8 ms·

Israel bans use of cash for purchases larger than NIS 6k (~1700 USD/EUR)

46 points by triyambakam 4y ago

deejaaymac 4y ago
bitcoin solves this. In an age of the modern computer and internet, cash has to evolve. People deserve the right to privacy with their money. I know a lot of people are anti BTC, even here on HN, and I get where people are coming from, but do you not also think that people deserve privacy? "Only criminals use it" I use/trade BTC all the time for legit reasons because most people I know also have BTC. I firmly and will always believe in peoples right to privacy. INB4 "BTC is not private" If used correctly, it is. SO rather than just stomp on BTC, why not help the cause?
- MBCook 4y ago
  This is an anti-money laundering law. It doesn’t ban transactions that size, just in cash. You know what still works? Debit cards. Credit cards. I’d assume checks. Possibly other apps (though I’d be afraid to put so much money through them personally). BTC does nothing good special here unless you’re trying to launder money.
  - deejaaymac 4y ago
    I believe that people deserve the right / ability to spend their money as they see fit regardless of transaction size, anonymously. Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? I'm already taxed when I'm paid every month, I pay my property taxes. This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      > Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. > This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me. Oh, since you said so, I guess it must be true. No need for the government to actually check using information.
      - akomtu 4y ago
        Ah, the familiar argument: because a few bad guys out there do bad things, we gotta put cuffs on every citizen.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        Help, my movements are restricted because I'm cuffed! Oh, wait, government access to transactions doesn't restrict anything and is nothing like being cuffed.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        It's not just government access; it's also the handing over of nearly every transaction to a private entity, whom can sell your transaction data to whomever they'd like at will. This isn't all about government overstep. It's also about the giving up of your privacy to for-profit entities. Regarding the gov: In the US, citizens have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Forcing nearly all transactions into the view of the gov is an unreasonable search.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        Then regulate it. Government regulation is the solution to private sector overreach, private entities already cannot just sell any data to anyone, the government does not let private entities run amok like this. The US government regulates itself on the circumstances to which it can search data it already has the power to obtain all the time. Searches become unreasonable when law enforcement does not provide a valid reason to search & acquire information in front of the judiciary. But if the judiciary rules it to be reasonable, the government should have a way to obtain such data. Promoting the use of untraceable transactions like cash is essentially preventing the government from ever procuring any relevant data even if it would be reasonable and relevant.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Ah, but the government still needs a reason to snoop. That's the point, and using an anonymous mechanism of transaction, such as cash, cannot be the government's argument for why they need the data, because that would necessarily mean that the gov has the right to all data, which the 4th ammendment specifically prohibits.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    ??? Credit Cards take 2.5%. Can you imagine the government forcing 2.55 of entire swaths of the economy over to VISA? Debit transactions also have fees. If the government really wants people to switch to digital, kill VISA fees. VISA is the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' that has a stranglehold on the entire digital economy. Gov. can't do it because banks/visa practically own them. It would take a Jimmy Carter or Bernie Sanders for that. Institutional Dems. won't ever do it.
    - sonofhans 4y ago
      This is an excellent point and should be more visible. One effect of this is business model support for payment processors. It's clearly not the only intent of the law. Bu when a government does something to benefit large and entrenched players in the market, we can all be forgiven for thinking that the fix is in.
      - salawat 4y ago
        Keep in mind this also implicitly waives 4th Amendment protections for financial activity. As soon as you have a payment processor involved in a transaction, it's 3rd Party Doctrine all the way to the bank. Kiss expectation of privacy goodbye.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        That's kind of the point.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  > INB4 "BTC is not private" I am curious. What are some of these mysterious on/off-ramps which do not record your private information? > If used correctly, PGP is also secure but the burden of using it "correctly" is higher than most regular people are willing to put up with. So, at least for the time being, it effectively is not private
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  You’re decrying Bitcoin’s affiliation with criminals while advocating its use for money laundering. The solution isn’t Bitcoin. (It’s never Bitcoin.) It’s fighting such laws. Also, simpler than using Bitcoin with a similar risk profile: use cash. It’s tougher to trace than the blockchain, which makes it less likely you’ll get caught ex post facto.
  - troon-lover 4y ago
MBCook 4y ago
A law like this doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me (though I’m sure many will disagree). At a certain point carrying so much cash just gets very risky.
- rafale 4y ago
  At a certain point driving a motorcycle gets very risky too.
  - henrydark 4y ago
    There's also regulation on driving motorcycles
- _-david-_ 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dieselgate 4y ago
  I don’t disagree with you outright but the denomination seems incredibly small with (unless I missed something) the only intent to reduce the supply of cash in circulation. If they capped it at something like an order of magnitude more I could maybe feel differently. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted as you present a valid opinion.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > At a certain point carrying so much cash just gets very risky. Why should I not be allowed to take that risk?
- yesbut 4y ago
  But why should the state get to decide that for the citizen? The citizen should decide for themselves what they feel is too risky.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
sschueller 4y ago
That's less than 2 bills here (Switzerland) . Absolutely insane. Why even print cash at that point? I doubt this brings in any more money in taxes and I would bet it's so small of an amount compared to the legal tax loopholes which the "big guys" use that it only hurts the general public than solve their tax issues.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  It is not about taxes. It is about surveillance. If you don't use physical cash they can more easily track you.
  - hoffs 4y ago
    It is about taxes and shadow economies, not about more tracking.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  You have >€850 bills in Switzerland!?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > you have >€850 bills in Switzerland!? Yes, the 1’000 Fr. note [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_Swiss_franc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_Swiss_franc
- 42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 4y ago
  >"Why even print cash at that point?" That is the point. The governments of the world hate any privacy you have. They're just turning the screws until they can get rid of cash.
ipaddr 4y ago
This is the test case other countries will try to copy.
contingencies 4y ago
A global trend. Australia has a $10K AUD (~$7K USD) limit introduced in 2020. China just introduced 2022 documentation requirements for cash withdrawls and deposits over 50K CNY (USD$7400) and are trialling e-renminbi (CN govcoin). Essentially the whole of Chinese society already pays most bills through Tencent's WeChatPay and the now-apparently-nationalized Alibaba's Alipay, so they have an effective govcoin by proxy already.
przemub 4y ago
That sounds awfully totalitarian.
- AustinDev 4y ago
  Par for the course for those folks though.
- cyanydeez 4y ago
  And the past 50 years of land grabs is what?
- nebula8804 4y ago
  Its unsustainable and is another probable leading indicator that they won't last in their current state long term(among MANY other indicators). Only concern is whatever nonsense happens in either Israel or the UK tends to be a test run for an eventual roll out to the US. We inherit all the bad (surveillance society, erosion of rights etc.) and none of the good (universal healthcare, some decent safety net etc.)
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    It is, unfortunately, completely sustainable. I used to be a great friend of cash, but with automatic cashiers everywhere and a Garmin watch that you can import your card into, I don't even need to carry a wallet if I just want to buy a few apples. And Covid introduced card use to many people who used to be reluctant about it. (The older demographics, which was most threatened by severe disease.) I still realize all the privacy and civil rights ramifications etc., but cash is slowly becoming an equivalent of steam engines fighting against diesel and electricity on the railway; high maintenance and inefficient.
catchnear4321 4y ago
“…ban payments of large sums of money in cash and bank checks.” What’s acceptable? Alternate means. Such as… “digital transfer or a debit card“ The better to see you with, my dear.
ciupicri 4y ago
The limit in Romania is already ~1000 or 2000 EUR (USD) depending on a few factors: individual or business, business type etc. If I'm not mistaking it's similar limit in Italy.
- stefantalpalaru 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lsiq 4y ago
Everything is going as planned. One store credit to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
Kukumber 4y ago
I predicted it few years ago, we are headed towards a cash less society That's the natural evolution of the economy anyways, optimizing energy, resources and usages, no waste, no trash Money only just an agreement between parties, as long as we agree, then we don't need money anymore Social contract, as long as you are part of the community (it'll end up being worldwide), you'll receive everything you need (universal basic income), unemployment, crime, poverty, diseases, all will disappear Optimizing energy for finally sailing in space, and engage with space exploration, meeting with our advanced neighbors
- trollski 4y ago
- imtringued 4y ago
  >Money only just an agreement between parties, as long as we agree, then we don't need money anymore The entire point of the modern banking system is to intermediate between people that are separated by time and distance and who may not know each other.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  You honestly believe crime, poverty and disease will disappear due to this? Lol. I pre-emptively welcome you to a new era of cybercrime and social engineering like never before. Likewise, until people stop living on top of each other in cities, sharing mass public transport, disease is going nowhere. As for poverty, well, digital money means that John Doe in the gutter likely isn't going to be getting any donations from kind strangers in the form of cash anymore, and likely isn't going to be able to spend anything without a device, or a fixed address. Prepare to see a surge of crime in that case. "Oh but we'll give people UBI". You really think so? The cost of living crisis in the UK says otherwise.
  - Kukumber 4y ago
    i don't believe, i extrapolate and i predict
- 4y ago
imtringued 4y ago
Those limits are ridiculously low.
timcavel 4y ago
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
A lot of countries in Europe have a limit at 2000€. I don’t find it particularly surprising. It forces people to leave a trace of large payments in order to be able to track money laundering.
bumbledraven 4y ago
As Lyn Alden points out, these cash limits are almost never indexed to inflation. Hence, they become more restrictive over time (https://twitter.com/lynaldencontact/status/1553749934574370818 https://twitter.com/lynaldencontact/status/15537499345743708...): … the US Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 made banks file gov reports on transactions/deposits over $10k (which was worth the equivalent of $80k today). By never changing the threshold while dollars became worth 1/8th of what they used to, they broadened the scope by 8x.

46 points by triyambakam 4y ago

bitcoin solves this. In an age of the modern computer and internet, cash has to evolve. People deserve the right to privacy with their money. I know a lot of people are anti BTC, even here on HN, and I get where people are coming from, but do you not also think that people deserve privacy? "Only criminals use it" I use/trade BTC all the time for legit reasons because most people I know also have BTC. I firmly and will always believe in peoples right to privacy. INB4 "BTC is not private" If used correctly, it is. SO rather than just stomp on BTC, why not help the cause?

MBCook 4y ago
This is an anti-money laundering law. It doesn’t ban transactions that size, just in cash. You know what still works? Debit cards. Credit cards. I’d assume checks. Possibly other apps (though I’d be afraid to put so much money through them personally). BTC does nothing good special here unless you’re trying to launder money.
- deejaaymac 4y ago
  I believe that people deserve the right / ability to spend their money as they see fit regardless of transaction size, anonymously. Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? I'm already taxed when I'm paid every month, I pay my property taxes. This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    > Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. > This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me. Oh, since you said so, I guess it must be true. No need for the government to actually check using information.
    - akomtu 4y ago
      Ah, the familiar argument: because a few bad guys out there do bad things, we gotta put cuffs on every citizen.
      - themacguffinman 4y ago
        Help, my movements are restricted because I'm cuffed! Oh, wait, government access to transactions doesn't restrict anything and is nothing like being cuffed.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        It's not just government access; it's also the handing over of nearly every transaction to a private entity, whom can sell your transaction data to whomever they'd like at will. This isn't all about government overstep. It's also about the giving up of your privacy to for-profit entities. Regarding the gov: In the US, citizens have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Forcing nearly all transactions into the view of the gov is an unreasonable search.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        Then regulate it. Government regulation is the solution to private sector overreach, private entities already cannot just sell any data to anyone, the government does not let private entities run amok like this. The US government regulates itself on the circumstances to which it can search data it already has the power to obtain all the time. Searches become unreasonable when law enforcement does not provide a valid reason to search & acquire information in front of the judiciary. But if the judiciary rules it to be reasonable, the government should have a way to obtain such data. Promoting the use of untraceable transactions like cash is essentially preventing the government from ever procuring any relevant data even if it would be reasonable and relevant.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Ah, but the government still needs a reason to snoop. That's the point, and using an anonymous mechanism of transaction, such as cash, cannot be the government's argument for why they need the data, because that would necessarily mean that the gov has the right to all data, which the 4th ammendment specifically prohibits.
- jollybean 4y ago
  ??? Credit Cards take 2.5%. Can you imagine the government forcing 2.55 of entire swaths of the economy over to VISA? Debit transactions also have fees. If the government really wants people to switch to digital, kill VISA fees. VISA is the 'Organized Crime Syndicate' that has a stranglehold on the entire digital economy. Gov. can't do it because banks/visa practically own them. It would take a Jimmy Carter or Bernie Sanders for that. Institutional Dems. won't ever do it.
  - sonofhans 4y ago
    This is an excellent point and should be more visible. One effect of this is business model support for payment processors. It's clearly not the only intent of the law. Bu when a government does something to benefit large and entrenched players in the market, we can all be forgiven for thinking that the fix is in.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Keep in mind this also implicitly waives 4th Amendment protections for financial activity. As soon as you have a payment processor involved in a transaction, it's 3rd Party Doctrine all the way to the bank. Kiss expectation of privacy goodbye.
      - CogitoCogito 4y ago
        That's kind of the point.
_aavaa_ 4y ago
> INB4 "BTC is not private" I am curious. What are some of these mysterious on/off-ramps which do not record your private information? > If used correctly, PGP is also secure but the burden of using it "correctly" is higher than most regular people are willing to put up with. So, at least for the time being, it effectively is not private
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
You’re decrying Bitcoin’s affiliation with criminals while advocating its use for money laundering. The solution isn’t Bitcoin. (It’s never Bitcoin.) It’s fighting such laws. Also, simpler than using Bitcoin with a similar risk profile: use cash. It’s tougher to trace than the blockchain, which makes it less likely you’ll get caught ex post facto.
- troon-lover 4y ago

MBCook 4y ago

A law like this doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me (though I’m sure many will disagree). At a certain point carrying so much cash just gets very risky.

rafale 4y ago
At a certain point driving a motorcycle gets very risky too.
- henrydark 4y ago
  There's also regulation on driving motorcycles
_-david-_ 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dieselgate 4y ago
I don’t disagree with you outright but the denomination seems incredibly small with (unless I missed something) the only intent to reduce the supply of cash in circulation. If they capped it at something like an order of magnitude more I could maybe feel differently. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted as you present a valid opinion.
JohnFen 4y ago
> At a certain point carrying so much cash just gets very risky. Why should I not be allowed to take that risk?
yesbut 4y ago
But why should the state get to decide that for the citizen? The citizen should decide for themselves what they feel is too risky.
catchnear4321 4y ago

sschueller 4y ago

That's less than 2 bills here (Switzerland) . Absolutely insane. Why even print cash at that point? I doubt this brings in any more money in taxes and I would bet it's so small of an amount compared to the legal tax loopholes which the "big guys" use that it only hurts the general public than solve their tax issues.

_-david-_ 4y ago
It is not about taxes. It is about surveillance. If you don't use physical cash they can more easily track you.
- hoffs 4y ago
  It is about taxes and shadow economies, not about more tracking.
AussieWog93 4y ago
You have >€850 bills in Switzerland!?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > you have >€850 bills in Switzerland!? Yes, the 1’000 Fr. note [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_Swiss_franc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_Swiss_franc
42e6e8c8-f7b8-4 4y ago
>"Why even print cash at that point?" That is the point. The governments of the world hate any privacy you have. They're just turning the screws until they can get rid of cash.

ipaddr 4y ago

This is the test case other countries will try to copy.

contingencies 4y ago

A global trend. Australia has a $10K AUD (~$7K USD) limit introduced in 2020. China just introduced 2022 documentation requirements for cash withdrawls and deposits over 50K CNY (USD$7400) and are trialling e-renminbi (CN govcoin). Essentially the whole of Chinese society already pays most bills through Tencent's WeChatPay and the now-apparently-nationalized Alibaba's Alipay, so they have an effective govcoin by proxy already.

przemub 4y ago

That sounds awfully totalitarian.

AustinDev 4y ago
Par for the course for those folks though.
cyanydeez 4y ago
And the past 50 years of land grabs is what?
nebula8804 4y ago
Its unsustainable and is another probable leading indicator that they won't last in their current state long term(among MANY other indicators). Only concern is whatever nonsense happens in either Israel or the UK tends to be a test run for an eventual roll out to the US. We inherit all the bad (surveillance society, erosion of rights etc.) and none of the good (universal healthcare, some decent safety net etc.)
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  It is, unfortunately, completely sustainable. I used to be a great friend of cash, but with automatic cashiers everywhere and a Garmin watch that you can import your card into, I don't even need to carry a wallet if I just want to buy a few apples. And Covid introduced card use to many people who used to be reluctant about it. (The older demographics, which was most threatened by severe disease.) I still realize all the privacy and civil rights ramifications etc., but cash is slowly becoming an equivalent of steam engines fighting against diesel and electricity on the railway; high maintenance and inefficient.

catchnear4321 4y ago

“…ban payments of large sums of money in cash and bank checks.” What’s acceptable? Alternate means. Such as… “digital transfer or a debit card“ The better to see you with, my dear.

ciupicri 4y ago

The limit in Romania is already ~1000 or 2000 EUR (USD) depending on a few factors: individual or business, business type etc. If I'm not mistaking it's similar limit in Italy.

stefantalpalaru 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lsiq 4y ago

Everything is going as planned. One store credit to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

Kukumber 4y ago

I predicted it few years ago, we are headed towards a cash less society That's the natural evolution of the economy anyways, optimizing energy, resources and usages, no waste, no trash Money only just an agreement between parties, as long as we agree, then we don't need money anymore Social contract, as long as you are part of the community (it'll end up being worldwide), you'll receive everything you need (universal basic income), unemployment, crime, poverty, diseases, all will disappear Optimizing energy for finally sailing in space, and engage with space exploration, meeting with our advanced neighbors

trollski 4y ago
imtringued 4y ago
>Money only just an agreement between parties, as long as we agree, then we don't need money anymore The entire point of the modern banking system is to intermediate between people that are separated by time and distance and who may not know each other.
hammyhavoc 4y ago
You honestly believe crime, poverty and disease will disappear due to this? Lol. I pre-emptively welcome you to a new era of cybercrime and social engineering like never before. Likewise, until people stop living on top of each other in cities, sharing mass public transport, disease is going nowhere. As for poverty, well, digital money means that John Doe in the gutter likely isn't going to be getting any donations from kind strangers in the form of cash anymore, and likely isn't going to be able to spend anything without a device, or a fixed address. Prepare to see a surge of crime in that case. "Oh but we'll give people UBI". You really think so? The cost of living crisis in the UK says otherwise.
- Kukumber 4y ago
  i don't believe, i extrapolate and i predict
4y ago

imtringued 4y ago

Those limits are ridiculously low.

timcavel 4y ago

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

A lot of countries in Europe have a limit at 2000€. I don’t find it particularly surprising. It forces people to leave a trace of large payments in order to be able to track money laundering.

bumbledraven 4y ago

As Lyn Alden points out, these cash limits are almost never indexed to inflation. Hence, they become more restrictive over time (https://twitter.com/lynaldencontact/status/1553749934574370818 https://twitter.com/lynaldencontact/status/15537499345743708...): … the US Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 made banks file gov reports on transactions/deposits over $10k (which was worth the equivalent of $80k today). By never changing the threshold while dollars became worth 1/8th of what they used to, they broadened the scope by 8x.