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...
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?
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?
Does that mean that people and companies in that jurisdiction will be *required* to accept cash if a customer wants to pay that way? I have had landlords, for example, that plainly stated that they cannot accept cash for rent as a general rule because there would be too much of a high risk of theft. Both times that it happened to me, they allowed it the first time but told me that they wouldn't accept cash again in the future. I resolved it the first time by just paying my share of the rent to my roommate at the time in cash and letting him pay the landlord by cheque, and the second time it happened, at another place, I ended up just getting a chequing account. Still, I can understand a landlords concern on the matter. Enough cash being all in one place, and without having the levels of security around it that are typical for a bank might motivate someone to resort to (possibly armed) robbery who wouldn't otherwise bother because they might perceive (rightly or wrongly) they could get away with it.
That strikes me as having a potential to go horribly horribly wrong.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Google is funding Brazil's comunication governamental department security agency in exchange to gather user's habits for marketing purposes. Neat. See You guys in the next 40 weeks (the avarage time You all take to find out the things I do, just by using math and my long IQ - long, hehehe).
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.
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'
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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