4 ms·

For context, few countries in the EU don’t have any limit to cash payments. Most of them introduced them to decrease tax evasion, not money laundering. You ca

For context, few countries in the EU don’t have any limit to cash payments. Most of them introduced them to decrease tax evasion, not money laundering. You can still have that much money in cash, just not pay with it one transaction.

mdp2021 4y ago
> to decrease tax evasion Through a very obscure logic, since payment cap cannot exclude unregistered payments.
- B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
  the marginal value of small transactions is negligible. If you want to evade taxes by skimming 5 cents on each coffee, you have to sell 200.000 unregistered coffees to save 1.000 euros. Which is more than 3 times what an average Italian bar sells every year.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Like for other measures, especially in the past few years, measures are taken and justified though a broad vague irrational paternalistic shout ("For the children"), and we are left with the unduly burden of trying to reconstruct the logic (if any plausible exists).
- lultimouomo 4y ago
  They point is making it hard for the tax evaders to spend their cash (which they cannot deposit in the bank since it's way more than they officially earn) in law abiding shops.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Thank you for the clarification, Ultimo (so there is at least two of us), but the rationality of the measure is still doubtful. This starts making half-sense - it is not to curb the possibility that the merchant evades, but to hinder spending earning coming from evasion. Unfortunately, that money that may come from evasion is the same money that comes from normal earnings: so the damage is spread, not surgical. For example, now Men (is it just the two of us?) in Spain cannot purchase, say, a Macbook (the threshold there is reportedly at 999€). It seems like one of those generalizing measures like "Populations labelled as irresponsible socially extroverts as an aggregate will have individuals bound to confinement in case of epidemic", which even when they work as an effect involve massive lateral damages.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mdp2021 4y ago

> to decrease tax evasion Through a very obscure logic, since payment cap cannot exclude unregistered payments.

B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
the marginal value of small transactions is negligible. If you want to evade taxes by skimming 5 cents on each coffee, you have to sell 200.000 unregistered coffees to save 1.000 euros. Which is more than 3 times what an average Italian bar sells every year.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Like for other measures, especially in the past few years, measures are taken and justified though a broad vague irrational paternalistic shout ("For the children"), and we are left with the unduly burden of trying to reconstruct the logic (if any plausible exists).
lultimouomo 4y ago
They point is making it hard for the tax evaders to spend their cash (which they cannot deposit in the bank since it's way more than they officially earn) in law abiding shops.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Thank you for the clarification, Ultimo (so there is at least two of us), but the rationality of the measure is still doubtful. This starts making half-sense - it is not to curb the possibility that the merchant evades, but to hinder spending earning coming from evasion. Unfortunately, that money that may come from evasion is the same money that comes from normal earnings: so the damage is spread, not surgical. For example, now Men (is it just the two of us?) in Spain cannot purchase, say, a Macbook (the threshold there is reportedly at 999€). It seems like one of those generalizing measures like "Populations labelled as irresponsible socially extroverts as an aggregate will have individuals bound to confinement in case of epidemic", which even when they work as an effect involve massive lateral damages.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]