deposit is large enough, over $10,000 in the US, it has to be reported. This can be evaded if, say, I have a legitimate business and use the cash to make a purchase from it. If there's no record of who made the purchase, it simply appears to be a legitimate though large transaction and is disguised with all the money from legitimate purchases made by other customers. At that point the money can't be traced back to illegal activity and is clean. That's an example of how money laundering works. Because of laws requiring banks to report large cash deposits and withdrawals, it's easier to evade these requirements by paying cash and cycling the money through an otherwise legitimate business. Tracking large cash purchases would partially close this loophole. I really don't think this is only directed at terrorism but rather to try to prevent money laundering associated with organized crime.
Whether it's a good idea or not is a completely different discussion. But I wouldn't assume this is only about preventing terrorism. That's probably a very small reason for these restrictions.
Paypal cannot lock you out of accessing your own funds if Paypal does not actually have them. That is, money that you have received or has otherwise been transferred into your Paypal account is the only money that they can potentially block you from. If you routinely transfer money from Paypal to your bank account, and simply do not ever keep a large balance in your Paypal account, then the amount they could ever block you from accessing is minimal. One has to weigh for themselves the transaction fee costs of doing this with their overall level of comfort at simply keeping their money in their Paypal account. However, access to your main funds through banking or credit card access gives them no more ability to lock you out of accessing your funds than any other company that accepts electronic payments. As you said, Paypal is not a bank.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This Note is Legal Tender for all Debts, Public and Private
Yep, still printed right there on all of my bills in my wallet. What is so hard about this to understand?
Cool. Now try finding this on Euro notes.
Good luck.
I was living in small apartment building that got sold to a corporation. A month after the manager moved out of his apartment and returned to Mexico, a corporate representative asked if I paid cash and had receipts for the last two months. I did and showed him the receipts. Turned out everyone paid in cash and had receipts. The former manager drove off with $10,000+ in rents that he supposed to deposit into the corporate account. After that we had to pay by check or money order.
It may be legal tender but I'm not under any obligation to accept it as long as you don't owe me money.
So, if all vendor are forced NOT to accept cash YOU can not buy anything with cash. Problem solved.
I'd be wary about that. Even if a bank account has $5, if one authorizes someone to do direct debits, they can suck out $1000. If you don't pay that negative balance in a week, you get put on ChexSystems, and all your checking accounts at all your banks get cancelled, and you have to patronize The Money Box for seven years.
Even closed accounts... I had someone debit something out of a bank I close my account with a few years ago, and found even that didn't mean one wasn't financially responsible when a debit hit.
Or at an Apple store.
A surprising expression of sanity from a politician. I feel like this is sorely missed in the UK. I hope such appeals to common sense are implemented.
I doubt it, but it's been a while since my jaded self has felt anything but scorn and mistrust for the demands made by anyone in politics.
They can reach into your personal bank account and take what they want. you grant them that permission. I have yet to find a real bank that will allow me to have a one way street with paypal.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
True enough.... Never happened, however. I think it's safe for me to say at this point that my roommate at the time was not the sort of person who would have done that any more than I am the sort of person who would do that to anyone else. Hypothetically speaking, if it had happened, I imagine I would have explained to the landlord what happened, given the landlord a money order, and moved out immediately, and chalked up the cost as a life lesson. However, I would not ever live with someone that I did not feel I could trust with my life, let alone my money, so the possibility of what you are describing had not even crossed my mind. Certainly with anyone that I do not know, I have always asked for a receipt if I am paying in cash.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The Minister probably realized that all the electronically transferred bribes^wcontributions they have been getting from various lobbies, special interest groups, etc. could be traced more easily than a bag of small unmarked bills..
Though even a bag full of cash can be traced to a fair degree by the serial numbers on the bills.
You do realize that what we have today in the US is corporatism, not capitalism, right? Capitalism is defined by the lack of government interference in free trade (beyond the core concept of protecting against force and fraud), not the presence of it.
Sure, I'll take my cash in bitcoin please...
Austrian economics minister supports Austrian economics, film at 11.
The idea that a law is needed for this just makes me wish the asteroid would hit the "reset life" button on earth already,,,
In general, the banks will side with their own customers... at least in my experience. Having once been the victim of an online scam around 15 years ago, I was ultimately very happy with how quickly and efficiently my bank resolved the issue.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
paypal is not a bank
That's not what I've been told when I worked at eBay/PayPal (years before the recent corporate split). Although not a bank per se, PayPal does fall under banking regulations. What that meant for the IT department was that we had to keep eBay assets and PayPal assets separate from each other. (Assets being anything with an asset tag such as laptops and monitors; cables, keyboards and mice were interchangeable.) Also, if you worked for PayPal directly and not eBay/PayPal, your credit record has to be much cleaner than average, no bankruptcies in the last ten years, and any adverse downward changes in credit score can result in immediate termination when your credit report gets periodically reviewed.
While I generally agree with him (less for privacy purposes and more for not paying a transaction fee to a credit card ever time), making it right would add a lot of potential problems to it. For example, what about online only transactions? Would Ebay or Spotify be required to somehow accept cash payments? I am all for companies not being forced to go electronic only, but I also wouldn't want to try and force every company to have to accept cash either.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I wish... I was told, "once authorization was given, you are responsible for any debits, fraud or no.", after a firm kept withdrawing $100 every few weeks, the bank wouldn't stop them, and the account was closed for at least a year before it happens... so I still pay those $100s even though they are fradulent, as there is nothing the bank can do about it.
Utah, Oklahoma, maybe some others. That would only apply to transactions within a state.
I wonder if anyone has paid state taxes this way?
And you pay for the money order, so your bills cost more than they are actually for. Great racket
In general, deadly force may not be used to simply defend ones property, and can only be used to defend someone's life or safety. An unarmed thief who has grabbed a cash box right in front of the landlord and then tries to immediately run away is not a threat to one's life, and shooting him to stop him would be highly illegal.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
IANAL, but rent on a lease sounds to me like an actual debt due at a certain time, and cash is legally good for that. Is there some sort of legal work-around? Or is it a matter of specifying acceptable payment methods in the lease?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not sure about Australia or the US or EU or wherever someone might live, but in Canada no-one is obligated to accept Cash for anything. A Constitutional Amendment so stating would actually mean a fundamental change in how business and debts are settled.
Which is why I don't believe this Amendment will get anywhere at all in Oz.
Any chance you have you need to stand-up, stop obeying orders like monkey or a dog, you are free thinking entity with full rights to be free, you have free will, don't listen to government propaganda, do whats right and fight big government big time as they are in nature not for you but for total enslavement, read history books, be yourself. Don't ask if you can or can't do it, you know inside whats right & wrong.
Cashless society is a bankers wet dream, if they have they way we are fucked.
best bitchez
In the majority of US states, a person is justified in assuming that an armed assailant is always going to take a life or cause great bodily harm if you were to choose not to cooperate. Since preventing death or great bodily harm is a valid legal reason to use deadly force so if said landlord reacts before the money is taken then deadly force would be justified. Some states also allow the use of deadly force to stop an in progress felony so shooting someone that has already grabbed the money might be considered justifiable in those states. Remember that morally questionable is not always legally questionable.
No, rent is usually paid up front. The month or two up-front charge is what establishes that.
You talk about fixed monthly payments for an account like setup. There are forces in Europe, which tries to move away from cash entirely. This mean it moves towards you pay electronically (card, app, sms or similar) for services like the gas station, bus tickets, restaurants and so on. The last one I saw was replacing a bunch of parking lots to be paid by an app. I read through the press release and whoever made this decision must have been under the impression that everybody have a smartphone as there is no backup plan for people without the app. I'm sure you can imagine how it would go if I started talking about the security of the concept of forcing people to install certain apps of semi unknown origin.
I think when talking about forced electronic payments it is important to tell the two kinds of payments apart: bills and "casual payments". Bills are send out to a named person and paid at a later date. Here it sort of make sense to do electronically, particularly because bills (at least the ones I get) have two numbers. One is who to pay and the other is a unique identifier for the bill in question. Getting electronic readouts from the bank on which unique numbers paid what can go strait into bookkeeping and it prevents the dull assignment of typing in all the numbers manually. Also the bank can verify which unique numbers were paid were and when. I once got a print from the bank to verify a bill was paid when I was accused for not paying and I'm sure without the bank note I would have either had to pay twice or gone to court as it was a shady company (I would have avoided them if I had known that).
However whenever payments do not go into any sort of bookkeeping and there is no customer record, then electronic payment is about something entirely different. There is no reason for me to accept not paying my bus ticket with the coins I have with me.
About the requirement to have a smart phone. The railroad here used to tell when a train would arrive if it was late. Now being late triggers a recording saying the train is late and tells which homepage (by name, not url) you can use to see how late it is. This goes particularly "well" when they make an emergency timetable why they repair a track as they use the same approach to inform how to switch train and stuff. People without a smartphone are completely lost. Particularly old people really are lost when something like this happens.
It's been a growing trend for politicians and society in general to view cash transactions as the realm of illicit trade. Take news reports of people having their money confiscated by state police in Tennessee because they were carrying so much. And there's no reason to carry that much money except to buy drugs or some other illegal good.
If you exceed this threshold, you must be a drug dealer or terrorist and will be charged with money laundering then investigated.
If you fail to exceed this threshold, you must be a drug dealer or terrorist and will be charged with money laundering then investigated.
See also: "structuring"
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
In lieu of cash, buy and use anonymous pre-loaded cards.
And thats really fucked up, people should stand up for shit like that, what happen to the constitution. you are living in a NAZI state Neo!
Depends on the state you live in.
I believe TX allows you to blow someone away if they are stealing your property.
I remember a bit before Katrina, there was a case in New Orleans East I think, a couple of kids were in an apartment parking lot, stealing stuff out of a car. The owner shot them and killed at least one of them, from his upstairs balcony facing the car.
The actually tried to press charges on the property owner, but they couldn't find a jury that would convict him....and I agree.
If the kids hadn't been committing a crime, they'd still be living today.
But most states I know of..if your able to in any way at all, think you are threatened, you can shoot someone, and no one shoots to injure, you're a fool if you try doing that. Heck, some states have weird old laws too, I remember in AR, that if you see someone trying to commit arson, even if you are not the property owner, you can legally shoot that person.
Things like that...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Most likely if challenged in court he'd have to accept the cash. It's just nobody actually takes these cases to court as it's almost always easier to get a checking account than win a court case and few people actually know that it's illegal to refuse cash as payment of a debt.
There is a difference between a debt and payment for services yet to be rendered. The legal tender argument is/was aimed primarily at taxes, tariffs, rent and such to prevent corrupt governmental bodies or landlords from demanding payment in land or other mediums. There is no federal statute that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in cents or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy. Another example is bridges or toll roads. Many have gone to a fast path or credit card ONLY scheme and that is totally legal.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
One day, maybe, we might just do away with the idea of money completely. If we gave everyone an equal share of available resources for free, would anyone care to keep score anymore?
Yes, money is a way to eliminate roadblocks when bartering (I have a pig for sale, but you have nothing I want, so I take cash) but once everything becomes basically free, will I even care? I'd gladly farm pigs for free if all my inputs were free, and I think a lot of other people would do likewise.
The post-scarcity economy needs to break us free of the slavery that is capitalism. Imagine all the einsteins, picassos, and mozarts that we are losing because they are forced to work 12 hour days just to eat. Surely there is a better way.
"Legal tender" means it's legal to use, and quite specifically NOT that anyone is required to accept it. Otherwise stores would have to accept 10000 pennies, and convenience stores couldn't put up signs saying "no bills over $20 accepted."
Stores do legally have to accept 10000 pennies. Convenience stores do have to accept any legal tender. Just because no one puts up a fuss and sues does not make these statements false.
My landlord accept neither cash nor money orders. It's quite annoying.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
How would the police have probable cause to even know how much money I have in my wallet?
"this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
You notice it only says that on bills, not nickles, dimes and pennies.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
How would the police have probable cause to even know how much money I have in my wallet?
When it comes to asset forfeitures, probable cause is optional. All the police have to do is accuse you of being a drug dealer. The law allows them to keep the cash even if they don't charge you for a crime. If you insist on getting your cash back, the district attorney will tell you to take a walk or face a criminal complaint. For some local jurisdictions, asset seizures is the quickest way to juice up the budget. Far more easier than asking voters for a new property tax.
In the USA there is (or at least was) a cap on how much a person could contribute to a political campaign. If there is a law that all transactions must have the option of payment in cash then what happens to the caps on political contributions? I suppose there could also be a law that any payment to a political entity must have record keeping to prevent... what would you even call this? Is it "abusive" contributions?
Personally, I do not believe there should be a cap on political contributions. I suppose it is possible on some level that a political entity might abuse this and theoretically "buy" an election. What I fear more than bought elections is a candidate or lobbying effort being silenced because of some accusation of record keeping abuses. The abuse of a government entity regulating how I, or anyone else, might choose to spend my money on supporting a policy or candidate frightens me more than some billionaire buying up all the billboards, TV ads, and radio time.
Let people speak freely, and that means giving money to any lobby effort or political campaign they choose. Paying in cash is certainly one way to make that easier. If I walk into John Jackson's campaign offices with a grocery bag of cash to fight the campaign of Jack Johnson then no campaign contribution limits should allow the government to arrest me for doing that.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Hmm, 500-Euro bill? The United States only trusts people to legally use 100 dollar bills
We're moving to a cashless society like it or not. I don't like it! I prefer to pay cash for everything. Banks don't want you to use cash. Governments don't what you to use cash. NSA wants to know what movies you watch, what books you buy, what places you go to, control of your toaster and everything in between while making you bankrupt by a single keystroke if you're not towing the correct political line.. I'm glad I live in a relatively low tech country where I'll probably die before it gets implemented here, but you folks in high tech areas--your days of cash buying are serious numbered. Still I wish the folks in Austria good luck, but believe it will ultimately be a futile struggle.
This is why I said "in general".... Yes, I know you can do that in Texas, and of course, in all jurisdictions that I know of you *ARE* allowed to use lethal force against someone who is armed or you had reason to believe was armed, and there was some reasonable basis to conclude that they would cause harm to you if you did not surrender your property.
But if the person is not armed, or in particular has just tried to grab and trying to escape with some stolen property without ever actually threatening to harm anyone (which is a *HUGE* percentage of robberies), you are not allowed to use lethal force to stop them in most jurisdictions.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Preventing death or great bodily harm is a valid legal reason to use deadly force... preventing loss of property is not. And yes, I know that there are a few jurisdictions (Texas, most notably) where it is legal to kill someone who is simply trying to steal from you, whether or not there is any evidence they are going to cause any bodily harm to anyone, but this is why I explicitly said "in general", because that is not actually the norm. A vast majority of robberies are of the "grab and dash" type... where an opportunistic robber happens to identify some property that is not adequately protected and is small enough for them to easily carry, makes a grab for it and tries to run away. If the robber has made no other threatening moves or otherwise suggested he would harm anyone if he was stopped, it is generally illegal to use lethal force to stop them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
We don't even have a truly anonymous currency yet and BitCoins isn't even pseudo anonymous so any electronic currency coming becoming adopted is dangerous. We need to push for the adoption of the Zero Coin protocol. Zero Coin isn't a crypto-currency. It is a protocol that works on top of BitCoin and/or any alt coin. It's only reason for existing is to show how you can do anonymity mathematically. It doesn't involve laundering or mixing. It's a real solution to the problem of anonymity and privacy in ones day-to-day financial transactions.
The other thing we need to do is shoot for organizing freedom lovers everywhere to participate in building communities that can work to fix these broken systems. If we spread ourselves thin as we currently do there isn't enough demand or organization to stop the bullying by government and the authoritarians which are put in place by the uneducated non-thinking anti-liberty masses. Right now I'm only aware of one genuine effort to do this. No not liberland. The Free State Project. It's attracted 20,000 people to sign up to move to New Hampshire. 10% have already moved and many successes have already been achieved. Those who haven't moved yet have agreed to move within the next 5 years.
The cash register was invented by a saloon keeper who grew tired of bartenders tapping the till and not the keg.
The downside to doing business in cash has always been the need the need to embed expensive physical defenses against fraud and theft. The merchant will need a safe or a vault. Alarm systems. Video. Perhaps an armored courier service.
Every transaction leaves a trail.
Given time and patience all but your most mundane purchases can be traced.
Cash is the ultimate roadblock for a long-term Negative Interest Rate Policy.
If the price of storing your value in a bank is 5% of the stored value per year then you will likely reject that "service" - unless you do not have a choice. This is the real reason the fascist union is pushing for the eventual total removal of cash. They can't just announce a ban of cash without a real risk of protests and even riots. This is why it's done in small steps.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Exactly. A lot of this legalized theft they call "asset forfeiture" isn't structured as, say, "State of Anystate vs. John Doe", it's noted as "State of Anystate vs. two thousand five hundred US dollars". Even though the street gang known as Law Enforcement And Prosecutors claim that inanimate objects are persons for the purposes of a trial, they aren't considered persons for purpose of due process.
technically they don't accuse you of a crime, they accuse your cash/goods of the crime
unlike you, your cash/good has no rights, which means there's no need for due process
Did you not notice where I mentioned armed assailants and most states give the benefit of the doubt, legally, to the victim of an armed assailant?