3 ms·
I'm in my 40s, thank you very much. So that would be the 80s. My dad got paid in cash. You spent in cash. You give cash to friends, family. None of it was trac
by fleddr 4y ago
I'm in my 40s, thank you very much.
So that would be the 80s. My dad got paid in cash. You spent in cash. You give cash to friends, family. None of it was tracked.
The government had no idea how much cash you had. Nobody had any idea what you spent it on or whom you gave it to.
Absolutely unhinged to bring "white" into this. The entire world ran on cash decades ago. Especially in the developing world this is still partly true today. What exact point are you trying to make?
Do you even know how a serial number on cash works? It doesn't tell you anything about transaction history as those are not logged. Even if you did do that, payments are anonymous so you can't track it back to a person. There were no cameras.
The point of a serial number on cash is not tracking, it's flagging. When a bank got robbed and you know the serial numbers of the bills, you can monitor if somebody spends them.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoThe bank secrecy act, which required financial institutions to start tracking and reporting to the government large or suspicious cash transactions, was passed in 1970. So unless your dad completely avoided banks, you are misinformed about what privacy he had. On the other hand, if he really did use cash for everything, you could do the same thing today. Nothing has changed on that front.
- notch656a 4y agoWhen the bank secrecy act was passed, the cutoff was $10,000 (inflation adjusted ~$70,000) Since then, some of the fines for violating currency reporting have been adjusted for inflation. But curiously, the reporting cut off was not inflation adjusted and remains at $10,000. In 1970, thus, a 'large' transaction was one that exceeded the median family annual income. In 2022, a 'large' transaction is a beat up honda civic.