9 ms·

I don't see how it can fairly be changed for existing owners without screwing them over. It's different with property tax defaults and eminent domain because th

• paulmd 9y ago
  To go back to the whole "different rules apply to the rich and the poor", nobody would bat an eye if this were done as part of AML for poorer people. What about the person who took out $10k cash and is now subject to AML reporting if he wants to deposit it, would you say that we should re-tag all the bills so that we can know who took out money before the rule applied? Of course not, that's absurd, you would have to put up with AML like everyone else. And to be clear, that's what we're discussing here - a form of money laundering reporting. No actual property is seized from someone who obeys the new laws, and all they need to do is disclose ownership. The idea that this is somehow an onerous burden is just a reflexive boot-licking defense of the rich. They will be fine.
  • vostok 9y ago
    For what it's worth, I've taken out $10k in cash and deposited it about a month later. I assume that the bank had to do some paper work on the bank end, but I wasn't exposed to it at all.