23 ms·

Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019

155 points by darcys22 7y ago

zzo38computer 7y ago
It think it is bad. Payment in physical cash should not be restricted. Otherwise the system will fail and then you will not be able to make a payment at all. I use cash for all payments anyways. And if cash will not work, then we will pay by barter.
- xanth 7y ago
  If a public institution was introduced to allow you to freely digitally transact and securely store your money would you feel similarly?
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    I may then be more likely to use a digital transaction for some cases, although still I would prefer to use cash as much as possible. (For one thing, it doesn't fail in the way that digital systems do. And, it can be used without a computer. There are other advantages too.)
    - xanth 7y ago
      Not all digital systems fail similarly, consider some sort of distributed hub and spoke system that could arbitrate transactions; thus mitigating a single point of failure. Also consider how much of everything we purchase today is entirely reliant on our digital infrastructure, if there were some calamity that entirely halted our networks I don't think legal tender would be any use.
      - sgc 7y ago
        There is good reason to have more than 10k in cash to have for your family in case a localized natural disaster or other emergency makes digital transactions impossible where your are, during a crisis. You may well need a transaction larger than 10k in cash for transport etc at that point as well.
  - flyingfences 7y ago
    rephrased: Would I trust Uncle Sam's servers with the entirety of my financial activity? No. There exist cryptographically secure digital payment systems, but governments are moving against them just the same as cash.
- cstrat 7y ago
  You often pay for things > $10K in cash? You also pay by barter for those things?
  - King-Aaron 7y ago
    Ever bought a used car?
    - zzo38computer 7y ago
      Actually, I don't use a car. (Also, I still use a bank account when dealing with the government, but that is all I use it for.)
      - King-Aaron 7y ago
        Yes but, I don't know why you made that comment lol. I was getting at the fact that most people who buy a second hand car, boat, motorbike, having renovations done, landscaping, etc would be used to handing over more than 10k in cash
        AnssiH 7y ago
        No idea about Australia, but here in Finland all those examples would normally be paid via a bank transfer.
        King-Aaron 7y ago
        Anecdote time, but I've bought a used car that was about 100kms from the closest mobile phone reception. Hard to do bank transfers in the middle of the bush sometimes
        AnssiH 7y ago
        Ah, that makes sense. Finding a road without mobile reception here would be difficult.
- elyobo 7y ago
  I go weeks without using cash, although visiting Sydney recently it seemed I was surcharged more often than not for using a credit card - not the case in Melbourne where it's still very uncommon.
JeremyBanks 7y ago
Which of the dozen documents on this page mentions cryptocurrency? I don't want to search all of them individually.
- dimavs 7y ago
  In this Act: cash means either or both of the following: (a) digital currency; (b) physical currency.
- duey 7y ago
  "That said, some forms of electronic payment more closely mirror physical currency. In particular, crypto-currencies and other digital currencies are generally unregulated and do not create clear records of transactions in a form that can easily be used to identify the parties to a transaction." https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/exposure_draft_-_explantory_memorandum.pdf https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/expo...
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  The first one
helix8428 7y ago
lol good luck
wmf 7y ago
On one hand this is just codifying common sense; cryptocurrencies aren't even good for payments and everybody already assumes that only criminals use large amounts of cash. OTOH I predict that innocent people will get tripped up by this law while criminals mostly won't.
jamez1 7y ago
This is a restriction on physical cash, there is no mention of electronic cash let alone cryptocurrency.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  There is under https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/exposure_draft_-_explantory_memorandum.pdf https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/expo...
- darcys22 7y ago
  The definition of Cash under this legislation is: cash means either or both of the following: (a) digital currency; (b) physical currency.
- Mengkudulangsat 7y ago
  Physical cash is still a very valuable thing [1], and restrictions to it should be resisted on principal, not just because of technological progress. [1] https://aeon.co/essays/if-plastic-replaces-cash-much-that-is-good-will-be-lost https://aeon.co/essays/if-plastic-replaces-cash-much-that-is...
quickthrower2 7y ago
Interesting, if crypto is cash, then no CGT on holdings? I’m dreaming of course!
- wmf 7y ago
  It sounds like currency trading is still subject to capital gains tax. There's no magic classification that will make cryptocurrency tax-free.
cstrat 7y ago
How would this bill work in practice? People who use cash for tax dodging aren't reporting true values anyway. (have not read any of the documents) I guess in the past they could have had a job quoted at $500K. Paid "in cash" with $400K and reported only $200K to the tax office. Those businesses could still just have $200K paid by electronic transfer (reported to ATO) and the rest in cash. It does mean the tax dodging responsibility is somewhat pushed to the other party too which might make some people/businesses uncomfortable and avoid it entirely. I am all for more fairness and having people pay the right tax. Too many builders and tradies sort things out in cash. The unfairness then extends further where people then become eligible for government subsidies because on paper they earn less - but really have just reported less. edit: reworded for clarity.
- matco11 7y ago
  There are countries where this type of restrictions to using cash for large payments have been in place for many years. They help with: - mitigating money-laundering risk - more effective application of sales tax - more effective enforcement (in combination with other tools) against income tax evasion.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    There are several common types of money laundering today, exchanging deeds to offshore shell companies that own other shell companies that own real estate, private art auctions (where the bidder, seller, and artwork is private), etc. Those are all cashless.
- cknight 7y ago
  As best I can tell, it adds risks which may or may not be a sufficient deterrent - depending on the business. Once $10k+ cash transactions are banned, questions will be raised over any cash withdrawals that a business makes that are near, at, or over that limit - and possibly over any regular ones that are below the limit but couldn't be easily explained away on other expenses. For a business to continue the practice you've mentioned, they would need to keep sufficient cash on hand for making such transactions as needed, at all times. So there are all the associated risks of having cash lying around, on top of the risks of being caught. It can be worked around, but for some businesses I can imagine that the additional loopholes will be considered onerous enough to stop bothering.
eof 7y ago
I wonder if we are going to reach a sort of singularity with regard to encroachment on privacy in western countries where we both take it for granted that privacy is a right, and live in societies where actual privacy is clearly trending somewhere just above zero. I don't think this is really about cryptocurrency particularly. This is about electronic transfers generally. My read on this was that the government is basically saying "big transactions can't be in something we can't feasibly track." Australia seems quite aggressive in this regard; also openly banning encryption. I used to be up in arms about this stuff. Now I am older and mostly trust (for my threat model) off-the-shelf end to end encryption for basically anything I consider private. But I also don't care about the privacy thing anymore. I kind of hope the people 10+ years younger than me still care about that stuff. Google reading/mining the dick jokes I've been sharing back and forth in a dying g-chat window for the last 10 years? Whatever. I'd still keep the conversation there just for intertia's sake; even though I also assume its adding to google's model about me. I don't think, at least in countries culturally similar to the US (the one I know the most), any populous will embrace the idea of "let the experts of the government see everything so you can all be safe"; but, it also seems that we will just trend toward that and kinda pretend like its not happening.
- discordance 7y ago
  Our society needs you to still care. It's this exact attitude that has ceded so much control to the government where there is little oversight. It's not fair to put the burden on young people, and apathy is no excuse.
- ajdlinux 7y ago
  > Australia seems quite aggressive in this regard; also openly banning encryption. Australian here, talking to you over an encrypted HTTP connection, because we didn't ban encryption. Mandating certain measures which sometimes can be used to circumvent the privacy guarantees of encryption doesn't mean encryption is banned... (yeah, it's still a bad law.) As for transaction privacy - I am concerned about small transactions, not large ones. Small transactions reveal your personal preferences and day-to-day dealings, large transactions reveal aspects of your financial situation that almost certainly have an impact on your tax obligations (and therefore that government has more reason to want to track) without revealing as much about your personal affairs. So this bill, on its own, seems alright to me. Though I do fear that it's the start of a slippery slope down to abolishing cash - not that the free market needs any help with doing that. We'll see.
naedish 7y ago
Digital currency is currently exempted but will apparently be kept under close scrutiny (Section 9). https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/exposure_draft_-_explanatory_materials_currency_restrictions_on_the_use_of_cash-excepted_transactions_instrument_2019_2.pdf#page=6 https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/expo...
- repomies68 7y ago
  So, this is good for Bitcoin.
manicdee 7y ago
Well, guess the fascist party has to make it harder for people on NewStart somehow. In share houses you are typically going to pay cash to someone who pays the rent as a lump sum, so if you are in a share house rented for $400/wk with rent split three ways you will breach this Act sometime around the second or third year of tenancy. No more NewStart for you, Criminal!
- gruez 7y ago
  >In share houses you are typically going to pay cash to someone who pays the rent as a lump sum, so if you are in a share house rented for $400/wk with rent split three ways you will breach this Act sometime around the second or third year of tenancy. The 10k limit is per transaction. I don't think that another months rent payment will be considered the same transaction.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    $10k limit also applies to a series of transactions covering supply. Section 3 of the proposed legislation.
- gwint6 7y ago
  https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/at_glance_summary_of_how_the_cash_payment_limit_will_work_0.pdf https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/at_g... "What transactions are covered by the cash payment limit? The limit applies to all cash transactions equal to or in excess of $10,000, except for those that meet the conditions specified in the draft Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash—Excepted Transactions) Instrument 2019. " I don't think this is going to affect somebody paying for split rent in cash...
  - manicdee 7y ago
    It explicitly covers accrued payments for services where the total cash transaction is higher than the cash limit. 3) An entity commits an offence if: a) [payments are made] b) the payment is part of a series of payments … c) [in cash] d) as a result of the payment, the total value of all amounts of cash included in the payments in the series equals or exceeds the cash payment limit
gst 7y ago
> Transactions equal to, or in excess of this amount would need to be made using the electronic payment system or by cheque. Does Australia have a law that guarantees access to a bank account? Or would this proposed limitation imply that people who can't get a bank account for various reasons aren't allowed to transact anymore?
- xanth 7y ago
  There is no such law, at one point the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) was state run but was privatized in 1996.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  How often do the people who can't get a bank account for various reasons enter into transactions over $10k?
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > How often do the people who can't get a bank account for various reasons enter into transactions over $10k? I’m guessing the effects would be secondary. If your business serves the unbanked, and receives its revenues in cash, it may be more convenient to pay suppliers with that cash than to deposit it and issue electronic payment. Not sure if that pushes any businesses over the edge, but it’s a factor.
    - ajdlinux 7y ago
      If you're operating a legitimate business maintaining proper accounting records, and dealing with other legitimate businesses who are themselves maintaining records and paying tax, I would guess that it's _still_ much easier to go to the bank and deposit your cash into an account than to pay your bills straight out of your cash.
- emdowling 7y ago
  Only 1% of Australians are fully excluded from financial services (no transaction account, no credit card, no general insurance)[1]. I doubt this law will have much of an impact on that small population. [1]According to this report from 2013/2014: https://www.nab.com.au/content/dam/nabrwd/documents/reports/financial/2014-measuring-financial-exclusion-in-australia.pdf https://www.nab.com.au/content/dam/nabrwd/documents/reports/...
samsonradu 7y ago
Isn’t cash the only thing preventing banks from offsetting the negative interest rates to the general public? For the time being people would just get out of their deposits but if cash gets banned then things become more complicated.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > Isn’t cash the only thing preventing banks from offsetting the negative interest rates to the general public? No, literally every investment product, from government bonds to CDs, also plays that part. Cash is just the most significant counterweight to negative deposit rates. (After taking into account fees, many depositors pay a negative rate to maintain banking privileges.)
  - ImaCake 7y ago
    > (After taking into account fees, many depositors pay a negative rate to maintain banking privileges.) This isn't strictly true in Australia. Savings accounts where short term savings go typically provide 1 to 1.5% interest after adjusting for inflation (i.e 2% interest account with Australia's 1% consumer price index). If you don't have a mortgage or credit card debt, having money in an Australian bank savings account is usually a net positive.
    - dannyw 7y ago
      Before taxes.
- amadeuspagel 7y ago
  What about competition between banks?
  - crististm 7y ago
    Not when you don't have a choice _not_ to use one.
- thatguyagain 7y ago
dang 7y ago
The submitted title was "Australia to make bitcoin payments above $10k illegal", but a moderator changed it to the article title, in accordance with the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
gumby 7y ago
I wonder how this really will work in practice. Tradesmen are often paid in cash, and a business might quite reasonably take out a large amount each week to pay the workers on the job site. In some industries such as mining and oil work it is not uncommon to get the pay packet in cash, though perhaps less in Australia these days.
- petecox 7y ago
  > Tradesmen are often paid in cash Tradies here are stereotyped by (not all) unscrupulous operators that use cash to do jobs 'off the books' in under-quoting their true income or offering a discount to customers for unlawfully not charging the GST. Bank transactions provide the tax office an audit trail. NB: The 'blackeconomy@...' feedback email hints at the purpose.
StavrosK 7y ago
This limit exists in Greece right now too, but the cap is 300 euros. Pretty frustrating.
- anticensor 7y ago
  Any exceptions? I ask because that limit is very low.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Not that I know of. Stores like IKEA have signs mentioning that transactions over 300 euros must be done by card and don't mention anything else...
King-Aaron 7y ago
Don't worry about chasing down large multinationals who owe billions in tax revenue, best to just crack down on pot dealers and bricklayers paying for stuff in cash.
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  Yep. Panama Papers, nothing. Paradise Papers, nothing. Multinational tax avoidance, nothing. Banking Royal Commission, two years of resistance before being forced into it. $10k cash payment limits. The legislation that doesn't solve any 'real' problem, that's what we get.
epiphanitus 7y ago
Who is lobbying for this? Who wants this legislation to pass, and why? (American here, not sure how things work in Australia, but these are questions I often ask in my own country)
- King-Aaron 7y ago
  That's a very good question.
- johnasmith 7y ago
  > The Black Economy Taskforce recommended this action to tackle tax evasion and other criminal activities.
  - sbisker 7y ago
    Guessing someone flagged the parent comment thinking there was a racial connotation, so vouching it back from the dead. https://treasury.gov.au/review/black-economy-taskforce/ https://treasury.gov.au/review/black-economy-taskforce/
    - theshadowknows 7y ago
      We say African American Economy Taskforce now
      - codeddesign 7y ago
        But why?? What if I’m from the Caribbean?
- tumetab1 7y ago
  Banks, credit cards and payment processors and off course NSA and friends.
- bhaavan 7y ago
  I think the government, holds to benefit from this, and there might be no need of lobbying. Any transaction in cash for such a high amount, is intentionally done to keep the transaction off-book (and avoid taxes). There is little reason, why one would go through the inconvenience of managing so much cash, when a digital transaction is so much more ergonomical. India too is aggressively trying to achieve this. One of their rather bold attempts, called demonetization, happened a few years back, but it failed. However, in principle, I agree with the idea of having a cashless economy, so that government has data to see who is lying in their tax returns.
clouddrover 7y ago
So my access to the economy can be terminated at the push of a button? That doesn't sound appealing. I suppose I could always barter.
sfthrower89 7y ago
Big Brother is monitoring your transactions. The worse our world runs into the digital rabbit hole, the less I participate in it. As much of my life as feasible is now transacted in cash, and I no longer even own a smart phone. This is not progress.
Bizarro 7y ago
"We need to see everything you do for your own good"
anthony_barker 7y ago
My issue with removing cash is that in a way you are moving from public money (printed by the government) which you are free to use as you want to a private money issued by banks who generally have lots of ability to charge you money for payments and block your account. Banks in Canada have been fighting for removal of cash and cheques (which are regulated in terms of fees).
- ajross 7y ago
  Per the article, it's a $10k AU limit. That's... not really removing cash. It looks more like a money laundering statute to me.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Okay, so what number differentiates between a money laundering statute and removing cash for you? Is there a minimum number for you where it is okay to force people to pay bank fees and give up their privacy?
    - peteretep 7y ago
      > In the United States, the Bank Secrecy Act requires currency transaction reports (CTRs) to be filed for transactions valued at more than $10,000; from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring So it seems to be pretty settled law that $10,000 USD is a reasonable starting point.
      - ajross 7y ago
        Beat me to it. Yeah, this is nothing new. Obviously the US regulation is about reporting and not payment mechanism as in AU, but the justification and thresholding for the for the laws are very comparable. American libertarians are fine living with a $10k limit, Aussie ones will be too.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
vagab0nd 7y ago
Slightly off topic, but why isn't a one dollar bank note worth more than one dollar in a bank today? I have a very basic understanding of how bank works, so please correct me. If banks can only lend based on the reserve, it seems bank note should have more value to the banks.
- icu 7y ago
  There are two topics here: a) the time value of money, and b) the fractional reserve system. There is also a 3rd topic, which is inflation, which is implied in your question. Topic 1: The time value of money is the bit about "a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow". The reason why this is the case, is because if I give you $1 dollar today, and you give me $1 dollar at the end of the year (metaphorically "tomorrow"), than I would have missed out on the interest I could have earned by lending it to the bank (in a savings account) or the Government (in a bond). I hope this makes it clear why there is a greater benefit to receiving money now, rather than an identical sum later. Topic 2: This might be a mind-bender, but bank loans create money, not deposits. Don't believe me? Check out a Bank of England representative say the following in plain English: "...banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan" "Now, while this is nothing new, it's sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have." "In fact, loans create deposits, not the other way around." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw Sadly the resources I had pointing to the Fed saying this has been taken down. For more on this read the following: * Werner, R. A. (2014). Can banks individually create money out of nothing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5IFY-yq0O9IUHNTU0NaWTVQa01TcXdaQWJQZEVwdnF1c0Vz https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5IFY-yq0O9IUHNTU0NaWTVQa0...) * McLeary, M., Radia, A. & Thomas, R. (2014). Money creation in the modern economy (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5IFY-yq0O9IbEtsWlJZUFVxTzkyaGZPVHlfaUJINnl5aURv/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5IFY-yq0O9IbEtsWlJZUFVxTzk...) Topic 3: From the consumer perspective, inflation is stealth taxation... you have $10 at the start of the year... 3% inflation means that at the end of the year the $10 only buys $9.97 worth of goods... you keep that $10 in your pocket and you lose purchasing power in a compounded way (the inflation eats and eats at your purchasing power). You then might ask, "why do the financial press and central bankers all talk about inflation being good?" Well, the fiat fractional reserve financial system relies on inflation... in a way inflation is like a 'healthy' indicator for this messed up system where money has no intrinsic value (i.e. not backed by gold like the US dollar was prior to Nixon closing the gold window in 1971). Basically, the more money created the more value is siphoned away from a population to the banks and government. I think of the world as stuck on this giant hamster wheel where people are forced to keep working, keep spending, keep investing and keep being taxed. This is why the Governments of the world bailed out the banks. Government fiat currency is a con, indeed the whole system is a con. Money is not backed by anything except faith that the Government can seize the wealth of its citizens or tax the wealth creation of its tax residents. I think the last 'real money' died with the Swiss franc which had a legal requirement that a minimum of 40% be backed by gold reserves. However, this link to gold, was terminated on the 1st of May 2000 following a referendum. To illustrate my point, prior to 15/08/1971 (when Nixon stopped US dollars being converted to gold), $35 bought 1oz of gold. Last time I checked 1oz of gold is worth $1,476.06. This should make you stop to consider how much wealth has been transferred via inflation. For a more detailed explanation and history see: * Griffin, G. E. (2018). The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve * Maloney, M. (2013). Hidden Secrets of Money (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE88E9ICdiphYjJkeeLL2O09eJoC8r7Dc https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE88E9ICdiphYjJkeeLL2...) * Still, W. T. (1996). The Money Masters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTPKJJ_CHjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTPKJJ_CHjQ)
sbhn 7y ago
Australian money is made from palm oil. Its an attack on borneo
at-fates-hands 7y ago
Recently, I was eating at the same taco place pretty much the same day, twice a week. I was paying with my debit card and on a whim while checking my account, I noticed they were charging me on days I wasn't eating there, for the same amount when I would stop and eat there. It actually happened three times where I had to have my card replaced so they couldn't keep running fraudulent charges on my card. Third time I just switched to cash and haven't had any issues since. I can understand having a cashless society, but then I think about how many times cash has saved me from dealing with fraud and my cc# leaking out on the internet. Or dealing with shady people from craigslist.
- icu 7y ago
  I don't get it, you kept going to the fraudulent place? How good are these tacos that you are happy to have your money stolen from your bank account?
  - at-fates-hands 7y ago
    A) The bank credited me back the amount so it wasn't a big deal. b) The amount was minimal - around $7 per transaction c) I wasn't checking my account regularly because I thought once it was fixed, it was fixed. I was usually a few weeks behind when I was getting billed and when I was catching it. d) the tacos are magnificent and worth it.
    - icu 7y ago
      Can you please share where this place is, it's name and what's good?
      - at-fates-hands 7y ago
        https://www.tacojohns.com/ https://www.tacojohns.com/ primarily a midwest, mountain region chain. The potato ole's are legendary. Anything with those is awesome like their meat and potato burrito. The taco bravo is awesome. I usually go there on Tuesday for the cheap hard shell tacos which are awesome too. If you're really hungry, they have a "six pack and a pound" deal which is six tacos and a pound of potato ole's.
Tharkun 7y ago
We've had similar laws in Belgium for many years. Cash transactions over 3000EUR aren't allowed.
- wcoenen 7y ago
  Notably, like the proposed Australian bill, this rule in Belgium does not apply to transactions between consumers, e.g. a transaction between two individuals for a used car sale. https://www.nbb.be/docs/ts/enterprise/activities/notes_coins/folderfodnl.pdf https://www.nbb.be/docs/ts/enterprise/activities/notes_coins...
nootropicat 7y ago
It's clear that cash is going to disappear, it's only saved by 50+ year old people that refuse, on average, to stop using it, which means we have at best 30 years left of shrinking financial freedom. Cashless society with perfect surveillance is going to mean confiscatory taxes and behavior control on a level never thought possible in the Western world. Some countries like Italy already have a much smaller limit in place - €1000 max [1] It's going to mean currently "absurd" and "extreme left" ideas like maximum wealth cap. The idea that "no person should have more than $10M" would be easy to sell even today in most countries, the only reason it doesn't happen is because it's impossible to enforce - such a country today would only see an enormous capital outflow and rise in cash deals. With nearly perfect global surveillance, which is already in an advanced stage of construction - FATCA, CRS/AEOI, ban on bearer shares - escaping with capital would be impossible. Either the next or the previous stage would be of course maximum income - eg. "no person deserves to earn more than $150k a year". After that, individual limits on "productive" and "not productive" spending are going to appear, amounting to another form of taxes - an individual annual limit of eg. $1000 per year on video games, $1000 for "unhealthy" soda drinks. An illegal barter market would emerge, fought in the same way drug trading is fought now. The inevitable end of this system is a tiny global elite class of bureaucrats, not "legally" owning any significant wealth but controlling enormous amounts of it (Putin and Chinese Party style), and billions of serfs for whom it's illegal to even try to get wealthy. A return of aristocracy in all but name - with serfs better fed and healthier, but with less personal freedom than even Russian peasants under tsar. Cryptocurrencies with anonymity, getting too big to squash before that happens, are the only hope left. [1] https://www.italy-uk-law.com/new-restrictions-on-the-use-of-cash-in-italy/ https://www.italy-uk-law.com/new-restrictions-on-the-use-of-...

155 points by darcys22 7y ago

It think it is bad. Payment in physical cash should not be restricted. Otherwise the system will fail and then you will not be able to make a payment at all. I use cash for all payments anyways. And if cash will not work, then we will pay by barter.

xanth 7y ago
If a public institution was introduced to allow you to freely digitally transact and securely store your money would you feel similarly?
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  I may then be more likely to use a digital transaction for some cases, although still I would prefer to use cash as much as possible. (For one thing, it doesn't fail in the way that digital systems do. And, it can be used without a computer. There are other advantages too.)
  - xanth 7y ago
    Not all digital systems fail similarly, consider some sort of distributed hub and spoke system that could arbitrate transactions; thus mitigating a single point of failure. Also consider how much of everything we purchase today is entirely reliant on our digital infrastructure, if there were some calamity that entirely halted our networks I don't think legal tender would be any use.
    - sgc 7y ago
      There is good reason to have more than 10k in cash to have for your family in case a localized natural disaster or other emergency makes digital transactions impossible where your are, during a crisis. You may well need a transaction larger than 10k in cash for transport etc at that point as well.
- flyingfences 7y ago
  rephrased: Would I trust Uncle Sam's servers with the entirety of my financial activity? No. There exist cryptographically secure digital payment systems, but governments are moving against them just the same as cash.
cstrat 7y ago
You often pay for things > $10K in cash? You also pay by barter for those things?
- King-Aaron 7y ago
  Ever bought a used car?
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    Actually, I don't use a car. (Also, I still use a bank account when dealing with the government, but that is all I use it for.)
    - King-Aaron 7y ago
      Yes but, I don't know why you made that comment lol. I was getting at the fact that most people who buy a second hand car, boat, motorbike, having renovations done, landscaping, etc would be used to handing over more than 10k in cash
      - AnssiH 7y ago
        No idea about Australia, but here in Finland all those examples would normally be paid via a bank transfer.
        King-Aaron 7y ago
        Anecdote time, but I've bought a used car that was about 100kms from the closest mobile phone reception. Hard to do bank transfers in the middle of the bush sometimes
        AnssiH 7y ago
        Ah, that makes sense. Finding a road without mobile reception here would be difficult.
elyobo 7y ago
I go weeks without using cash, although visiting Sydney recently it seemed I was surcharged more often than not for using a credit card - not the case in Melbourne where it's still very uncommon.

JeremyBanks 7y ago

Which of the dozen documents on this page mentions cryptocurrency? I don't want to search all of them individually.

dimavs 7y ago
In this Act: cash means either or both of the following: (a) digital currency; (b) physical currency.
duey 7y ago
"That said, some forms of electronic payment more closely mirror physical currency. In particular, crypto-currencies and other digital currencies are generally unregulated and do not create clear records of transactions in a form that can easily be used to identify the parties to a transaction." https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/exposure_draft_-_explantory_memorandum.pdf https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/expo...
quickthrower2 7y ago
The first one

helix8428 7y ago

lol good luck

wmf 7y ago

On one hand this is just codifying common sense; cryptocurrencies aren't even good for payments and everybody already assumes that only criminals use large amounts of cash. OTOH I predict that innocent people will get tripped up by this law while criminals mostly won't.

jamez1 7y ago

This is a restriction on physical cash, there is no mention of electronic cash let alone cryptocurrency.

quickthrower2 7y ago
There is under https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/exposure_draft_-_explantory_memorandum.pdf https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/expo...
darcys22 7y ago
The definition of Cash under this legislation is: cash means either or both of the following: (a) digital currency; (b) physical currency.
Mengkudulangsat 7y ago
Physical cash is still a very valuable thing [1], and restrictions to it should be resisted on principal, not just because of technological progress. [1] https://aeon.co/essays/if-plastic-replaces-cash-much-that-is-good-will-be-lost https://aeon.co/essays/if-plastic-replaces-cash-much-that-is...

quickthrower2 7y ago

Interesting, if crypto is cash, then no CGT on holdings? I’m dreaming of course!

wmf 7y ago
It sounds like currency trading is still subject to capital gains tax. There's no magic classification that will make cryptocurrency tax-free.

cstrat 7y ago

How would this bill work in practice? People who use cash for tax dodging aren't reporting true values anyway. (have not read any of the documents) I guess in the past they could have had a job quoted at $500K. Paid "in cash" with $400K and reported only $200K to the tax office. Those businesses could still just have $200K paid by electronic transfer (reported to ATO) and the rest in cash. It does mean the tax dodging responsibility is somewhat pushed to the other party too which might make some people/businesses uncomfortable and avoid it entirely. I am all for more fairness and having people pay the right tax. Too many builders and tradies sort things out in cash. The unfairness then extends further where people then become eligible for government subsidies because on paper they earn less - but really have just reported less. edit: reworded for clarity.

matco11 7y ago
There are countries where this type of restrictions to using cash for large payments have been in place for many years. They help with: - mitigating money-laundering risk - more effective application of sales tax - more effective enforcement (in combination with other tools) against income tax evasion.
- ryacko 7y ago
  There are several common types of money laundering today, exchanging deeds to offshore shell companies that own other shell companies that own real estate, private art auctions (where the bidder, seller, and artwork is private), etc. Those are all cashless.
cknight 7y ago
As best I can tell, it adds risks which may or may not be a sufficient deterrent - depending on the business. Once $10k+ cash transactions are banned, questions will be raised over any cash withdrawals that a business makes that are near, at, or over that limit - and possibly over any regular ones that are below the limit but couldn't be easily explained away on other expenses. For a business to continue the practice you've mentioned, they would need to keep sufficient cash on hand for making such transactions as needed, at all times. So there are all the associated risks of having cash lying around, on top of the risks of being caught. It can be worked around, but for some businesses I can imagine that the additional loopholes will be considered onerous enough to stop bothering.

eof 7y ago

I wonder if we are going to reach a sort of singularity with regard to encroachment on privacy in western countries where we both take it for granted that privacy is a right, and live in societies where actual privacy is clearly trending somewhere just above zero. I don't think this is really about cryptocurrency particularly. This is about electronic transfers generally. My read on this was that the government is basically saying "big transactions can't be in something we can't feasibly track." Australia seems quite aggressive in this regard; also openly banning encryption. I used to be up in arms about this stuff. Now I am older and mostly trust (for my threat model) off-the-shelf end to end encryption for basically anything I consider private. But I also don't care about the privacy thing anymore. I kind of hope the people 10+ years younger than me still care about that stuff. Google reading/mining the dick jokes I've been sharing back and forth in a dying g-chat window for the last 10 years? Whatever. I'd still keep the conversation there just for intertia's sake; even though I also assume its adding to google's model about me. I don't think, at least in countries culturally similar to the US (the one I know the most), any populous will embrace the idea of "let the experts of the government see everything so you can all be safe"; but, it also seems that we will just trend toward that and kinda pretend like its not happening.

discordance 7y ago
Our society needs you to still care. It's this exact attitude that has ceded so much control to the government where there is little oversight. It's not fair to put the burden on young people, and apathy is no excuse.
ajdlinux 7y ago
> Australia seems quite aggressive in this regard; also openly banning encryption. Australian here, talking to you over an encrypted HTTP connection, because we didn't ban encryption. Mandating certain measures which sometimes can be used to circumvent the privacy guarantees of encryption doesn't mean encryption is banned... (yeah, it's still a bad law.) As for transaction privacy - I am concerned about small transactions, not large ones. Small transactions reveal your personal preferences and day-to-day dealings, large transactions reveal aspects of your financial situation that almost certainly have an impact on your tax obligations (and therefore that government has more reason to want to track) without revealing as much about your personal affairs. So this bill, on its own, seems alright to me. Though I do fear that it's the start of a slippery slope down to abolishing cash - not that the free market needs any help with doing that. We'll see.

naedish 7y ago

Digital currency is currently exempted but will apparently be kept under close scrutiny (Section 9). https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/exposure_draft_-_explanatory_materials_currency_restrictions_on_the_use_of_cash-excepted_transactions_instrument_2019_2.pdf#page=6 https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/expo...

repomies68 7y ago
So, this is good for Bitcoin.

manicdee 7y ago

Well, guess the fascist party has to make it harder for people on NewStart somehow. In share houses you are typically going to pay cash to someone who pays the rent as a lump sum, so if you are in a share house rented for $400/wk with rent split three ways you will breach this Act sometime around the second or third year of tenancy. No more NewStart for you, Criminal!

gruez 7y ago
>In share houses you are typically going to pay cash to someone who pays the rent as a lump sum, so if you are in a share house rented for $400/wk with rent split three ways you will breach this Act sometime around the second or third year of tenancy. The 10k limit is per transaction. I don't think that another months rent payment will be considered the same transaction.
- manicdee 7y ago
  $10k limit also applies to a series of transactions covering supply. Section 3 of the proposed legislation.
gwint6 7y ago
https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/at_glance_summary_of_how_the_cash_payment_limit_will_work_0.pdf https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/at_g... "What transactions are covered by the cash payment limit? The limit applies to all cash transactions equal to or in excess of $10,000, except for those that meet the conditions specified in the draft Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash—Excepted Transactions) Instrument 2019. " I don't think this is going to affect somebody paying for split rent in cash...
- manicdee 7y ago
  It explicitly covers accrued payments for services where the total cash transaction is higher than the cash limit. 3) An entity commits an offence if: a) [payments are made] b) the payment is part of a series of payments … c) [in cash] d) as a result of the payment, the total value of all amounts of cash included in the payments in the series equals or exceeds the cash payment limit

gst 7y ago

> Transactions equal to, or in excess of this amount would need to be made using the electronic payment system or by cheque. Does Australia have a law that guarantees access to a bank account? Or would this proposed limitation imply that people who can't get a bank account for various reasons aren't allowed to transact anymore?

xanth 7y ago
There is no such law, at one point the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) was state run but was privatized in 1996.
kgwgk 7y ago
How often do the people who can't get a bank account for various reasons enter into transactions over $10k?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > How often do the people who can't get a bank account for various reasons enter into transactions over $10k? I’m guessing the effects would be secondary. If your business serves the unbanked, and receives its revenues in cash, it may be more convenient to pay suppliers with that cash than to deposit it and issue electronic payment. Not sure if that pushes any businesses over the edge, but it’s a factor.
  - ajdlinux 7y ago
    If you're operating a legitimate business maintaining proper accounting records, and dealing with other legitimate businesses who are themselves maintaining records and paying tax, I would guess that it's _still_ much easier to go to the bank and deposit your cash into an account than to pay your bills straight out of your cash.
emdowling 7y ago
Only 1% of Australians are fully excluded from financial services (no transaction account, no credit card, no general insurance)[1]. I doubt this law will have much of an impact on that small population. [1]According to this report from 2013/2014: https://www.nab.com.au/content/dam/nabrwd/documents/reports/financial/2014-measuring-financial-exclusion-in-australia.pdf https://www.nab.com.au/content/dam/nabrwd/documents/reports/...

samsonradu 7y ago

Isn’t cash the only thing preventing banks from offsetting the negative interest rates to the general public? For the time being people would just get out of their deposits but if cash gets banned then things become more complicated.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Isn’t cash the only thing preventing banks from offsetting the negative interest rates to the general public? No, literally every investment product, from government bonds to CDs, also plays that part. Cash is just the most significant counterweight to negative deposit rates. (After taking into account fees, many depositors pay a negative rate to maintain banking privileges.)
- ImaCake 7y ago
  > (After taking into account fees, many depositors pay a negative rate to maintain banking privileges.) This isn't strictly true in Australia. Savings accounts where short term savings go typically provide 1 to 1.5% interest after adjusting for inflation (i.e 2% interest account with Australia's 1% consumer price index). If you don't have a mortgage or credit card debt, having money in an Australian bank savings account is usually a net positive.
  - dannyw 7y ago
    Before taxes.
amadeuspagel 7y ago
What about competition between banks?
- crististm 7y ago
  Not when you don't have a choice _not_ to use one.
thatguyagain 7y ago

dang 7y ago

The submitted title was "Australia to make bitcoin payments above $10k illegal", but a moderator changed it to the article title, in accordance with the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

gumby 7y ago

I wonder how this really will work in practice. Tradesmen are often paid in cash, and a business might quite reasonably take out a large amount each week to pay the workers on the job site. In some industries such as mining and oil work it is not uncommon to get the pay packet in cash, though perhaps less in Australia these days.

petecox 7y ago
> Tradesmen are often paid in cash Tradies here are stereotyped by (not all) unscrupulous operators that use cash to do jobs 'off the books' in under-quoting their true income or offering a discount to customers for unlawfully not charging the GST. Bank transactions provide the tax office an audit trail. NB: The 'blackeconomy@...' feedback email hints at the purpose.

StavrosK 7y ago

This limit exists in Greece right now too, but the cap is 300 euros. Pretty frustrating.

anticensor 7y ago
Any exceptions? I ask because that limit is very low.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Not that I know of. Stores like IKEA have signs mentioning that transactions over 300 euros must be done by card and don't mention anything else...

King-Aaron 7y ago

Don't worry about chasing down large multinationals who owe billions in tax revenue, best to just crack down on pot dealers and bricklayers paying for stuff in cash.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
Yep. Panama Papers, nothing. Paradise Papers, nothing. Multinational tax avoidance, nothing. Banking Royal Commission, two years of resistance before being forced into it. $10k cash payment limits. The legislation that doesn't solve any 'real' problem, that's what we get.

epiphanitus 7y ago

Who is lobbying for this? Who wants this legislation to pass, and why? (American here, not sure how things work in Australia, but these are questions I often ask in my own country)

King-Aaron 7y ago
That's a very good question.
johnasmith 7y ago
> The Black Economy Taskforce recommended this action to tackle tax evasion and other criminal activities.
- sbisker 7y ago
  Guessing someone flagged the parent comment thinking there was a racial connotation, so vouching it back from the dead. https://treasury.gov.au/review/black-economy-taskforce/ https://treasury.gov.au/review/black-economy-taskforce/
  - theshadowknows 7y ago
    We say African American Economy Taskforce now
    - codeddesign 7y ago
      But why?? What if I’m from the Caribbean?
tumetab1 7y ago
Banks, credit cards and payment processors and off course NSA and friends.
bhaavan 7y ago
I think the government, holds to benefit from this, and there might be no need of lobbying. Any transaction in cash for such a high amount, is intentionally done to keep the transaction off-book (and avoid taxes). There is little reason, why one would go through the inconvenience of managing so much cash, when a digital transaction is so much more ergonomical. India too is aggressively trying to achieve this. One of their rather bold attempts, called demonetization, happened a few years back, but it failed. However, in principle, I agree with the idea of having a cashless economy, so that government has data to see who is lying in their tax returns.

clouddrover 7y ago

So my access to the economy can be terminated at the push of a button? That doesn't sound appealing. I suppose I could always barter.

sfthrower89 7y ago

Big Brother is monitoring your transactions. The worse our world runs into the digital rabbit hole, the less I participate in it. As much of my life as feasible is now transacted in cash, and I no longer even own a smart phone. This is not progress.

Bizarro 7y ago

"We need to see everything you do for your own good"

anthony_barker 7y ago

My issue with removing cash is that in a way you are moving from public money (printed by the government) which you are free to use as you want to a private money issued by banks who generally have lots of ability to charge you money for payments and block your account. Banks in Canada have been fighting for removal of cash and cheques (which are regulated in terms of fees).

ajross 7y ago
Per the article, it's a $10k AU limit. That's... not really removing cash. It looks more like a money laundering statute to me.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Okay, so what number differentiates between a money laundering statute and removing cash for you? Is there a minimum number for you where it is okay to force people to pay bank fees and give up their privacy?
  - peteretep 7y ago
    > In the United States, the Bank Secrecy Act requires currency transaction reports (CTRs) to be filed for transactions valued at more than $10,000; from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring So it seems to be pretty settled law that $10,000 USD is a reasonable starting point.
    - ajross 7y ago
      Beat me to it. Yeah, this is nothing new. Obviously the US regulation is about reporting and not payment mechanism as in AU, but the justification and thresholding for the for the laws are very comparable. American libertarians are fine living with a $10k limit, Aussie ones will be too.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago

vagab0nd 7y ago

Slightly off topic, but why isn't a one dollar bank note worth more than one dollar in a bank today? I have a very basic understanding of how bank works, so please correct me. If banks can only lend based on the reserve, it seems bank note should have more value to the banks.

icu 7y ago
There are two topics here: a) the time value of money, and b) the fractional reserve system. There is also a 3rd topic, which is inflation, which is implied in your question. Topic 1: The time value of money is the bit about "a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow". The reason why this is the case, is because if I give you $1 dollar today, and you give me $1 dollar at the end of the year (metaphorically "tomorrow"), than I would have missed out on the interest I could have earned by lending it to the bank (in a savings account) or the Government (in a bond). I hope this makes it clear why there is a greater benefit to receiving money now, rather than an identical sum later. Topic 2: This might be a mind-bender, but bank loans create money, not deposits. Don't believe me? Check out a Bank of England representative say the following in plain English: "...banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan" "Now, while this is nothing new, it's sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have." "In fact, loans create deposits, not the other way around." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw Sadly the resources I had pointing to the Fed saying this has been taken down. For more on this read the following: * Werner, R. A. (2014). Can banks individually create money out of nothing (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5IFY-yq0O9IUHNTU0NaWTVQa01TcXdaQWJQZEVwdnF1c0Vz https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5IFY-yq0O9IUHNTU0NaWTVQa0...) * McLeary, M., Radia, A. & Thomas, R. (2014). Money creation in the modern economy (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5IFY-yq0O9IbEtsWlJZUFVxTzkyaGZPVHlfaUJINnl5aURv/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5IFY-yq0O9IbEtsWlJZUFVxTzk...) Topic 3: From the consumer perspective, inflation is stealth taxation... you have $10 at the start of the year... 3% inflation means that at the end of the year the $10 only buys $9.97 worth of goods... you keep that $10 in your pocket and you lose purchasing power in a compounded way (the inflation eats and eats at your purchasing power). You then might ask, "why do the financial press and central bankers all talk about inflation being good?" Well, the fiat fractional reserve financial system relies on inflation... in a way inflation is like a 'healthy' indicator for this messed up system where money has no intrinsic value (i.e. not backed by gold like the US dollar was prior to Nixon closing the gold window in 1971). Basically, the more money created the more value is siphoned away from a population to the banks and government. I think of the world as stuck on this giant hamster wheel where people are forced to keep working, keep spending, keep investing and keep being taxed. This is why the Governments of the world bailed out the banks. Government fiat currency is a con, indeed the whole system is a con. Money is not backed by anything except faith that the Government can seize the wealth of its citizens or tax the wealth creation of its tax residents. I think the last 'real money' died with the Swiss franc which had a legal requirement that a minimum of 40% be backed by gold reserves. However, this link to gold, was terminated on the 1st of May 2000 following a referendum. To illustrate my point, prior to 15/08/1971 (when Nixon stopped US dollars being converted to gold), $35 bought 1oz of gold. Last time I checked 1oz of gold is worth $1,476.06. This should make you stop to consider how much wealth has been transferred via inflation. For a more detailed explanation and history see: * Griffin, G. E. (2018). The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve * Maloney, M. (2013). Hidden Secrets of Money (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE88E9ICdiphYjJkeeLL2O09eJoC8r7Dc https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE88E9ICdiphYjJkeeLL2...) * Still, W. T. (1996). The Money Masters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTPKJJ_CHjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTPKJJ_CHjQ)

sbhn 7y ago

Australian money is made from palm oil. Its an attack on borneo

at-fates-hands 7y ago

Recently, I was eating at the same taco place pretty much the same day, twice a week. I was paying with my debit card and on a whim while checking my account, I noticed they were charging me on days I wasn't eating there, for the same amount when I would stop and eat there. It actually happened three times where I had to have my card replaced so they couldn't keep running fraudulent charges on my card. Third time I just switched to cash and haven't had any issues since. I can understand having a cashless society, but then I think about how many times cash has saved me from dealing with fraud and my cc# leaking out on the internet. Or dealing with shady people from craigslist.

icu 7y ago
I don't get it, you kept going to the fraudulent place? How good are these tacos that you are happy to have your money stolen from your bank account?
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  A) The bank credited me back the amount so it wasn't a big deal. b) The amount was minimal - around $7 per transaction c) I wasn't checking my account regularly because I thought once it was fixed, it was fixed. I was usually a few weeks behind when I was getting billed and when I was catching it. d) the tacos are magnificent and worth it.
  - icu 7y ago
    Can you please share where this place is, it's name and what's good?
    - at-fates-hands 7y ago
      https://www.tacojohns.com/ https://www.tacojohns.com/ primarily a midwest, mountain region chain. The potato ole's are legendary. Anything with those is awesome like their meat and potato burrito. The taco bravo is awesome. I usually go there on Tuesday for the cheap hard shell tacos which are awesome too. If you're really hungry, they have a "six pack and a pound" deal which is six tacos and a pound of potato ole's.

Tharkun 7y ago

We've had similar laws in Belgium for many years. Cash transactions over 3000EUR aren't allowed.

wcoenen 7y ago
Notably, like the proposed Australian bill, this rule in Belgium does not apply to transactions between consumers, e.g. a transaction between two individuals for a used car sale. https://www.nbb.be/docs/ts/enterprise/activities/notes_coins/folderfodnl.pdf https://www.nbb.be/docs/ts/enterprise/activities/notes_coins...

nootropicat 7y ago

It's clear that cash is going to disappear, it's only saved by 50+ year old people that refuse, on average, to stop using it, which means we have at best 30 years left of shrinking financial freedom. Cashless society with perfect surveillance is going to mean confiscatory taxes and behavior control on a level never thought possible in the Western world. Some countries like Italy already have a much smaller limit in place - €1000 max [1] It's going to mean currently "absurd" and "extreme left" ideas like maximum wealth cap. The idea that "no person should have more than $10M" would be easy to sell even today in most countries, the only reason it doesn't happen is because it's impossible to enforce - such a country today would only see an enormous capital outflow and rise in cash deals. With nearly perfect global surveillance, which is already in an advanced stage of construction - FATCA, CRS/AEOI, ban on bearer shares - escaping with capital would be impossible. Either the next or the previous stage would be of course maximum income - eg. "no person deserves to earn more than $150k a year". After that, individual limits on "productive" and "not productive" spending are going to appear, amounting to another form of taxes - an individual annual limit of eg. $1000 per year on video games, $1000 for "unhealthy" soda drinks. An illegal barter market would emerge, fought in the same way drug trading is fought now. The inevitable end of this system is a tiny global elite class of bureaucrats, not "legally" owning any significant wealth but controlling enormous amounts of it (Putin and Chinese Party style), and billions of serfs for whom it's illegal to even try to get wealthy. A return of aristocracy in all but name - with serfs better fed and healthier, but with less personal freedom than even Russian peasants under tsar. Cryptocurrencies with anonymity, getting too big to squash before that happens, are the only hope left. [1] https://www.italy-uk-law.com/new-restrictions-on-the-use-of-cash-in-italy/ https://www.italy-uk-law.com/new-restrictions-on-the-use-of-...