4 ms·

If that's the case then there's no need for this regulation.

• alkonaut 4y ago
  I don’t see how that’s related. It’s one thing to regulate who must and must not accept cash. E.g it’s in the interest of society to mandate important functions such as buying food is always possible with cash. The law in the article is about a size limit for cash transactions when cash is accepted. It doesn’t have anything to do with who will or must accept cash. Only that if they do, there is a limit.
  • wizeman 4y ago
    > E.g it’s in the interest of society to mandate important functions such as buying food is always possible with cash. And buying a car is not important? > Only that if they do, there is a limit. And this limit is below the value of most cars. Which is what we were discussing in this thread.
    • 9dev 4y ago
      We’re talking about Europe. Owning a car is a quality of life feature, not a requirement here. Food, on the other hand, is a necessity.
      • alkonaut 4y ago
        In terms of resilience to wars, disasters, power outages and similar (which is one of two arguments for cash the other being privacy), I think the key functions are probably food, fuel and similar. That car sales can continue is probably not as important. That’s why Starbucks can probably get away with rejecting cash in Sweden but a large grocery chain probably can’t and won’t.
  • hayd 4y ago
    You say people won't accept 10k+ cash payments but nevertheless such payments should be banned. Why? if no-one would accept them anyway. Whether people accept large cash payments should be entirely up to them. > E.g it’s in the interest of society to mandate important functions such as buying food is always possible with cash. Give it ten years.