4 ms·

Freedom from government surveillance and potential overreach? In reality, there’s hardly any 3,000 euros+ transaction where a business or individual will accep

Freedom from government surveillance and potential overreach? In reality, there’s hardly any 3,000 euros+ transaction where a business or individual will accept cash. That’s too much money to have on hand when a bank transfer is much more comfortable…still happens rarely though so I think this law is overreaching. Disclosure: I’m not Dutch nor European so my opinion hardly matters here.

dangus 3y ago
I think your second sentence/paragraph points out exactly why this restriction is needed: the only people who would ever in their right mind transact in that much cash are very likely to be either avoiding taxation (a.k.a. stealing from the common taxpayer), or keeping money off the books to hide illegal activity. The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. They can easily hide all their daily transactions from the scrutiny of government and surveillance capitalism just fine. This regulation only impacts the wealthiest people and/or the organized criminal.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  Do you believe that someone is stealing from you when they don’t allow you to take something from them?
- Shocka1 3y ago
  > The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
- Loughla 3y ago
  I purchase, restore, and sometimes sell old woodworking machinery as a side gig to subsidize my own purchase of woodworking equipment for my shop. I have had multiple cash transactions above $3,000 every year that I've done this. Not to avoid taxes, not to keep them off the books, but because one of the parties has either the unwillingness or inability to take electronic payments. Elderly people, those located in rural or otherwise isolated areas, those with a natural distrust of government for whatever reason, or those with a distrust of banks in general. These are all valid use cases. This law would make it nearly impossible for me to do what I do (on the side).
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Yea, assuming you're in the USA, I don't think a similar restriction would be workable here in America. Too many people are unbanked or for other reasons transact mostly in cash. And even for those who do have bank accounts, we don't have the nice, bank-based money transfer solutions that are commonplace in the rest of the developed world--we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. I wouldn't say I routinely do large (>$3000) cash transactions, but I do them often enough that I guess I'd be a criminal in the Netherlands.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      > we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. Hopefully not for too much longer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow
  - systems_glitch 3y ago
    A mechanic we used before moving had a strict no checks policy. He had a bad check for the repair of a church bus, from a church, framed in a fancy gold-painted frame, with "IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS PAY CASH" below it.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      But that's because you still use checks over there :)
      - frumper 3y ago
        A stolen credit card isn't any different.
        systems_glitch 3y ago
        Considering that the last time one of my CC numbers was stolen, it was used to pay for air conditioning service, I'm sure that is also a concern for tradespeople!
nolok 3y ago
> Freedom from government surveillance and potential overreach? With all due respect, the transactions above that rough amount is exactly those I would want the government to keep an eye on, while letting me buy stuff for a few hundreds freely and without having to report it. There is pretty much no situation whatsoever when someone buys something for more than 3k€ where the absolute requirement to use cash is not linked to some shady reasons.
- Loughla 3y ago
  Like I said to the other poster. I transact often over that amount to purchase old woodworking equipment. The people I work with often do not want to transact electronically for multiple reasons. The tax is paid, it's on the books, but they want cash. Why should that be limited?
  - nolok 3y ago
    Because a 80/20 rule is much better than having to chose between "everything is controlled" or "nothing is controlled", and that's essentially the two choices we have. It works just fine in most of europe since a very long time, and frankly people insisting to be paid in cash and then going out of their way to fully declare the taxes and source of the money is even weirded, why not take the easier shortcut. Of course, maybe it's linked to how strange sending money seems to still be in some circumtances in the US ? Reading about Venmo and the likes is just surprising to me, a 10 minutes SEPA wire is free here, and as good as cash.
    - systems_glitch 3y ago
      Yeah our electronic transfer methods suck. Even between my business and personal accounts, doing a regular bank transfer, it takes several days. Literally faster to withdraw cash and drive it over. Meanwhile, if you have to do a wire transfer for a large sum of money, and the bank screws it up, they have around 30 minutes to recall it before the wire is permanently completed.

dangus 3y ago

I think your second sentence/paragraph points out exactly why this restriction is needed: the only people who would ever in their right mind transact in that much cash are very likely to be either avoiding taxation (a.k.a. stealing from the common taxpayer), or keeping money off the books to hide illegal activity. The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. They can easily hide all their daily transactions from the scrutiny of government and surveillance capitalism just fine. This regulation only impacts the wealthiest people and/or the organized criminal.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
Do you believe that someone is stealing from you when they don’t allow you to take something from them?
Shocka1 3y ago
> The average person isn't affected by this type of government surveillance and potential overreach because the average person doesn't buy things that are priced at over 3,000 euros per transaction. "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Loughla 3y ago
I purchase, restore, and sometimes sell old woodworking machinery as a side gig to subsidize my own purchase of woodworking equipment for my shop. I have had multiple cash transactions above $3,000 every year that I've done this. Not to avoid taxes, not to keep them off the books, but because one of the parties has either the unwillingness or inability to take electronic payments. Elderly people, those located in rural or otherwise isolated areas, those with a natural distrust of government for whatever reason, or those with a distrust of banks in general. These are all valid use cases. This law would make it nearly impossible for me to do what I do (on the side).
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Yea, assuming you're in the USA, I don't think a similar restriction would be workable here in America. Too many people are unbanked or for other reasons transact mostly in cash. And even for those who do have bank accounts, we don't have the nice, bank-based money transfer solutions that are commonplace in the rest of the developed world--we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. I wouldn't say I routinely do large (>$3000) cash transactions, but I do them often enough that I guess I'd be a criminal in the Netherlands.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    > we're stuck with shit-tier solutions like Zelle and Venmo and PayPal. Hopefully not for too much longer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow
- systems_glitch 3y ago
  A mechanic we used before moving had a strict no checks policy. He had a bad check for the repair of a church bus, from a church, framed in a fancy gold-painted frame, with "IN GOD WE TRUST, ALL OTHERS PAY CASH" below it.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    But that's because you still use checks over there :)
    - frumper 3y ago
      A stolen credit card isn't any different.
      - systems_glitch 3y ago
        Considering that the last time one of my CC numbers was stolen, it was used to pay for air conditioning service, I'm sure that is also a concern for tradespeople!

nolok 3y ago

> Freedom from government surveillance and potential overreach? With all due respect, the transactions above that rough amount is exactly those I would want the government to keep an eye on, while letting me buy stuff for a few hundreds freely and without having to report it. There is pretty much no situation whatsoever when someone buys something for more than 3k€ where the absolute requirement to use cash is not linked to some shady reasons.

Loughla 3y ago
Like I said to the other poster. I transact often over that amount to purchase old woodworking equipment. The people I work with often do not want to transact electronically for multiple reasons. The tax is paid, it's on the books, but they want cash. Why should that be limited?
- nolok 3y ago
  Because a 80/20 rule is much better than having to chose between "everything is controlled" or "nothing is controlled", and that's essentially the two choices we have. It works just fine in most of europe since a very long time, and frankly people insisting to be paid in cash and then going out of their way to fully declare the taxes and source of the money is even weirded, why not take the easier shortcut. Of course, maybe it's linked to how strange sending money seems to still be in some circumtances in the US ? Reading about Venmo and the likes is just surprising to me, a 10 minutes SEPA wire is free here, and as good as cash.
  - systems_glitch 3y ago
    Yeah our electronic transfer methods suck. Even between my business and personal accounts, doing a regular bank transfer, it takes several days. Literally faster to withdraw cash and drive it over. Meanwhile, if you have to do a wire transfer for a large sum of money, and the bank screws it up, they have around 30 minutes to recall it before the wire is permanently completed.